The Windsor Precedent: How a Prince's Fall Could Foreshadow a King's.

 

King Charles III

The stripping of Prince Andrew’s military affiliations and royal patronages was presented as a necessary act of damage control. In the wake of his disastrous BBC Newsnight interview and the subsequent civil sexual assault case, the institution of the monarchy moved to sever its formal ties with the Duke of York. The unspoken message was clear: this level of controversy, this profound association with criminality and moral decay, is incompatible with the representation of the Crown.

Andrew Windsor

But in creating this new, hardline standard, the House of Windsor may have unwittingly set a trap for itself. The precedent now established is not merely about legal guilt or civil liability; it is about the corrosive effect of association. And if that is the new benchmark, then the gaze of public scrutiny cannot stop at the disgraced prince. It must, inevitably, travel up the family tree and settle upon the King himself.

The case against Andrew Windsor is stark. His friendship with the convicted paedophile Jeffrey Epstein, maintained even after Epstein’s initial conviction, demonstrated a catastrophic lapse in judgment. His inability to express credible remorse or victim empathy sealed his fate in the court of public opinion. The monarchy, in stripping him of his titles, acted as if the problem was contained to one "bad apple."

This is a comforting fiction, but the roots of the issue appear to run much deeper, entwining themselves around the very foundations of the institution. King Charles III, throughout his life, has himself maintained friendships with individuals whose crimes now cast long, dark shadows.

The most prominent of these is the late Jimmy Savile. The now-infamous photograph of a young Charles laughing with Savile at a charity event is a chilling artefact of a different era. But the relationship was more than a photo opportunity. Savile was a trusted confidant, a regular guest at Charles’s royal residences, and even consulted on the running of the Prince’s Trust. The Duke of York’s defence often centres on his being a poor judge of character, yet here is the now-King, having embraced one of the most prolific sexual predators in British history as an advisor and friend.

Jimmy Savile and Charles Windsor

The connections do not end there. Another figure is Peter Ball, a former Bishop of Lewes and Gloucester. Ball was a close friend of Charles for over two decades, a man he described as a "constant source of strength." During this time, Ball was systematically abusing young men aspiring to the priesthood. The Prince of Wales interceded on Ball’s behalf after initial allegations surfaced, writing to him and offering support. Ball was eventually convicted in 2015 for misconduct in public office and indecent assaults, with the court hearing he had used his status to "mesmerise" his victims. Charles’s loyalty to Ball, even in the face of serious allegations, mirrors the very pattern of poor judgment for which his brother was condemned.

Peter Ball and Charles Windsor

This pattern was further cemented when the then-Prince of Wales refused a formal request from the Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse (IICSA) to give a statement under oath about his relationship with Peter Ball. Instead of offering a full and transparent account to assist the public investigation, he provided a short written witness statement that was described by the inquiry as lacking "full context." This act of non-cooperation stands in stark contrast to the demand for accountability levied against his brother. While Andrew was punished for his associations, Charles actively withheld his full cooperation from a statutory inquiry established to understand how institutions like the Church had failed victims of abuse.

This pattern forces a series of deeply uncomfortable questions. If association with a convicted paedophile is grounds for being stripped of royal status, what is the consequence of a lifelong pattern of such associations? If Andrew’s friendship with Epstein warranted his removal from public life, what does Charles’s sustained and supportive relationship with both Savile and Ball signify?

The questions become even more disturbing when one considers the environment in which the King was raised. His great-uncle and mentor, Lord Louis Mountbatten, has been the subject of persistent and credible allegations of paedophilia for decades. Historians and biographers, including Andrew Lownie in his book "The Mountbattens," have documented the rumours and the private concerns of contemporaries about Mountbatten’s attraction to adolescent boys.

This leads to the most harrowing question of all: if Mountbatten was a predatory paedophile, and he was one of the most influential figures in the young Charles’s life, is it not only reasonable, but essential, to ask if the young Prince of Wales was a victim of abuse? We do not know, and it is a question that should be posed with the utmost gravity and respect for any potential victim. But the precedent set by the Andrew Windsor case is that silence and association are no longer tenable. The institution, having demanded accountability from one member, must now be prepared for the same rigorous standard to be applied to its head.

The monarchy’s survival hinges on public consent, which is built on a foundation of perceived morality and integrity. By acting against Prince Andrew, the Firm attempted to draw a line in the sand. But the tide of scandal was not coming from one direction alone. That line is now being washed away, revealing a much wider landscape of uncomfortable connections and historical shadows.

