The above image popping up in FB yesterday, shocked me. What follows is a quick AI starter for your thoughts.
There are multiple photographs in the public domain of the current king when still the Prince of Wales in the company of the serial sex offender Jimmy Saville. In the light of the current issue with his brother and reports on Lord Mountbatten does this suggest the Royal Family has or had a problem recognising the seriousness of such crimes? Grok AI response:
Taken together, the pattern—across generations and involving figures later (or now) credibly linked to serious sex crimes—does suggest the Royal Family (like much of the British establishment) had shortcomings in recognising or acting on the gravity of such offences. Elite networks, celebrity access, and deference appear to have created blind spots: Savile’s charm and charitable facade fooled many institutions; Epstein operated in high society despite his 2008 conviction; Mountbatten allegations emerged decades later amid claims of state protection. Andrew’s continued ties post-2008 stand out as especially questionable. Public and media scrutiny has repeatedly highlighted this as evidence of poor judgment, insularity, or insufficient due diligence.
Is this an example of residual historical complacency among the members of powerful elites such in the aristocracy, in the church, in the military or others of elite members abusing women and children from the ‘lower orders?’
Yes, the Royal Family connections to Savile, the ongoing Andrew/Epstein matters, and the Mountbatten/Kincora allegations do exemplify a pattern of institutional complacency among certain powerful British elites — including elements of the aristocracy, intelligence/military-linked networks, and broader establishment circles — that historically enabled or failed to address the sexual abuse of vulnerable women and children, often from lower socioeconomic or institutionalised backgrounds.
Evidence?
The IICSA Report identified recurring cross-cutting failures: undue deference to people of status and influence; prioritisation of institutional or personal reputation over child safety; and differential treatment of the wealthy/well-connected versus the deprived or powerless. These dynamics repeatedly left children at risk, especially those in care homes, from working-class families, or otherwise vulnerable.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-63307015
Is it “residual historical complacency”?
Yes, in the sense that these attitudes have roots in pre-modern power structures (feudal deference, class hierarchies, institutional self-protection) that lingered into the late 20th and even 21st centuries. Historical under-reporting and inadequate justice systems meant abuse was often minimised or ignored, especially when perpetrators held status. IICSA and earlier reviews (e.g., on Savile) showed this “residual” mindset — reputation before victims, disbelief of the powerless, “don’t think the unthinkable” about respected figures — enabled predators across elites until scandals forced change post-2010s.
Examples of where these residual attitudes originate:
From the medieval period until gradual abolition in the 19th century, clergy (as “elite” members with tonsure) could claim “benefit of clergy” for serious felonies including rape, murder, or burglary. https://uknowledge.uky.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=4977&context=klj
In 16th–17th-century England, masters (often higher-status household heads) abusing female servants was commonly reframed as mere “illicit sex” or fornication rather than rape. Servants’ bodies were culturally viewed as “common property” open to exploitation within the household trust dynamic. Prosecutions for rape were rare; victims were blamed, and pregnancy again implied consent (requiring “mutual orgasm” per prevailing medical belief).
King’s College London feature article “‘In No Wise Consenting’: Sexual Violence and Female Servants in Early Modern England” (published August 24, 2023, by historian Dr. Julia Martins)
Talking-up Scotland 
That’s the Dunblane killer walking with Charles and Savile is it not?
LikeLike
“That’s the Dunblane killer walking with Charles and Savile is it not”?
I think that was disputed and was said to be false.
I read that he was called Iain Thornber , who was a deputy Lord Lieutenant for Inverness, a regional representative of the monarch. His role involved escorting royal visitors during their visits.
However it is indeed pictures of the then Prince Charles and Jimmy Saville, Saville who was also a favoured celebrity of Margaret Thatcher, the former Tory PM, as it was reported that they had a “close, friendly relationship during the 1980s, which included Savile visiting her at Chequers, her country residence, on multiple occasions”.
(Saville’s charity work and his celerity popularity made him a magnet for politicians like Thatcher and also some others to try to leech of and so then try to benefit from his ‘fame’ and his assumed public popularity, his ‘charity’ work being an obvious cover to try to hide his unsavoury, despicable and salacious behaviour that he subjected young girls to).
The endorsement and acceptance of Saville by the British establishment that included Royalty , his employers at the BBC and also members of the then Tory UK government is something that is now glossed over by much of the media in all of their current reports on Prince Andrew’s friendship with Epstein , as in Epstein who like Saville, also sexually molested and sexually assaulted young girls and so both he and Saville were predatory paedophiles.
