The Royal Circle: What Did They Know and When?
Elite Immunity, Deference Culture or Institutional Protection?
8 min read
What kind of world do we live in? When you notice the web of connections linking certain members of the Royal Family to dubious individuals, (later convicted of repulsive crimes) it genuinely raises some uncomfortable questions. While we can't definitively say what anyone knew for sure or even when they knew it, we can still skim across the strange patterns of curious relationships our monarchy enjoyed.
The Jimmy Savile Connection: A Close Royal Friendship
Perhaps the most well-known ominous friendship is Jimmy Savile and his decades-long relationship with King Charles in his years as prince. It wasn't just a casual acquaintance - Savile got close and Charles sought his advice on public relations matters.
The PR Consultant to Royalty
Savile even put together a PR handbook for the Royal Family, this level of trust and access for anyone, let alone a notorious molester of children is quite remarkable in hindsight. This kind of access reveals a relationship built over many years with significant trust on both sides. It is quite reminiscent of Clement Freud asking his son Matthew for PR assistance with the McCann case in Praia da Luz (2007). Public Relations is a very powerful thing.
Warning Signs Were There
What still sparks this up as particularly scary even years later, was that there were warning signs. Dickie Arbiter, a former royal aide, later described Savile's behavior around young female staff at St. James's Palace as 'creepy' and 'suspect.'
The Key Question
If a royal aide noticed this behaviour, it raises questions about what others might have heard. Were these concerns passed up the chain of command? People in the BBC knew Savile liked young girls, it was a common unspoken secret. They even sent cars to collect children for him.
The police, security and intelligence agencies would definitely have known about Savile, but apparently, no one informed the royals, unlike with those previous embarassments involving nazism or learning disabled family members which the palace actually hid.
What the Official Inquiries Found
The official inquiries after Savile's death found no evidence that Prince Charles or other senior royals had direct knowledge of his criminal activities. Is that really a surprising? Either way, here's where it gets complicated.
The Problem with the Investigations
They were criticized for not fully grasping the extent of institutional cover-ups that enabled Savile for decades. If the official investigations missed the broader picture, what else might have been overlooked?
Other Troubling Associations: The Mountbatten Allegations
The Savile case isn't isolated. Lord Mountbatten introduced Savile to Charles, who quickly took to him. Mountbatten, Prince Philip's uncle and mentor to Prince Charles, faced posthumous allegations of sexual abuse of children.
The Kincora Connection
Arthur Smyth claimed that Mountbatten abused him at the Kincora Boys' Home in Northern Ireland during the 1970s. These are allegations in a real legal case, not proven facts, but this is another part of an interwoven tapestry which depicts an emerging theme.
The building was eventually knocked down.
The Peter Ball Situation: 1993 Police Caution
The Peter Ball situation is perhaps the most problematic of all, mainly because of what happened after concerns were raised. Ball, a former bishop, was given a police caution in 1993 for sexual offenses. Despite this caution, Charles continued their friendship. Ball returned to ministry within a couple of years. Bizarrely, the prince provided him with financial support and accommodation on the Duchy of Cornwall estate during the 2000s. Sadly, this is yet another unconventional relationship.
Charlie's Explanation
Charles eventually said he was 'deceived' by Ball and didn't grasp that accepting a police caution meant admitting guilt. While this explanation is possible, it raises questions about the advice Charles was receiving from his top level staff. This holds some similarity to the more recent Justin Welby situation, the Archbishop of Canterbury and another 'friend' of Charles. Along with other clergy, Welby covered up the abuse of around 130 boys and young men.
What the Inquiry Found
Going back to the Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse, it found no evidence to suggest Charles tried to influence police investigations. However, the continued support of his ex-bishop friend, Peter Ball, after the 1993 caution the public developed some misgivings.
We must remember who and what was being held to account with these investigative motions - the highest and most powerful of the UK. Of course the official narrative caused a few side glances, but all reports and proceedings trickled top down from a sovereign nation.
The Mentor's Dark Secret: Laurens van der Post
Laurens van der Post was like a longterm spiritual mentor for Charles. This South African writer was an influence on Charles and was made godfather to Prince William. After van der Post's death in 1996, it emerged he fathered a child with a 14-year-old girl. He was in his fifties when it happened.
The Warning That Went Unheeded: The Royal Portrait Commission
Perhaps most telling is the Rolf Harris case. In 2005, The Australian artist painted a portrait of Queen Elizabeth II for her 80th birthday. It was a prestigious commission.
Here's what's particularly off, yet again - a victim wrote to Buckingham Palace with a warning about Harris's predatory behavior. The letter was supposedly filed away until 2012 when it was used as part of Operation Yewtree.
Why This Matters
This case is significant. We can see direct warnings to the Royal Household. Yet, according to the official narrative the royalty was unaware. That in itself should make you question who is manipulating who? Has an ostrich with its head in the sand popped up in your head yet?
What This All Means: The Official Position
Look, we can't say with certainty what members of the Royal Family knew about any of these criminals or their activities. The royals were portrayed as oblivious and that is a very poor public image indeed. No formal inquiry produced evidence to say Charles knew the gravity of the crimes surrounding those men or even of any corresponding rumours. An ostrich conveys a modicum of humour, but prosecutors, investigators, victims and their loved ones did not find it funny.
The Pattern Is Hard to Ignore
Multiple individuals with close ties to particular monarchs were later convicted of serious sexual offenses. There were warning signs, concerns raised by staff, and in at least one case, a direct warning to the Palace. Is just one rumour of child abuse enough to curse a house in your community? So what's going on here?
What The Evidence Suggests
This doesn't prove a cover-up or any type of deliberate enabling, but it does suggest an awful lack of due diligence when it came to the questionable company they kept, at the very least. Something was off. The Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse (IICSA) was critical. The IICSA report branded Prince Charles as 'misguided' and said Ball was an example of how a senior Anglican church member 'was able to sexually abuse vulnerable teenagers and young men for decades', but is that a fair summary?
The Uncomfortable Truth
Whether it's playing dumb, institutional protection of reputation over the victims, or simply terrible judgment, the Royal Family's associations with dubious individuals still do raise legitimate questions: what did they know?
But Who Was Targetting Who?
Prince Charles was known for wanting people to like him. He was eager to be loved like Princess Diana was, the peoples princess. He lived an isolated, emotionally impoverished childhood and walked the halls of prestige and power; status most psychopaths greatly desire.
Psychopathy, sociopathy or antisocial personality disorder are known for aggression, they often involve abuse. Many other dark psychologies and sinister mentalities exist that are attracted to exerting power over vulnerable or weaker people. Dont believe child abuse has a sexual limitation, it often holds a sadistic link to domination - power is the flame to that moth. There was something missing in Charles's life, and evidently each wolf in sheeps clothing respectively offered him something in order to befriend him: public relations skills, mentoring, spiritual advice, marriage guidance and so on, and so forth.
Let’s keep things real by acknowledging that the exact specifics of these royal friendships may bever be known. But the documented connections and the handling of various warning signs can't be written off as coincidence can they? Something was definitely kept out the public spotlight!
.jpg)