As Godfather to Prince William, heir to the British throne, Prince Charles chose his close friend and adviser Laurens van der Post. A paedophile.
Van der Post raped a 14 year old girl who had been given into his care for the sea voyage from South Africa to London. He then installed her in a flat in London as his mistress, but abandoned her when she became pregnant age 15 (though he sent a monthly payment). She was not the only one. The victim later stated that van der Post was “sick” and “he knew how to pick his victims”.
In a sycophantic authorised biography of then-Prince Charles written thirty years ago, Jonathan Dimbleby wrote that “for Prince Charles there was a missing dimension”, that he felt his life lacked a spiritual awareness. At age 25 Charles sought out Van der Post after reading his books, and Van der Post became his spiritual Guru. Charles continually sought his advice and absorbed his mystic teachings. Not only is Van der Post William’s Godfather, he gave marriage counselling to Charles and Diana and was a frequent guest at Highgrove, Sandringham and Balmoral. On his death Charles initiated the Van der Post Memorial Lectures, held inside St James’s Palace.
There is a question which will run throughout this article, which is how much did people know? In the 1970s and 1980s it was not public knowledge that Van der Post was a paedophile. But then Charles was not the public. Then, as now, if somebody becomes very close to the heir to the throne with frequent access to Royal palaces, they are going to be under close investigation by the security services.
I find it wildly improbable that the security services did not find out about Van der Post’s predilection for young girls and that he had been paying the expenses of an illegitimate daughter originally fathered on a young teenage mother. There is also the question of Van der Post’s wider lies. It is possibly neither here nor there that in fact Van der Post had only ever spent a fortnight with The Bushmen of the Kalahari when he penned his famous book, full of lies and plagiarism.
But that he was actually a Lieutenant (and at times acting Captain) rather than a Lieutenant Colonel as he claimed, would have been instantly discovered. It is worth noting here that Van der Post’s famous military memoir, which became the film Merry Christmas, Mr Lawrence starring David Bowie, was massively embellished, not just in terms of his rank.
The Royalist defence of Charles’ associations rests, rather peculiarly, on the claim that any huckster and paedophile can just get entry to the Palace inner circle without any checks. That is just not true. What appears to be true is that paedophilia was treated as a peccadillo.
Before Van der Post, the man credited by all biographers as the greatest influence in shaping Charles’ character was his great uncle, Lord Louis Mountbatten. Born in Austria as Prince Louis of Battenberg, Charles can hardly be blamed for Mountbatten, who was thrust upon him as a child.
I hope not too literally.
Mountbatten was a paedophile, which was an open secret in upper class society – including the diplomatic service – long before his death. He benefited from the lifetime protection of the inner Royal circle, which was absolute in his lifetime. It has only become mainstream acknowledged in the past very few years.
That is deliberately phrased as “acknowledged”, not “knowledge” – there was not a Fleet Street Editor in 50 years who did not know; they just did not publish it. Mountbatten’s paedophilia was fuelled by his access to underprivileged children, from New Delhi to Rabat to Kincora Boy’s Home.
Mountbatten spent more time with Charles in his childhood and early adulthood than Charles’ own parents did, including encouraging and coaching him to have as much sex with as many “non-marriageable” girls as possible, and providing a venue for it in his homes. After he died Charles said, “Life will never be the same now that he is gone”. It is not a stretch to think that Van der Post – whom he first met four years before Mountbatten’s death – filled the emotional void.
A 1944 FBI dossier described Mountbatten as “a homosexual with a perversion for small boys”. This was two years before his appointment as Viceroy of India, where the open debauchery of the Mountbattens was an open secret in high-level Indian society.
It is worth noting that in this period his military aide-de-camp was one Willie McRae. I have always believed that the murder of McRae by the British state was related to his knowledge of Mountbatten and elite paedophile rings: in this context McRae’s ties with Irish Nationalists may be relevant, as they assassinated Mountbatten over the abuse at Kincora.
In Mountbatten’s case there is no doubt at all that the security services knew all about his paedophile, and covered for him.
So at the death of van der Post in 1996, Charles had lost two men he viewed, exclusively, as guides and spiritual mentors, and from whom he took the most intimate personal device. There is nobody else who fits this description. Both were extremely vicious and calculating paedophiles, shielded by class privilege from the consequences. So, in 1996, to whom did Charles turn as his new “mentor”?
Jimmy Savile was introduced to a 17-year-old Charles in 1966 by Mountbatten, who vouched for him. The official story is that Mountbatten had met Savile through military veteran fundraising.
You can believe that was the primary shared interest of two prolific paedophiles, if you so please.
Savile cultivated the relationship long-term, and by the 1980s was corresponding assiduously with Charles, which continued for over 20 years. Savile was yet another person to whom Charles turned for marriage counselling. In scores of letters, it is always Charles seeking Savile’s advice and adulating him. There is no record of Charles using the word “mentor” to describe his relationship with Savile, but Diana literally stated that Savile was a “sort of mentor” to Charles.
I presume I do not have to explain that Savile was throughout this period one of the most prolific paedophiles in British history. It is widely believed the royal cachet helped to protect him from prosecution. A huge amount was known to the police, to BBC managers and to various other branches of the British establishment, but Savile was untouchable.
In 2000 Charles constructed a chapel at his home at Highgrove, and a stained glass window in it commemorates Laurens van der Post. Before that window, Charles kneeled for long prayer vigils with his new spiritual guide, Bishop Peter Ball – who was also a friend of Jimmy Savile. It was Savile who introduced Ball to Charles.
Rather like Epstein, Ball was a known paedophile who had got off the first time without incarceration. He had, in 1993, accepted a police caution for a ceremony in which he had forced a 17-year-old novitiate, Neil Todd, to kneel naked in the snow for hours, whipped him, and then forced him to perform a sex act. The police also investigated at that time numerous other allegations, including two very similar ones.
The decision to caution was taken on the advice of the Crown Prosecution Service. As the Independent Inquiry into Child Abuse Report 2022 primly noted (p.378):
The first report on the Anglican Church investigation – The Anglican Church Case Studies 1. The Diocese of Chichester 2. The Response to Allegations Against Peter Ball Investigation Report – was published in May 2019. It considered the Diocese of Chichester, where there were multiple allegations of child sexual abuse, and whether there were inappropriate attempts by people of prominence to interfere in the criminal justice process after Bishop Peter Ball was first accused of child sexual offences.
I cannot, though, identify the passage referred to of the Diocese of Chichester Report.
Yet immediately after this, and for the next 17 years, Charles provided Ball with rather splendid rent-free accommodation on Charles’ estate. Ball was suspended by the Church of England as a priest and, astonishingly, Charles asked him to officiate at services and perform the Eucharist at his personal chapel in Highgrove, as reported in the Church Times. Ball was frequently in his company and was a personal guest at Charles’ 2005 wedding to Camilla.
In 2015, Charles gifted Ball £20,000. This was said to be simply a friendly gesture – exactly why is unclear. Charles is very definitely not known for personal generosity.
In 2015, Bishop Ball was finally convicted of 12 horrific instances of sexual abuse of boys and young men, all under the guise of religious ritual. Prince Charles put out a public denial that he had interfered in the 1993 decision not to prosecute. My surmise is that he had not done so directly, but rather let it be known through others. That is how it works.
The BBC actually reported that:
Ball’s court case heard that a member of the royal family – who has never been named – was among a host of public figures who supported him when he avoided charges in 1993.
The article goes on to carry this extremely over-specific and narrow denial from the Crown Prosecution Service:
The Crown Prosecution Service has publicly stated that it had neither received nor seen any correspondence from a member of the Royal Family when Ball was under investigation in 1992–93.
Note this very deliberately does not rule out a word in the ear at a function, a phone call, or – as it would be done – getting a friend known to be close to Charles to give the message.
Charles in fact in 1997, two years after his police caution, told Ball that he would directly intervene against Ball victim Neil Todd. “I will see off this horrible man if he tries anything again,” Charles wrote to Ball.