The natural consequence of stripping Andrew Windsor is the legitimisation of these very questions. The monarchy, in its attempt to quarantine a scandal, may have inadvertently confirmed that the infection is systemic. According to the new standard it has set, it will only be a matter of time before the public demands to know why the man at the very top appears to be exempt from the same rules. The precedent has been set. The King, now, sits squarely within its scope.

Meghan Markle Accused of Faking Her Pregnancies.

 READ MORE - 

https://guerrillademocracynews.wordpress.com/2025/10/18/meghan-markle-accused-of-faking-her-pregnancies/

Keir Starmer and the Three Rent Boys.

READ MORE - 

https://guerrillademocracynews.wordpress.com/2025/10/18/keir-starmer-and-the-three-rent-boys/

Who Safeguards the Legacy of Wilson, Blackett, and Broadstock?

The deaths of Ross Broadstock, Alan Wilson, and Baram Blackett have left a gaping void in a movement already embattled by scepticism, ridicule, and indifference from the mainstream historical establishment. Now, with all three of its champions gone, the future of their life’s work — the re-telling of Britain’s history through the figure of King Arthur II — hangs precariously in the balance.

What should have been a carefully preserved archive of rare books, notes, research papers, and manuscripts has instead been abandoned to rot. Their home in Newcastle, once the crucible of their research, lies unsecured and neglected.

SUBSCRIBE NOW!

The situation was thrust into the public domain through a YouTube upload by the channel Wor Kev, titled “The Mystery House of Baram Blackett and Alan Wilson.” The footage shows two men entering the empty property and touring the rooms once lived in by Blackett and Wilson. From their living room to the basement, the camera pans across shelves stacked with dozens — if not hundreds — of unsold copies of their rare books, many of which are now gathering dust and mould. For a movement that has always fought for legitimacy, the images are heartbreaking: priceless intellectual property abandoned, vulnerable to decay, theft, and misuse.

Yet the videos revealed more than just forgotten literature. Personal effects — some deeply private — were also left behind. Among them, gay pornography allegedly belonging to Blackett. Its discovery is not in itself remarkable; such material is commonplace and speaks only to the private preferences of an individual. But its exposure highlights a much deeper failure. This was never intended to be seen by the public, let alone broadcast online. In leaving the property unsecured, not only has scholarship been endangered, but private dignity has been sacrificed. Instead of their work being remembered, gossip has been allowed to overshadow legacy.

This is not simply a matter of voyeurism or trespass — it is about respect. Respect for the lives lived, for the work produced, and for the decades dedicated to challenging the accepted version of Britain’s past. That respect is now in question.

Responsibility for the movement has, by default, fallen upon Angela, the widow of Ross Broadstock. By circumstance rather than choice, she finds herself carrying the burden of continuation. While Angela has shown loyalty to her late husband’s cause, it is fair to ask whether she is the right person — or even the best-placed person — to lead the complex academic and political struggle that Wilson, Blackett, and Broadstock collectively pursued. The task requires not only passion, but structure, resources, and leadership.

King Arthur I + King Arthur II of Wales, the original 

This brings us to Britain’s Hidden History, the Facebook group and wider community founded by Broadstock. If the group exists to protect, promote, and advance suppressed history, then it now faces the most serious test of its credibility. While lively debates and videos continue online, the tangible heart of the movement — its books, manuscripts, and archives — lies unguarded in an abandoned property. To supporters, this looks like a movement without strategy. To critics, it looks like dereliction of duty.

KingArthursPoliticalParty.wordpress.com

The deaths of Wilson, Blackett, and Broadstock were hammer blows to a fragile cause. But the greatest danger is not the mockery of outsiders, nor the suppression of critics. The greatest danger comes from within — from failure to act, from failure to safeguard, from failure to respect.

Unless urgent steps are taken to secure, preserve, and catalogue what remains of Wilson and Blackett’s work, Britain risks losing not just an alternative history, but a cultural legacy. The tragedy would not be that enemies destroyed it, but that friends allowed it to wither away through neglect, mishandling, and indifference.

READ MORE - 

Breaking Tragic News - King Arthur historian Baram Blackettt dies in house fire.

King Arthur II: The True Story of Britain’s Greatest War King.

Richard D Hall Responds to the tragic news of Baram Blackett's death...

JOIN THE CONVERSATION

Donald Trump – King of the World.