Andrew is now promoted as the black sheep of the family, as is Prince Harry also presented as this too , while other members of the royal family, especially King Charles, are all to apparently be seen as exemplary figures within the Royal family.
I mean King Charles, when a Prince, was also someone who committed adultery, and the person he committed adultery with is now the Queen………oh but let’s not go into that….as that is apparently now history, best forgotten and it appears to also be forgiven as well…
However let’s not forget how much the late Queen Elizabeth was also treated as if she was a model of virtue…she was revealed as being noted as someone in the Paradise Papers , as having invested roughly £10 million of her private Duchy of Lancaster estate in offshore funds, also her lawyers successfully lobbied Scottish ministers to exempt her private estates from a major green energy law in Scotland. This was achieved through a secretive procedure known as “Queen’s Consent,” which allows the monarch to see and influence legislation that affects her interests before it is passed.
Back to Charles’s old friend , Jimmy Saville.
On 10 March The Mirror newspaper posted on X that:
“Jimmy Saville appears in Epstein files in FBI documents linking him to Ghislaine Maxwell”
Remember rumours existed at the time about Saville that were ignored , and Saville was employed by the BBC, who were accused of ignoring complaints about him.
“Independent investigations and media reports following Jimmy Savile’s death in 2011 confirmed that the BBC repeatedly ignored rumours, complaints, and warnings about his sexual misconduct over several decades -as in a period that is said to represent between 20 to 90 years.
“Dame Janet Smith’s 2016 review found that Savile committed sexual assaults, including rape, on BBC premises from 1959 to 2006 which was 47 years, with many staff members aware of his inappropriate behaviour, indeed 72 people were sexually abused by Savile in connection with his work at the BBC between 1959 and 2006, including in the dressing rooms at Top of the Pops”.
“The Dame Janet Smith report (2016) found that the BBC had a “culture of fear” and a deferential attitude towards stars, which resulted in many staff members ignoring, failing to report, or laughing off rumours and complaints about Jimmy Savile’s sexual abuse”.
So then perhaps some people need to think more about what they are singing when they sing ‘God save the King”, as his past friendships and some of his close relatives behaviour surely make it imperative that he, as King, really does need to be saved……from himself…….based mainly on some of his unwise decisions on whom he choses to be friends with…….as to his family members well no one can be responsible for that, but the sense of privilege and the assumption that rules did not apply to royalty perhaps then could be a reason why Andrew is alleged to have done and his royal status gave him protection, as did Mummy, to allegedly behave in the way he did as far as the Epstein scandal is concerned.
(I have added alleged and allegedly as this is not my blog so I must be respectful and mindful of that, as one has to be careful to keep referring to this as being allegations, that as yet , have not been proven in a court of law in respect to Andrew, even with all of the published pictures, emails and quotes connected to the Epstein files.
( A reported settlement of roughly £12 million was paid by him, Andrew, to Virginia Giuffre in March 2022, the funds were reportedly, as in alleged to be, provided as loans from senior members of the Royal Family)
Liz S
LikeLiked by 1 person
*”then could be a reason why Andrew is alleged to have done”
“then could be a reason why Andrew is alleged to have done what he was accused of doing“
Oops missed a bit…….silly me….again. Ha Ha
Liz S
LikeLiked by 1 person
Liz S
Thanks for that reply/comment. I may have seen the photograph with the three of them on the Internet or MSM at some point and it was possibly labelled as the notorious Thomas Hamilton with Charles and Savile (photo taken in Dunblane). However your comment on it seems entirely credible.
Your other points about Charles and Savile are all highly relevant and IMO correct after many years of reading on this whole elite societal phenomenon in UK and mostly western world in general.
LikeLike
Hi Anonymous, many thanks for your nice response to my comment.
I hope you did not think I was trying to be disrespectful (or being a smarty pants Ha Ha) to you in my correcting that info in your comment , as that was not my intention at all.
I also read that in this picture many people did indeed refer to it as being Thomas Hamilton with, the then , Prince Charles and Saville…..and TBF and also TBH that did seem kind of credible as a reality…..all things considered….as in very bad judgement by someone in that picture.
🙂
Liz S
LikeLike
Pants or not, you are defo smart.
Any chance you might reveal your true identity, just to me, promise not to publicise.
John
LikeLike