Todd did not live to see Ball ultimately convicted. He committed suicide in 2012. This was convenient for Ball, but there were plenty of other victims who testified in 2015.
I have no doubt the Royal Family will have known about Uncle Louis’s sins – he had an official entourage and was plugged in to the system. The immediate civil servants and close protection officers always know everything. I have already explained why I do not believe van der Post’s paedophilia was unknown. That goes double for Savile – about whom authorities had a huge amount of knowledge, but whose royal connections were a key part of his protection.
While there is no doubt whatsoever Charles knew about Bishop Peter Ball, Ball’s royal circle protection appears to have broken the surface.
To the best of my knowledge and belief, I do not know any paedophiles – but none of us can be absolutely certain we do not. Of one thing, however, I feel extremely confident. The four most-valued advisers in my life, the people whose advice I have most craved and to whom I have turned in times of crisis, are not all paedophiles. I should be astonished if any of them were.
You just can’t have your four closest non-official life guides as paedophiles by accident. You just can’t. It has been put to me that Charles, by nature of his role, knows vastly more people than ordinary folk. That may or may not be true (there is a counter-argument about privilege and protection). But if it were true, it does not improve things. If there is a much larger-than-normal pool from whom Charles could have chosen, it makes it even weirder he chose four prolific paedophiles.
To be clear, prolific paedophilia is extremely abnormal behaviour.
What I do not understand is why paedophilia appears so prevalent and attractive to politicians and the ruling class. People who have much more power and wealth than the rest of us, have the ability (rightly or wrongly) to get attractive adult consenting partners more easily. So why do they, apparently in disproportionate numbers, seek to prey on the young and defenceless?
It is more than time we got rid of the Medieval system of monarchy. That will not solve the corruption of corporate interests controlling the state, or redress the appalling inequality of wealth. It will not even do much to end elite class paedophilia. But as one clear demonstration of the rotten nature of British society, the tale of the King’s four paedophile mentors is extremely instructive.
———————————
My reporting and advocacy work has no source of finance at all other than your contributions to keep us going. We get nothing from any state nor any billionaire.
Anybody is welcome to republish and reuse, including in translation.
Because some people wish an alternative to PayPal, I have set up new methods of payment including a Patreon account and a Substack account if you wish to subscribe that way. The content will be the same as you get on this blog. Substack has the advantage of overcoming social media suppression by emailing you direct every time I post. You can if you wish subscribe free to Substack and use the email notifications as a trigger to come for this blog and read the articles for free. I am determined to maintain free access for those who cannot afford a subscription.
Click HERE TO DONATE if you do not see the Donate button above
Subscriptions to keep this blog going are gratefully received.
Choose subscription amount from dropdown box:
PayPal address for one-off donations: [email protected]
Alternatively by bank transfer or standing order:
Account name
MURRAY CJ
Account number 3 2 1 5 0 9 6 2
Sort code 6 0 – 4 0 – 0 5
IBAN GB98NWBK60400532150962
BIC NWBKGB2L
Bank address NatWest, PO Box 414, 38 Strand, London, WC2H 5JB
Bitcoin: bc1q3sdm60rshynxtvfnkhhqjn83vk3e3nyw78cjx9
Ethereum/ERC-20: 0x764a6054783e86C321Cb8208442477d24834861a
You make a good case for abolishing the UK monarchy altogether.
I.e. for getting rid of the UK altogether. The UK is the monarchist regime in Britain.
See how the monarchy presents itself as being as eternal and natural as the hills.
It does it every time some BBC w*nker of a weatherman talks about rain coming in over the west of the UK, for example. And every time an internet pillock copies the MSM and uses a phrase such as “the UK government”.
The monarchy was abolished in 1688, this shower are caretakers.
Absolutely horrific revelations, Craig. This article deserves a wider readership, and I will be sharing it on Facebook. It certainly does not speak well for the mental health of Charles when he counts these men as his revered and trusted mentors. Thanks for having the courage to bring these facts out into the open.
For those with the stomach for it ,the book:
Kincora: Britain’s Shame by Chris Moore
it goes into some depth into why Mi5/Mi6 ignored and encouraged this behaviour as part of an ongoing sting operation.
Despite spending £180 million on a
whitewash– ahem, i mean an inquiry – were not critical of these intelligence servicesThere was/is a documentary covering it but the BBC have pulled it.
The last sentence concerning Andrew Mountbatten Sax Coburg Windsor Whatever – recent palace press release says:
`The King’s thoughts and utmost sympathies have been, and will remain with, the victims and survivors of any and all forms of abuse.’
Which, in the light of the above concerning Kincora is complete and utter ***** (use your own expletives here).
Also,
Anthony Blunt , Surveyor of the Queen’s Pictures . Was a `regular ` at Mountbattens home in Ireland ,Classiebawn Castle.,
Described as `their cherished summer retreat for decades, blending royal heritage with dramatic Irish history.
And small boys on tap.
Thanks for bringing Chris Moore’s tome to our attention, Alan B; just thought it also worthwhile to stress that ‘Kincora’ housed ‘Boys/Young Men, who were 16 years of age, and upwards/older, and as Robin Ramsay elucidated (commencing some 55 minutes into youtube clip) in a memorable Channel 4 ‘After Dark’ programme, aired on 16th July 1988, ‘there were therefore (also) “some of the other Homes, (which) had younger people” !
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kzfrjXfABew
This is a truly remarkable article. Thus far observers have castigated, and often ridiculed, Charles for being prone to the wiles of charlatans such as Van Der Post. Johann Hari’s 2002 book God Save the Queen, published around the time of the Golden Jubilee of the late citoyeness, imagined: “the old trickster chuckling at Charles’ gullibility.” – with all due apologies for lapses in a periphrasis at a range of 22 years – although celebrations for this rare event dimmed into another annus horribilis, to accompany that exactly a decade earlier, with the deaths of her mother and sister, and yet another on the occasion of her platinum jubilee with her own demise. (If you were of a religious bent, and it is not everyone who styles themselves Fidei Defensor, you might see the hand of a disapproving divinity lying behind this sequence of events.) However, this is the first time that I have seen links exposed between the royals and paedophilia :with devastating forensic acumen Craig makes it case for a rottenness in the House of Windsor. (Or Mountbatten Windsor, or Savile Windsor…)
Having observed Charles from afar all my life, I see a man who is in normal ways flawed like we are all are, but he strikes me as someone of basic decency, gentleness. and at times unusual integrity for a man in his position. The implications in this article simply don’t ring true.
So how come he attracted so many pedophiles?
Here’s how someone becomes like him:
“‘A paedophile’s playground’: Inside the scandal at King Charles’s old school
A damning inquiry found that Gordonstoun – where the King is now a patron – enabled the sexual abuse of its pupils for decades ”
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/06/24/king-charles-old-school-gordonstoun-historic-abuse-scandal/
https://www.barryanddistrictnews.co.uk/news/national/24397687.child-abuse-normalised-decades-kings-former-school-inquiry-finds/
“So how come he attracted so many pedophiles?”
He had no choice about Mountbatten, then it was simply a case of one paedophile introducing another. Anyway, you have the attraction the wrong way round: Charles was (is) attracted to some aspect of paedophiles, not necessarily their paedophilia, probably because of his early relationship with Mountbatten.
I regret that Craig’s analysis for once falls short of his usual high and pursuavive standard.
An example of trial by inuendo and association, using selective evidence. However in fairness Craig makes no allegation against HM, only questions his choice of a very few among his many friends or advisers.
And how might George Smith have died, the guy who alleged he was raped by Charles Windsor’s boyfriend Michael Fawcett?
Smith died aged 44.
https://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wales-news/royal-rape-claim-valet-dies-aged-2385072
It is true that Mr Murray makes no direct allegation against HM. But it seems to me that he gets about as close as possible without doing so.