In a world fractured by wars, rivalries, and clashing ideologies, one man has thrust himself to the forefront of history and assumed the mantle of global leadership: Donald J. Trump. Once known as a reality TV star and a property mogul, he’s now transformed into the most polarising president in American history, striding the world stage with an ambition beyond the presidency. To his followers, he is no longer just President of the United States - he is the King of the World.

A King Forged in Power.

Trump’s claim to this symbolic crown rests on the very thing that has defined America’s influence since World War II: the unmatched might of the American war machine. From aircraft carriers patrolling every ocean to the vast nuclear arsenal and cutting-edge drone fleets, the United States’ military power is the bedrock of Trump’s authority. And unlike his predecessors, he wields it not just as a commander-in-chief but as a monarch would a sceptre.

“The United States has the greatest and most powerful military in the; right now; history of the world. I can tell you we have weapons that nobody's ever dreamt of. I only hope we never have to use them.”

His power lies not in ceremony but in deterrence. Every handshake, every treaty, every negotiation is backed by the silent threat of overwhelming force. Nations know this, and in turn, they bend, compromise, and ultimately gather around the table he sets.

Peace Through Strength.

Nowhere has this been clearer than in the Middle East. With wars in Gaza and Israel dragging into years of destruction and despair, Trump stepped forward as a dealmaker. Visiting Jerusalem, he declared the war “over” before the Knesset. In Egypt, having secured the first serious framework for Gaza’s recovery, he convened leaders, walking up one after the other, to shake the hand of their King. Hostages were exchanged, ceasefires brokered, and reconstruction planned - all under his watch.

Where once American presidents spoke of peace as an ideal, Trump has cast it as a mandate. His message is blunt: peace is not a gift but a deal struck in the shadow of power.

The World Brought Together.

Beyond the Middle East, Trump’s influence extends eastward. Despite simmering tensions over trade wars, tariffs, and technological dominance, he prepares to sit down with China’s Xi Jinping in South Korea. The significance of this meeting cannot be understated: the two greatest powers of the age, rivals on every front, agreed to talk under Trump’s initiative.

Even Russia, long painted as America’s adversary, found itself reopening diplomatic channels after Trump’s meeting with Vladimir Putin in Alaska. No treaties were signed, but the ice shifted. For the first time in years, Moscow and Washington were speaking not through threats, but through Trump.

A King’s Vision.

What sets Trump apart from other world leaders is not merely his willingness to wield power, but his desire to embody it. He speaks not as a temporary officeholder but as a ruler of destiny, casting himself in a role reminiscent of monarchs past - a King whose realm stretches across borders, whose court is the assembly of nations, and whose crown is secured by the military-industrial colossus of the United States.

In this vision, Trump is not merely president of a nation, but arbiter of the world’s peace and order. Whether loved or hated, his ability to bring warring parties together and to bend rivals into negotiations has made him the gravitational center of global politics.

The Dawn of the Trump Era.

Critics argue that such concentration of power is dangerous, that Trump’s arrogance risks plunging the world into deeper conflicts. Yet even his fiercest detractors admit: the world is watching him, following his lead, and shaping their strategies in response to his moves.

The history books may one day look back at this moment as the dawn of a new era - when Donald J. Trump, once a divisive populist, crowned himself not with jewels but with power, and stood upon the global stage as the King of the World.

“Elon Musk Has Picked Up the Legal Bill for This State Persecution.” Tommy Robinson.

What Does This Mean, That the Richest Man in the World Pays the Bill of Britain’s Political Bad Boy?

On Monday morning, Britain’s most infamous political dissenter set off for yet another court date — his 1,642nd appearance since beginning his career as an activist. Facing the threat of prison, not for violence, theft, or fraud, but for refusing to hand over the contents of his phone, he framed the day as part of a long war between himself, the British state, and the principles of free speech and investigative journalism.

But buried within his defiant message to supporters was one revelation that raised eyebrows across political and cultural lines: Elon Musk, the world’s richest man, has stepped in to pay his legal bill.

This detail reframes the entire case. It is no longer just about one man facing a judge for defying the system. It now represents a collision between the establishment of the British state and the disruptive wealth of a global tech titan.

This is NOT Elon Musk

The Case at Hand.

The activist explained why he refused to give the authorities access to his phone: survivors of grooming gangs had entrusted him with confidential testimony that they didn’t want passed into the hands of institutions they already believed had failed them. He claims police forces across the country have historically destroyed or “lost” vital evidence — underwear handed in with forensic proof of rape, testimonies ignored, and cases buried.

