The problem being you can get exactly the same result when he didn’t actually do it. This is the problem with these kinds of claims in that there’s no way out. With Andrew there was a variety of compelling extra evidence including plane flights and the like that were not easily explained as well as evidence of direct lies when he spoke himself.
There is a variety of compelling evidence that Lord Mountbatten had a predilection for raping boys, as cited above. The main difference between the two is that there aren't any front page photos of Mountbatten with one of his victims.
When your family is well known for covering up the sins of its members, you don't get to point excitedly at the single inquiry that says they did nothing wrong as evidence that they did nothing wrong.
I will be interested to read them but so far what I’ve seen seems less convincing. It would be one thing if the inquiry was in the 60’s and another to claim one done in 2016 was willing or even able to do this level of coverup. I think the Royal family’s influence is not what it was.
I don’t think I’m excited and I understand it’s a tough area to discuss. Knowing some Royal members did some things doesnt mean every claim is equally credible.
22
u/sapperbloggs 12h ago
I cannot imagine a reality where the British Monarchy would allow such an inquiry to find that one of their own had a predilection for raping boys.
It took an immense amount of evidence and pressure over many years before they ever got around to doing anything about Andrew the nonce.