“You just can’t have your four closest non-official life guides as paedophiles by accident. You just can’t. It has been put to me that Charles, by nature of his role, knows vastly more people than ordinary folk. That may or may not be true (there is a counter-argument about privilege and protection). But it if were true, it does not improve things. If there is a much larger-than-normal pool from whom Charles could have chosen, it makes it even weirder he chose four prolific paedophiles”.
I would also have no hesitation, in concurring with the first two lines of your concise and (characteristically) cogently conveyed contentions concerning the credentials and calibre of HRH, Tom, however, your concluding caveat of caution, in thereafter (arguably) admonishing ‘Peas & Barley’ of any third hand resultant complicity, in keeping that time-honoured and unspoken omerta credo of counsel to ‘The Firm’, by his proxy paternalistic proximity to the alleged miscreants and mentors admirably excoriated by the Mother of All former Ambassadors, Craig, inevitably leads any dispassionate observer and student of that other ‘Great Game’ of 21st-Century, monarchical mischief, to posit that such subjective and inadvertent incriminatory insinuations/implications, must then be explained away, by the ‘coincidence theory’ candidates of expedient exculpation ?
The key to your comment is: “Having observed Charles.from afar…:
.
You said similar of Sir Tony and Sir Keir recently, so no surprise you entirely dismiss everything Craig has laid out for you here. Facts clearly don’t intrude at all when you assess elites. They can be happily ignored.
So you are happy to ignore, facts and evidence ?
Have you by any chance formed your opinions
by your consumption of the mainstream media reporting?
If you have ,you are a completely brainwashed fool .
A very puzzling series of gurus, I must say. In possible mitigation, HRH’s early upbringing was by all accounts a very peculiar (and loveless) one: perhaps he was a soft target for such practised chancers, frauds and weirdos.
I hold no brief for any of the four individuals mentioned but of course have heard of the first three, but in respect of van der Post, I think Mr Murray should be a little careful about calling him a (serial) paedophile. If I understand it correctly, in law paedophilia is sexual intercourse with boy and girls below the legal age for sexual consent; and it should be understood that in 1953 the legal age for sexual consent in South Africa was 14. So that could not have been an example of paedophilia, and if there was rape, then it was non-statutory rape (not that that makes it any better, of course). As far as his subsequent victims are concerned, the label of paedophile would also only be accurate (in law) if the girls concerned were under the age of sexual consent in whichever country you have in mind. Was this the case?
Finally, I agree with Mr Murry that, despite the law, there appears to have been quite a bit of tolerance in England for paedophiia – as indeed for homosexuality and an astonishing amount of it going on. Perhaps the English don’t really like children, and perhaps Mrs Edith Cresson might have been on to something…..?
A paedophile is by definition someone sexually attracted to children. A girl of 14 years is, both legally and biologically a child. The legal age of consent has no bearing whatsoever on these facts. Whatever one’s opinion on the age of consent in this case or more generally, it seems to me profoundly unhealthy that a man in his forties should enter sexual congress with a minor who had been placed in his care
I certainly agree with your last one and a half lines, Cornudet. Profoundly unhealthy and that of course also applies to the grooming gangs with which the English media and politicians have been engrossed for a good while.
But just to ask about a couple of your other points. I think the age of legal sexual consent does form the border between childhood and adulthood legally speaking. And in popular English as well: I imagine that few people would refer to 16 and 17 year olds as “children”, this is probably why the words “teenager” or “young adults” tend to be used. I also don’t understand what you mean by saying a 14 year old is “biologically” a child; you cannot mean in terms of reproduction (whether for a male or female), so in terms of which biological feature are you thinking?
“A paedophile is by definition someone sexually attracted to children. A girl of 14 years is, both legally and biologically a child. The legal age of consent has no bearing whatsoever on these facts.”
Do you actually read what you type?
Of course there’s a difference between an adult male sexually attracted to 14yo girls and an adult male sexually attracted to 5yos or babies. There are different words in the dictionary too. But this has no relevance to the force of this article.
The semantic extension of the term “paedophile” comprehends all and only that set of individuals who are themselves biological adults and who bear a sexual attraction to children. The extension of the term is in no way influenced by the law of any jurisdiction. In the same way the semantic extension of the term “murderer” comprehends all and only that set of individuals who have destroyed one or more human lives without lawful or, for a more controversial if nuanced view, moral excuse. The epithet is as applicable to the one off killer as those with incalculable numbers of victims, as say, with Netanyahu – this does not place restraints upon the level of censure deserved in any particular case, and in the same way to be an adult attracted to a child of 14 seems, ever being equal, to have less moral gravity than in a case of being attracted to a child of 5, the epithet paedophile is as applicable in both cases.
It may also be worthy of note that in 1952 the legal age of majority was not the biological age of physical maturity of 18, as it now is, but long awaited one and twenty, as a fellow Staffordshire man put it
AE Housman, if that’s who you’re referring to, was born and raised in Worcestershire, Cornudet, and spent most of his adult life in London & Cambridgeshire – and reportedly never set foot in Shropshire (not sure about Staffordshire).
The writer I alluded to is Dr Johnston, born in Lichfield. He famously said :^When you are tired of London you are tired of life.” And then shot himself, or so I have been told
Thanks for your reply Cornudet, and for the clarification. I thought you were referring to ‘When I was one and twenty’ from ‘A Shropshire Lad’. Didn’t do Samuel Johnson’s poems at school and am not familiar with them. Here’s Dr Johnson’s ‘One and Twenty’ if anyone’s interested:
https://www.yourdailypoem.com/listpoem.jsp?poem_id=265
Enjoy the weekend.
“The extension of the term is in no way influenced by the law of any jurisdiction.”
If the term “paedophile” means someone who is attracted to children and someone who is a child in one jurisdiction becomes an adult when they move to another jurisdiction, then the term is necessarily influenced by the law of the relevant jurisdiction.
Please read about Sir Harry Smith and his 12-year-old Spanish wife, we have three towns named after him and his wife in South Africa. It appears to be a lifestyle of choice in British public schools
Well apart from anything else he established her in an apartment in London which is where he got her pregnant, then aged 15. So legally it was paedophilia and statutory rape.
Yes, I had overlooked the UK point (age of consent 16).
His other victims, assuming in England : their ages?
The very fact that the age of consent varies from country to country shows what an artificial and arbitrary construct it is. Surely the wrongdoing here is not that van der Post did something that became a crime as he moved from one juristiction to another, but that he debauched a young person who had been entrusted to his care (you say “raped”, but the article to which you link says “seduced”).
Would this have been any better if they had both been two years older? No, of course not, but it wouldn’t have been a crime.
Also you produce plenty of evidence that van der Post was a fantasist, but almost none that he was a paedophile, apart from this one incident. Apart from to those who are prepared to believe any sort of story about the ruling classes, so long as it is bad, this is not a very convincing case. Which is not to say that van der Post was a wonderful person, he most likely wasn’t but that doesn’t mean that any denigration is automatically true.
Paedophilia is sexual attraction to pre-pubescent children, Luis. That’s not illegal under UK law. What is illegal is sexual activity with people under the age of 16 (assuming the perpetrator is aware they are underage, if they’re aged 13 or over.) There hasn’t been much tolerance in England to predatory paedophilia, but there’s been quite a lot towards predatory hebephilia (attraction to pubescent children), which is one reason why quite possibly hundreds of thousands of (mainly) girls have been raped by the ‘grooming’ gangs this past quarter century.
It would be helpful to my thinking if someone could offer a clear definition of the word paedophilia. It would be good to know what would be the name of the charge brought against someone for sexual intercourse or activity with a minor (ie under the age of 16); would the charge be of “paedophilia”, or is the word “paedophilia” merely popular usage for what you describe in your first sentence? In other words, is it an offence or a phenomenon?
Thanks for your reply Luis. The scientific definition of paedophilia is as I stated above. The more colloquial definition is sexual attraction to anyone under 16, which would make 80%+ of men and a significant percentage of women paedophiles*. The criminal offence in the UK is sexual activity with a person under 16.
* For the avoidance of doubt: In stating this, I am not attempting to justify child sex, just as the observation that most young men are sexually attracted to attractive women in their 20’s that don’t want to have sex with them doesn’t justify rape.
@Luis Cunha da Silva, it has to be said that girls of 12 and boys of 14 were legally marriageable in Scotland until, I think, the UK Age of Marriage Act 1929 raised both to 16. Children protection seems to be a rather recent concern of legislators. Something to think about when people say they want to rewind the clock a century or two back. Or who laud patriarchal Scottish culture.
The unrestricted age of consent is currently 14 in several European countries, SleepingDog, including Germany & Italy. Until the Year of Our Lord 2015, it was 13 in Spain.
@Re-lapsed Agnostic, there is of course a social class dimension to this. Much of what is diseased in British culture can be traced back to the pattern set out with admirable clarity in Courtship and marriage in Tudor England.
The article runs through high, middle and low classes, explains class endogamy (marrying within class), the effects of primogeniture and dowries, and essentially the reasons why arranged child marriage was common practice at the top of society, while effectively the children of the lower classes were largely free to marry their childhood sweethearts or someone they were mutually attracted to, having saved up enough money by their mid twenties.
It’s a rough model but it explains so much. Class endogamy may even be on the rise in modern British society.
Thanks for your reply SleepingDog. The upper classes represent a tiny fraction of British society, who now have little political power, especially since New Labour removed most of the hereditary peers from the Lords. These days their romantic affairs are generally fairly similar to those of the hoi polloi, except that they tend to choose places like Chiltern Firehouse for their wooings, rather than Morleys.
Just as well you don’t drive, Craig.
Cracking piece.
“What I do not understand is why paedophilia appears so prevalent and attractive to politicians and the ruling class.”
Perhaps its easier to become a successful politician or member of the ruling class if one is a paedophile, because one can be relied on to keep schtum about everything and one has acquired a circle of similar contacts through paedophile activities. forming a kind of instant mafia.
It’s part of the power equation, IMO. Attracted to one’s own kind, domination, god/mummy complex, invincibility. I’m sure the trick cyclists could come up with a passable explanation.
Very likely true but I think also about the type of people they are. Politicians and the ruling class are very often psychopaths who can only see other humans, including children, as objects to be exploited. Active paedophilia is not just a sexual preference. It can only occur when someone has overcome the protective instinct that most people have when they look at a vulnerable child. That’s easy for psychopaths because they don’t have a conscience. No wonder there’s such an overlap between paedos and people at the top of a corrupt system.
Must be a British thing, though. I am not aware of any pedophila/political scandals in Soviet or modern Russian history, they are prone to other kind sins. As for the Americans, let’s wait in hopes they’ll release the Epstein’s files. Speaking of which, Prince Andrew comes to mind…
Nor in any other European countries I can think of, Yuri. Lots of sexual scandals, but I should say almost exclusively with grown up women (or men).
Idem, now I remember from reading, when it comes to flagellation…….which has been called, by Continentals, the “English vice”. Interesting to read how many of the clergy who have surfaced as child abusers seem to have given flogging and beating a high place in their “repertoire”.
“Must be a British thing, though.”
Is there actually much evidence for an attraction to paedophilia amongst the ruling classes predating Mountbatten? Again I think it is likely that the attraction ran the opposite way.
“Must be a British thing, though.”
There seems to be a lot of it in Belgium too.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/874363.stm
There was a huge march against it in 1996
https://www.euronews.com/my-europe/2019/10/27/explainer-paedophile-marc-dutroux-and-the-horror-case-that-united-a-divided-belgium
Re: ‘I am not aware of any pedophila/political scandals in Soviet or modern Russian history, they are prone to other kind sins.’
I believe that Lavrentiy Beria liked them fairly young, Yuri. Coming more up-to-date, unlike most countries, possession of child pornography is legal in Russia.
These were mostly legends, no proof of that.
Thanks for your reply Yuri. Quite a few people must have been lying then, even though by that stage Beria had likely already suffered enough reputational damage by being sentenced to death for treason.
“Quite a few people must have been lying then”
That is hardly an uncommon occurrence, especially with someone as hated as Beria. This very comment thread demonstrates that, if someone is bad, people think it is OK to say bad things about them, regardless as to whether they are true or not, or to use a well-known expression, “Give a dog a bad name and beat it”.
Thanks for your reply Bayard. Two of Beria’s bodyguards testified that they’d been involved in abducting young women and girls for him. Why would they do that, potentially incriminating themselves, if it wasn’t true. since there were no sexual offences on his charge-sheet and Khrushchev & co already had enough on him to warrant the death penalty? In the 90’s, workers unearthed several female skeletons dated from the 30’s & 40’s next to what used to be his Moscow villa. He makes Epstein look like a saint.
“Why would they do that, potentially incriminating themselves, if it wasn’t true. ”
Why does anyone do something like that? The usual answer is, either for a promise of something nice happening to them if they do or something nasty happening to them if they don’t. I would imagine that a lot of people had an interest in blackening Beria’s name. You can’t say that this sort of thing doesn’t go on to a greater or larger extent in all walks of life and has done for millennia.
In organised crime, it is very common for one to be made to commit a crime in order to ensure omerta (sworn silence) and their own self-interest in keeping quiet, as should they expose others, their own crime may come to light. In the Mafia, it is well known that made men must kill in order to become properly a part of the organisation, and this is a right of passage and hardly ‘forced’ though required.
Though I have not seen any evidence of it, I would hardly be surprised to learn that elite pedophilia fulfills a similar purpose, as the Royal Family and our illegitimate and genocidal state leaderships are all essentially criminal organisations. For example, it is usually assumed Epstein must have been part of a blackmail operation; however, the possibility it could have been voluntary and some kind of prerequisite to certain elite power circles is not considered, although I have seen as little evidence of either one speculation over the other.
Besides the above speculation, more definitively I would say that the prevalence for rape and paedophilia in elite circles lies partially in the kind of dark human character Nietzsche understood in Genealogy of Morals; the pleasure of “doing wrong for the pleasure of doing it” and the desire to despise someone below one’s own position in the social order. A historical monarchy in particular no doubt suffers from all kinds of pathologies and feelings of disempowerment (however absurd to we ‘commoners’) they are eager to compensate for. Or as journalist and author Chris Hedges once put it in an excellent essay on sadism:
‘Why is the malaise of a dying civilization expressed through sadism rather than a kind of righteous anger? Here we must turn to Friedrich Nietzsche. Nietzsche warned that those who are humiliated and disempowered are poisoned by ressentiment. Because they have been stripped of agency, they lack the power to harm those who they believe harmed them. In short, there is no cathartic release. Ressentiment is bred from damaged self-esteem. It festers and corrodes the soul. The powerless, and here Nietzsche is writing about Christianity as a slave religion, must expresses their ressentiment obliquely and surreptitiously, hence the coded racism, Islamophobia and supposed yearning for a return of the traditional family and “Christian” values. Ressentiment is produced by feelings of inferiority, failure, and worthlessness. And this ressentiment, fueled by self-loathing, expresses itself through sadism, what Nietzsche calls “wrecking the will” of those who are weaker or more vulnerable. Nietzsche understood that this “wrecking the will” of others imparts a perverted, sadistic pleasure. He writes in On the Genealogy of Morals, that “to see others suffer does one good, to make others suffer even more. . . . Without cruelty there is no festival . . . and in punishment there is so much that is festive!”’
‘The sadism eradicates, at least momentarily, the sadist’s feelings of worthlessness, vulnerability and susceptibility to pain and death. It imparts feelings of omnipotence. It is pleasurable. I was beaten by Saudi military police and later by Saddam Hussein’s secret police when I was taken prisoner in Basra shortly after the first Gulf War. Those who beat me enjoyed their work. I could see it on their faces. Israel’s abuse of the Palestinians, the assaults of Muslims and girls and women in India and the denigration of Muslims in the countries we occupy are part of the scourge of sadism in service to an “inanimate machine” that has become global.’
https://scheerpost.com/2021/06/29/chris-hedges-speaks-on-american-sadism/
https://web.archive.org/web/20160926214645/http://fs2.american.edu/dfagel/www/genealogy2.htm
Hedges’ above essay on sadism is tremendous, and I would highly recommend to any who wish illumination on the subject.
Useful article by Hedges, but he’s looking at it wrongly when he says “Because they have been stripped of agency, they lack the power to harm those who they believe harmed them.” He’s being too kind.
See Stanley Milgram’s electroshock experiment.
This is all deeply engrained in British society in particular and it’s about to explode and overflow here – as anyone who can hear the grass grow is already aware. “Hate” is a much used word nowadays, usually by those who are not aware of just how much of it there is in Britain, even as they will probably nod agreement to the idea that “everything’s about class here”.
Thanks so much for your in depth response which I totally agree with. It illuminates so many aspects of my youth
Have you considered boarding schools? The ruling scum still keep shtum about those places, which are rife with sexual abuse of boys and always have been.
Yes, Brian, every one of the thousands of young people who attend boarding schools are keeping schtum about the horrific practices with which they abound and none will break the code of omerta, even with the anonymity of the internet. Yeah, right.
I spent five years in one of Britain’s best-known public schools – and before that four years at a fairly popular prep school. I never heard of a single case of serious homosexuality, paedophilia, or sadism. Just a little mild flirtatiousness, probably unavoidable when healthy boys in their sexual prime are kept away from girls for months on end. And absolutely nothing involving adults.
As Simon Raven pointed out in “The Old School”, it was boys who would not be going to public school who made up the mass readership of books about Billy Bunter and the like. The books grossly exaggerated all the more dramatic aspects of school life, which boosted sales, satisfied the readers, and was never found out because those readers never attended public school.
I suspect that a similar syndrome obtains among adults, British and foreign, who gleefully imagine the wicked goings-on of the upper classes – and especially royalty. Mr Murray may wish the monarchy to be abolished, but that would leave countless Americans, French people, and others distraught.
And on a practical level, the monarchy has remained central to the English, and then British, constitution for many centuries. Indeed, of course, the monarchy predated the constitution – although, as the latter has never really been more than a collection of customs, its evolution since Saxon times has been gradual. When planning to demolish a huge old building, it is unwise to start by trying to remove its foundation.
Riddle me this, Tom.
You write about the constitution as though such a document existed. Can you show it to me?
If you follow the usual ¨line to take¨ and tell me that of course the constitution is unwritten, then where does it exist?
If you follow the usual ¨line to take¨ you will tell me it is spread about the statute book, then what is its extent? Where does it begin or end? Who decides what is or is not part of the constitution? What is to prevent the Establishment from simply creating a new ¨constitution¨ whenever it suits? What is to prevent the Establishment from simply lying to the people again and again and again?
Let´s take a contemporary example, that of the Mountbatten Windsor chappie.
About six weeks ago, Virginia´s posthumous autobiography was published. At the same time Washington leaked the killer email showing Mountbatten Windsor had lied egregiously about his Epstein connections, and the game was afoot.
The newspapers were full of speculation about what might happen to ¨Our Andie¨.
He would Lose this. He would Lose that.
We were gravely informed by constitutional experts that the removal of his Duke of York title would require an Act of Parliament, and that the removal of his title as Prince was impossible because he had been borne thus. Do you recall?
Then suddenly, out of nowhere the Establishment acted decisively.
Our Andie would lose the lot. Wow.
King Charles had decided to use his ¨royal prerogative¨ powers and save Parliament´s time for ¨something more useful¨ .
Remember that? Not so long ago.
So where did that come from? Where did the King acquire powers equivalent to or even greater than those of Parliament?
What happened to ¨the Constitution¨? What are these royal prerogative powers, and where do they begin and where do they end?
No. The truth is this. There is no constitution for the United Kingdom.
ALL of the power rests with the King. And he is a nasty dictator causing untold misery to the people.
Parliament is pathetic and is not even allowed to discuss the royal family.
(Probably because every Member must declare ¨I swear by Almighty God that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to His Majesty King Charles, his heirs and successors, according to law. So help me God.¨ before he or she can take up their seat)
Riddle me this, Tom.
Well done, Craig.
Of course there was not one second’s mention of this during the endless 24/7 media obsession over him in the weeks around the coronation.
I would like to know what response he gave to the security services each time they informed him that his ‘advisors’ were some of the worst criminals imaginable.
Unbelievable. Seriously.
I wonder if the whole lot of them – The Church, Royalty and powerful figures in government – are deeply connected with these evil practices. It cannot simply be a coincidence that so many of these abusers are found worldwide in such institutions.
Perhaps it’s like a mafioso “getting their bones” – this makes these institutions closely knit clubs at the higher levels, where you could only be trusted by everyone having this knowledge about each other.
When I was a lad, in the late 1970s, there was nothing publicly known and admitted about these abusers in the Church. But all of us boys knew for a fact, that Catholic priests were to be avoided at all costs. We didn’t understand why, exactly, but we knew that we really didn’t want to find out. This knowledge was simply in the form of vague warnings about something almost too terrible to spell.out, told to us, which we passed on in return. How could we have known, except for warnings provided and circulated by large numbers of other boys who had been abused themselves, and creating this cultural understanding?
https://inews.co.uk/news/andrew-summoned-us-congress-questioning-links-epstein-4027001
How many senior politicians, and royals for that matter, were seriously taken by surprise at the revelations about Epstein? How could Andrew have been indulged with his association with Epstein, so openly and for so long?
@glenn_nl, when people seriously entertain the idea that they are ruled by a kakistocracy, this may be a sign that the social contract has broken down irremediably. Though many critics will still be part of the Establishment (Nigel Farage defending the private schools that made him etc). No wonder the younger generation are rejecting the idea of defending their polity in ever-greater numbers, though starved of knowledge of healthy alternatives in their education.
IN the 70s I was in the ATC and a new cadet said something like ‘don’t leave your sister alone in a room with Jimmy Savile’, that I pooh-poohed as tall poppyism. Felt a bit sick when the scandal came out.
The association between the Catholic Church and sexual vice goes right back to the very beginnings under the Roman Empire. The Jesuits, perhaps because of their exceptional power, were especially dreaded.
‘As he [Voltaire] sup’d one night with Mr. Pope at Twickenham he fell into a fit of swearing and blasphemy about his constitution. Old Mrs Pope ask’d him how his constitution came to be so bad at his age: “Oh (says he) those d—d Jesuits, when I was a boy, b—gg—r’d me to such a degree that I shall never get over it as long as I live”. … This was said in English aloud before the servants’.
– Thomas Gray, quoted in André Michel Rousseau, “L’Angleterre et Voltaire”, Vol. I (1976), p. 113
Of course, Voltaire may have been joking. On the other hand, I seem to recall that Rousseau had a similar experience.
A very brave piece, Mr Murray. And very timely.
I have something to add a propos Mr Savile.
His first career was as a cyclist. He was a semi professional on the round Britain circuit leading up to the end of the Second World War (I have evidence). I have a photograph of the young Mr Savile sitting astride his cycle. Immediately behind him is a Rolls Royce motor car with a personalised number plate JS 954. The photograph would appear to be from the late 1940´s when Savile would have been 22 or 23.
How did a young man become so rich and influential?
You will know about the competition between Elizabeth, wife of George VI, and Wallis Simpson, wife of Edward VIII. Each sought to curry favour with the German dictator who must not be named. Each put forward proposals for how Britain should be ruled following the triumph of Germany. Wallis was in a strong position because the could prove that the 1937 Coronation was unlawful and invalid. The two women fought like deranged cats to get the dictator on side.
At the end of the war, when the dictator had committed suicide, there remained the problem of the correspondence. The British forces were in Berlin, along with the Allies. If the correspondence were returned through official channels it would become public and both women would be damned by their own words. So the trick was, how to get back the correspondence through unofficial Chanels during wartime conditions.
Only a young, strong fit professional cyclist would have a chance to succeed.
Enter stage left nineteen years old Jimmy Savile.
He carried out his mission with success.
Thereafter he lived a charmed life.
So, no. It was not Mountbatten that brought together Prince Charles and Sir James Wilson Vincent Savile. It was Queen Elizabeth the Queen Mother.
And that explains why the three of them (Elizabeth, Charles and Savile) spent so much time together in Glencoe at the end of the last Century (See the Daily Mail, PUBLISHED: 09:43 BST, 25 October 2012 )
Thank you, Mod.
This, slightly earlier, is my reference
https://archive.is/owOCI
Just look at those clothes. Savile is a part of the ¨Prince Charles Gang¨.
What influence would this have had on the powers that be in Glencoe?
What chance would a young person have, abused and defiled by Savile?
There’s no mention of Glencoe in that Daily Mail article.
The Haut de la Garenne case has been covered up for sure. The cops found lots of children’s teeth and then said oh no, whoopsadaisy, we made a mistake – they weren’t human teeth after all.
Might be worth mentioning that Edward Heath lived practically next to Salisbury Cathedral.
Hello Brian. Sorry for the confusion.
The article centred on Glencoe is this one
https://archive.is/owOCI
where ‘up to 20 suffered abuse’
That´s up to 20 victims AFTER Charles had given his performance to the villagers and local constabulary.
A complete and utter enabler.
This sordid and appalling story just reinforces my lifelong conviction that the royals should all be rounded up and shot. It might not put and end to the elite’s sense of entitlement about everything, but there would be no scramble for royal honors and attention and titles and privileges, and the nation would acquire many extremely valuable properties and lands–which belong to the people anyway, we’ve paid for it all with centuries of exploitation and blood and serfdom.
I do in fact know, or knew, a pedophile: more than 60 years ago one of my friends at grammar school. It was fun to visit his house, he had lots of stuff (dart board, snooker table, air pistol, etc.) but there were always many little kids hanging around wearing weird expectant faces. I would tell them to go away and they did. He was an academic failure, I went to uni and we lost touch. A few years later my mother told me he’d been convicted of pedophilia. And everything fell into place.
When the USA was founded, such a plan was in fact put into practice. No kings, no nobility, no gentry, no honours. (But all American judges are addressed as “Your Honour”, and many US officials are entitled “The Honourable…” Sometimes most inappropriately).
We see the outcome today: a nation where the inevitable class distinctions have been erased – all but money. So money has become the only standard of value, and if a person is wealthy they are beyond criticism.
Not, I feel, a big improvement on the system that evolved in Britain. To lighten the atmosphere a little, I recommend Christopher Anvil’s brilliant SF short story “Philosopher’s Stone” in the January 1963 issue of “Analog Science Fact/Science Fiction”. It’s at https://s3.us-west-1.wasabisys.com/luminist/SF/AN/AN_1963_01.pdf It starts on page 43.
Monarchy – something to be looked up to and admired?
Huh ….
The obvious point to make is that paedofiles seek out the famous and powerful to provide cover and protection for their behaviour. Narcism and a belief that nothing is to be denied them mean they make approaches that normal people wouldn’t. Indeed I can’t think of anything more narcisistic than approaching a Royal, Andrew or Charles, to be ones friend.
The flip side though is that Princes should be cautious.
Harriet Harman and PIE Scandal: Who Were British Establishment Paedophiles Who Were Involved? PIE was a group on a public mission to gain respectability for sexual relations with children and acceptance for the adults obsessed with child sex.
Another top public figure with links to PIE was the diplomat Sir Peter Hayman. A former British high commissioner to Canada who was also an top civil servant at the Foreign Office and the Ministry of Defence, Hayman’s links to PIE were exposed when he left a parcel of paedophile porn on a London bus in 1978. It contained wads of diaries of explicit sexual fantasises – including killing children by sexual torture. There was also correspondence with members of PIE. For a spell in the 1970s, PIE acquired a veneer of quasi-legitimacy among the radical left, some of whose members went on to form the new establishment. But the reality was that PIE was a paedophile network for sick people to carry out sick fantasies. Its legacy is so toxic that today it dogs even people who had no part in its activities, such as Labour’s Harriet Harman.
https://www.ibtimes.co.uk/harriet-harman-pie-scandal-were-british-establishment-paedophiles-involved-1437900
PIE was an affiliate of the NCCL (National Council for Civil Liberties, now Liberty) and campaigning for a reduction in the age of consent when Harman was NCCL’s legal officer. A number of people on the left and some gay rights activists supported PIE’s campaign in the mid-70s.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paedophile_Information_Exchange
I would venture that’s it not just politicians and the ruling class that are attracted to paedophilia, it’s probably more widespread than we realise. I’ve known three, one teacher at my school and two others through work. Only one was ever brought to justice (currently serving 12 years).
British society was rife with it. Boarding schools were hellishly renowned for it in the 1960s,70s, 80s. And such was the relative power between abuser and abused; plus the then deeply ingrained respect for authority, it meant no accuser would ever be believed – something the Catholic Church now knows all too well about. And sadly, the abused often become abusers themselves.
I’d imagine political paedophile cover-ups, are how the security services amassed so much power and influence. If we ever have a no-holes-barred British Church Committee, all sorts of sinister blackmail activities will likely emerge from politics and the judiciary, as stones are lifted.
@Goose, the French-derived word ‘minion’ essentially describes the product of the minionisation process, designed to confuse sexual abuse/exploitation/grooming with love. That is, the victim becomes confused, and may repeat or break the cycle. A lot of modern activism also confuses love, sexual attraction, sexualised behaviour, and all kinds of things, which seems like a red flag. It’s a pity the animated Minions have obscured the word (was that deliberate obfuscation or attention-drawing?).
So, a psychological theory about human (think especially child) responses to perceived danger describes an algorithm, essentially:
First, flock to safe people
If not available, rapidly consider fight/flight options
If not available, freeze and withdraw to protect from experiences/prepare for worst
And possibly be drawn to the most powerful person in the vicinity, who may actually be the abuser or most aggressive and either way unsafe
At least, so writes Mary Annette Pember in Medicine River: a story of survival and the legacy of Indian boarding schools (2025). I think the first responses are very well-evidenced, and though I didn’t cover the last in Psychology class, it seems reasonable. I think animal studies also support this model.
Now apply that to an isolated, cornered child faced with the predations of a larger, obviously dangerous adult (or even older child) — or group — especially in some authority position, in an environment of uncertainty, lacking safe zones or escape routes.
“Boarding schools were hellishly renowned for it in the 1960s,70s, 80s. ”
I guess you didn’t go to a boarding school then. I did and lots of the people I knew at the time did and nobody had any knowledge of paedophilia. What we did have was an awareness that it existed, you could even say a hypersensitivity. That’s not to say that there weren’t instances of it, but it was not “hellishly renowned” or even widespread. The people who run boarding schools are not stupid, they are not going to be facilitators of paedophilia in their establishments. However, one thing that I have noticed, as I and my friends have become older, is just how many are finally speaking out about how they were interfered with as children by members of their own family or by family friends, but I suppose it is far more comforting to think that that sort of thing only happened to those others who went to a different school.
As with rape and murder child abuse is most likely to be committed by a family member or someone already known to the victim than a priest, politician or teacher.
I completely agree with Bayard. There was such sensitivity that friendships between boys of different years were discouraged, although not forbidden.
Spectacular. I don’t think I have ever read a better indictment against the British Royal Family and the British upper society, and I have read plenty. Spectacular
Prince Charles may have been unwilling to believe allegations of child abuse against people who were family, or had become close friends. However, once the truth were out in the open and inescapable, what would be his reaction? We get an indication from the royal statement removing former Prince Andrew’s titles: “Their majesties wish to make clear that their thoughts and utmost sympathies have been, and will remain with, the victims and survivors of any and all forms of abuse”.
Should the country become a republic, because HRH was reluctant to believe that people close to him were guilty of vile crimes? I’m not convinced of this. Better security and communication might be part of the answer.
“Their majesties wish to make clear that their thoughts and utmost sympathies have been, and will remain with, the victims and survivors of any and all forms of abuse”.
That’s posh for “f*ck off”.
I can’t find any reference to Charles expressing any sympathy for those killed and suffering in Gaza? He’s said lots about Ukraine – including speaking at length about it during the state banquet at Trump’s recent visit. What a golden opportunity missed! I can’t find any comments from Prince William either?! Suggesting they are either heartless brutes or scared of attracting the ruthless Israelis’ ire?
Charles was quick to condemn “barbaric acts of terrorism’ and the ‘heartbreaking loss of life’ in the immediately aftermath of the October 7, 2023 attack. But a quick search seems to suggest he’s said very little since, certainly nothing about genocide. Jonathon Porritt, ex-adviser to King Charles has gone as far as stating he believes the UK to be complicit in Gaza genocide. I believe Porritt may have been arrested too, in support of proscribed group, Palestine Action.
It’s really strange. But maybe that is the dismissive view of the British establishment and the MoD? They basically view things like Israel’s worst, most warped, political apologists; hence the business as usual with Israel, and shame about the genocide business, old boy.
Goose,
” I can’t find any reference to Charles expressing any sympathy for those killed and suffering in Gaza?”
You guessed – simply not politically expedient.
Gaza – where is that anyway?
Here’s an article about donations by their Majesties to the Disasters Emergency Committee’s (DEC) Middle East Humanitarian Appeal, which also supports people affected by conflicts in Lebanon, the West Bank, and Syria.
The royal family has always had close ties with Arab royalty. No surprise that they wouldn’t have any empathy for the Arab plebs, after all they’re just ‘subjects’. Have any of the Royals ever shown any real empathy towards socialist states, I doubt it ! They’ve been raised from birth to see the world through a lens where they are at the top and everyone else isn’t. It’s a big club and we ain’t in it.
The King has, or is entitled to, a weekly audience with the PM.
Near uniquely, even among states with monarchies (Sweden, Denmark, Spain et al), we don’t have a written constitution and the monarch is supposed to embody our constitution and rights, i.e. a constitutional monarchy. King Charles could have limited Starmer’s authoritarian overreach and attacks on the right to peacefully protest; so shamefully being undermined via misuse of terrorism legislation.
Authorities presumably want to be valued and respected? But when a terror group like Syria’s HTS are suddenly classed as upstanding respectable statesmen – as if a switch was flicked somewhere in MI6 – doesn’t it make designations look arbitrary? And non-violent UK protestors are being gathered up and charged with terrorism, you’d think Charles would realise something is going seriously awry in his kingdom.
King Charles may be untraditional in some ways, but the rule that the monarch may not express political opinions other than those of his ministers remains absolute. It’s one of the things that could make the job absolutely intolerable.
The UK government is inflexibly behind Israel, whatever it does. So the King cannot say anything else.
Gotta wonder what marriage counselling from a man like Jimmy Savile might amount to.
Perhaps this is a feature of the system rather than a bug. It’s something touched upon by Bad Gays authors/podcasters Hew Lemmey and Ben Miller when considering the psychosexual conditioning of British imperialists in various institutions (typically those with royal ties or similar hierarchies).
The basic argument, as I understand it, stems from the dynastic politics that gradually flowed down from medieval royalty to early modern middle classes. In those considerations, children from those families are prepared for preferential marriages by elders, which means they must be kept from ‘unsuitable’ marriages. Methods include single-sex and restricted confinement, boarding schools, professions and so on, which encourage certain behaviours and discourage others. Girls destined for dynastic marriage are not to be impregnated beforehand. However, the warm bodies of subordinates, servants, slaves and subalterns may be fair game for elite children. Weird rituals like whipping boys emerge.
‘Aristocracy’ copied royalty, ‘gentry’ copied ‘aristocracy’ on into modern times, with a section of the aspiring middle classes acting as enablers and feeding into the British Establishment. The British Empire retains outlier status with child soldiers, boarding schools (echoed in vile residential schools for indigenous children often run by Christian orders), weird depraved pantomime culture not restricted to the stage, and powerful royal prerogatives with draconian secrecy. The history of the British Empire is one of criminal depravity, overseen by the winning organised crime family whose forebears captured the state.
The question is, what kinds of conditioning are required to generate the aberrant behaviours required for colonisation, slavery, endless militarism, racism, misogyny and ruthless exploitation of the non-human and human world?
That is somewhat mixed up.
First, most of the middle classes have no idea what goes on at top boarding schools. This may well include Lemmey and Miller if they think those places have as one of their functions the prevention of unsuitable marriages. They sound as though they are honestly trying to get to grips with all this as they see it, so all due respect, but sadly they are failing.
Second, this isn’t about any group asking what kind of conditioning they need to perpetuate themselves or to achieve something, and then imposing it. These people know who they are. They know they’re going to hand over to their offspring one day too. They start off as sick as f***, and they have no idea for example how to be loving parents. Being a c*** is what they value. If anyone doesn’t understand this, the two questions they need to ask are as follows:
1. Why would any man who has been to boarding school permit his son to go to one?
2. Why would any woman married to a man who went to boarding school permit her son to go to one?
As for rocking the boat, well one doesn’t do that. A person who does it is considered to be the filth of filth. Yes it is very similar to “omerta”. Any inquiry these people have won’t be worth shit. It will only be about protecting their rule and their institutions.
This is quite a good film about boarding schools:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2uRr77vju8U
“The Making of Them” is a very clever title too.
Possibly many participants in these comments sections will understand the two meanings of “The Making of Them” already. Those who don’t may learn something 🙂
Apols for multi-posting, but I would like to recommend Charles Spencer’s book “A Very Private School”.
It’s far better than one might expect.
@Brian Red, I am sure that newspapers read by middle class people have covered British boarding school scandals (and syndrome) in depth.
To be clear, by ‘argument’ I mean an overarching system of theories that links historical roots with psychology and contemporary practice, not specifically the ideas of Lemmey and Miller from the first paragraph. Although their coverage of the Cleveland Street Scandal is worth looking at in this context, given the rumoured involvement of Prince Albert Victor, who might only have been named in foreign newspapers. As Wikipedia puts it, along with other scandals like the Dublin Castle Scandal:
These allegations would have been unsurprising to Mary Wollstonecraft.
You might also want to consider finishing schools and debutante balls. Good questions. I agree about the idea of omertà (have you seen The Good Mothers?) although we have Official Secrecy here on top. And as Shakespeare’s Duke of Albany says, although I’m not a mind reader:
“First, most of the middle classes have no idea what goes on at top boarding schools.”
As someone who went to boarding school it is quite obvious to me that you don’t either.
“They start off as sick as f***, and they have no idea for example how to be loving parents. Being a c*** is what they value.”
Thank you for that description of my parents. Would you be happy if I was to describe yours in the same way? Instead of posting such fantasies on here, why not actually ask someone who has experience of boarding school, rather than putting forward in insulting terms some fantastical ideas based only on class prejudice and C19th literature?
“1. Why would any man who has been to boarding school permit his son to go to one?”
Probably because he got a good education there and wishes his son to have one too.
“2. Why would any woman married to a man who went to boarding school permit her son to go to one?”
See above. There are also such things as girls’ boarding schools and, gasp! co-educational schools. In fact single sex boarding schools are now very much the exception. Of course, anyone that thinks that every boarding school is like Eton, a surprisingly widespread delusion, can be forgiven their assumptions, but not their ignorance.
“Thank you for that description of my parents”.
A salutary rebuke. Bear in mind, though, that he was writing under the influence of ideology, which blinds its devotees to facts.
As David McGrogan wrote the other day, “It is the behaviour of people who are in the grip of a commitment to a set of ‘Truths’ which are simply more important to them than facts. It is the conduct of those who, thoroughly imbued with one conception of reality, will think it entirely natural to distort facts in the service of that conception of reality”.
https://newsfromuncibal.substack.com/p/the-truth-about-trump
There’s an issue of “Encounter”, the CIA-funded “Anglo-American” left-liberal magazine, in which a literary figure (I forget who) is affectionately described as a chap who when other men buy a bunch of flowers is the sort who buys a toy boat.
Absolutely – What on earth is it about the “elites” that draws a disproportionate number of them to prey upon children, when their wealth and power could presumably get them any number of more adult, consenting companions?
And I think even more so, their fellow “elites” around them, instead of calling out such horrific crimes and engaging law enforcement, as any normal person would, choose to protect, to support the paedophile in their midst and heap still further abuse on the victims in the form of character assassination and denial of justice.
Charles’s latest statement that his “thoughts and utmost sympathies have been and will remain with the victims and survivors of any and all forms of abuse” should be thrown back in his face by any and all serious news outlets. They simply should not be able to report such a statement with a straight face and without challenge.
And for number 5…
Chris Woodhead…chief inspector of schools in England between 1994 and 2000… notorious for saying that it could be “experiential and educative on both sides” when pupils have their “teachers” commit statutory rape against them (or have sexual relations with them, as he saw it)…
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/274054.stm
The current king who was then called “Prince Charles” threatened to leave the country if “his friend and adviser” was forced out of his job:
https://www.theguardian.com/uk/1999/may/02/theobserver.uknews6
Other strands that people might like to pull on include
1. “Round Square” schools (this relates to a building constructed on the orders of the “wizard of Gordonstoun” – Robert Gordon, said to have sold his soul to the Devil, not Kurt Hahn)
2. Sunny Varkey and GEMS schools (with which the current king had an involvement)
Odd, I remember Woodhead saying the opposite then throwing a wobby when someone pointed out that he met his wife when she was in the 6th Form at his school….
Craig, In your headline you write “The four mentors of King Charles”. Are you suggesting these four people were Charles’s only mentors? And on what evidence are you basing the idea that they were mentors? I’m not really sure what the word means, since I don’t think I’ve ever had one.
PS A very brave article.
“A very brave article”.
I would go further, and say, “A most courageous article… Minister”.
I accept that paedophilia is extremely abnormal behaviour but being part of the elite bubble is also extremely abnormal. Also, in answer to your question of why do powerful people not make the most of available adult entertainment: the powerful don’t seek ordinary pleasures, they seek excitement and power and they find that in breaking taboos and dominating the vulnerable.
Power and paedophilia go hand in hand. Sexual perversion is self perpetuating and corrupting. You don’t have to be a monster to become a paedophile, you just have to be prepared to sell your soul and it doesn’t even need to be in exchange for sexual deviance. Once you’ve crossed that rubicon you’re trapped.
Charlie big ears is religious?!?!?
There’s certainly a stench arising from these associations and congratulations on going to a place where other journalists fear to tread. I went to a grammar school some 50 years ago and in the last few years my form teacher, also a music teacher and Church of England choir master was convicted of paedophilia and is currently at His Majesties pleasure. I had no idea this was going on at the time. Most of us will now be aware that paedophilia is present in all parts of our society. Many British parents would cheerfully cut the gonads off anyone abusing their children if the selective establishment legal repercussions were not so dire. When I say selective I mean no legal interest in pursuing certain protected “elites”, throw the book at anyone meting out an eye for an eye. Associating the monarchy with this deep abhorrence of both paedophilia and “one law for them” shows a complete lack of wisdom and arrogance on the part of Charles Windsor. The sooner we are 3 republics like Ireland the better.
“Many British parents would cheerfully cut the gonads off anyone abusing their children”
Such an attitude is practically unheard of in ruling class families.
They almost all believe that whatever experiences their brats undergo will toughen them up so as not to be crybabies and what are called “bedwetters”.
Some of the abusers BTW are women who don’t have gonads of the type that can be cut off.
On women abusers at boys’ boarding schools, see Lucia Quinault (who wasn’t sacked) and Charles Spencer’s book.
Incidentally the leading boarding schools in England had many exchanges with German Nazi “Napola” schools, but while they admired the English schools the Nazis thought the prefect and fagging system was too authoritarian for their liking, breeding too great a sense of self-importance.
(The source for this statement is G A Rowan Robinson’s, “The Training of the Nazi Leaders of the Future”, International Affairs 17 (2), 1938.)
Don’t forget that the National Socialists were, after all, socialists. Many of them felt a strong resentment of hereditary privilege.
@Tom Welsh, the most anti-capitalist part of the NS movement was the SA. Hitler decapitated it during the Rohm Putsch of 1934. Sic transit socialism.
Another thing is that all the “child protection” and “safeguarding” talk in Britain is aimed either at the lower orders or at extremely rare ex-members of the ruling class who have betrayed it (e.g. Constance Marten). It is a clear case of the authorities saying “I’m not lying to you” – in a country in which
1. By far the most important institutions in the reproduction of the ruling class are residential child abuse camps, and
2. There is no known case of any local council’s “social services” department paying attention to any of these camps.
The ruling elite’s officials, scribes, and gobster politicians will always speak with forked tongues, and the middle class fantasy of liberal democracy is just that. It’s about turning a blind eye to how things really are.
Readers may be interested in the “king’s” lawyers, Farrer and Co:
https://www.farrer.co.uk/clients-and-sectors/education/schools/
https://www.farrer.co.uk/legal-services/safeguarding-and-child-protection/
“We are one of the leading advisers in the education sector. Our specialists have years of experience working alongside organisations including schools of all types, education businesses, and world-renowned higher education institutions.”
“Managing an Allegation of Abuse”
“These usually take the form of allegations of abuse against another child, adult or member of staff. The concern or allegation may be current or historic.
It is vital that any concerns and allegations are handled properly, in the best interests of those affected. These situations can be complex and can escalate quickly, and a core part of our advice involves crisis management. We advise from the outset and guide organisations through each stage of the process – including
* the immediate response, including referrals to external agencies, immediate steps to safeguard any child, children or vulnerable adult involved, and communication with the individual who is the subject of the allegation
* effective communication to all relevant constituents throughout the management of the allegation, including children, parents, staff, former members (for example, alumni), and media
(…)
* reputation issues, including how leaders, trustees or directors manage and continue to manage the risk to the organisation’s reputation in relation to the safeguarding allegation”
Just in case you’ve ever wondered how the lid is kept on…and who keeps it on…
A rough estimate would be we are talking about 2-3 deaths per year, and a similar number of near deaths, total mental freakouts.
Just to underline this, because it is NOT well known:
top boarding schools retain the king’s lawyers, Farrer’s, to defend their reputations and to help “manage” communications with parents when there’s a “crisis” caused by child abuse allegations.
F*ck all has changed since the time of Peter Ball and John Smyth, except the ruling scum are better armoured.
Is it “NOT well known” because it isn’t true? Can you offer any evidence at all?
“Can you offer any evidence at all?”
I think he thinks it’s axiomatic.
“What I do not understand is why paedophilia appears so prevalent and attractive to politicians and the ruling class.”
I read the TLS from 1986 until 2004 when its decline became insufferable. When it was good, there was an review about transgression and that people with power seem drawn to doing things that ordinary mortals don’t ‘because they can’. They risk being exposed for gross moral turpitude and losing everything because they have the means and opportunity to break taboos and take the opportunity. Just goes to show that powerful people are as full of shit as everyone else, with less restraints and more temptations.