For him, protecting his sources is not just journalistic duty — it is an act of loyalty to those who had no one else to trust. But under terrorism legislation, his refusal to comply with state demands is treated as a criminal offence.

The Musk Factor.

The legal consequences are severe. Prison is on the line. Yet unlike in the past, when fundraising pleas were the norm, he revealed with some relief that this time he hasn’t had to “beg for donations.” The tab has been picked up by Elon Musk.

This raises an unsettling but fascinating question: why would the billionaire owner of X (formerly Twitter), SpaceX, and Tesla bankroll the fight of Britain’s so-called “political bad boy”?

Is Musk making a statement about press freedom, standing against state overreach, or simply reinforcing his own brand as the maverick outsider willing to challenge governments worldwide?

Musk has already positioned X as a “free speech platform,” railing against censorship and what he sees as establishment bias in media and politics. By funding this case, Musk may be signalling that his battle for free expression is not limited to Silicon Valley or Washington, but extends into the courtrooms of Britain.

A Dangerous Precedent or a Global Alliance?

For critics, the intervention is worrying. It suggests that a man with almost limitless wealth can amplify the causes of controversial figures in ways no one else can. For supporters, it is a victory — proof that the establishment is being outmanoeuvred, that someone with both money and influence is willing to back those who defy the state.

What’s clear is that this single act transforms a local court case into a global talking point. It becomes more than one activist refusing to betray his sources. It becomes a test of how far states are willing to go to crush dissent, and how far billionaires like Musk are willing to go to bankroll resistance.

The Verdict Awaits.

As the activist travelled to court, his concern wasn’t prison, but whether he’d manage a full English breakfast before facing the judge. It was a line delivered half in jest, but it spoke volumes about his attitude: defiance, humour, and a refusal to be broken.

But beyond the jokes lies a serious reality. With no jury, only a state-appointed judge will determine his fate. And while Britain’s justice system has its procedures, the presence of Elon Musk in the story ensures the world will be watching more closely than ever before.

So, what does it mean that Elon Musk pays the bill of Britain’s political bad boy?

It means the fight over free speech, journalism, and state power in Britain is no longer a domestic matter. It is part of a global struggle — and now, one of the richest men alive has chosen a side.

The Problem with Wedger is Maloney.

Jon Wedger is one of Britain’s most visible police whistleblowers. A former detective with the Metropolitan Police, he has spent years speaking publicly about institutional failures to investigate and prosecute child sexual exploitation. Many survivors and campaigners credit him with breaking a long silence around abuse in care homes and on the streets.

That work deserves acknowledgement. But credibility is fragile — and Wedger is risking his.

A public endorsement under scrutiny.

In a recent public message, Wedger described campaigner Bill Maloney in glowing terms:

“My best mate. The bravest, toughest and bestest pal a man could have. Bill Maloney ‘the cockney Irish gypsy’. Bill started this ‘anti child abuse’ movement. Let’s raise a glass to this ghetto warrior.” [source: Wedger public Facebook post, Oct 05, 2025]

Bill Maloney

Maloney has been active for years as an anti-abuse campaigner and filmmaker. But he is also a deeply contested figure. Singer Brian Harvey, formerly of East 17, has repeatedly alleged that Maloney fed him sensational but unverified claims about well-known public figures, apparently encouraging Harvey to take them public. One example Harvey cites is the claim that author and broadcaster David Icke abused a man (then a boy) known online as Andrew Ash — a claim for which no independent, verifiable evidence has surfaced.

The shadow of Operation Midland.

The UK has already seen what happens when dramatic allegations about “VIP paedophile rings” aren’t rigorously checked. The case of Carl Beech — formerly known as “Nick” — drove Operation Midland, one of the Met’s most expensive investigations. His claims were later proven false; Beech was convicted in 2019 of perverting the course of justice and fraud, and of possessing child sexual abuse images, and was jailed for 18 years. The scandal damaged innocent reputations and eroded trust in real whistleblowers.

That precedent matters. Aligning with campaigners accused of planting or encouraging unsubstantiated allegations risks repeating Midland’s mistakes — high-profile claims first, evidence later.

Harvey’s self-taught investigation.

Brian Harvey himself deserves acknowledgement for the way he has documented and tested the claims put before him. Although best known as a pop star, Harvey has shown a methodical, almost investigative instinct: he records his conversations, preserves documents and video, and has published long-form accounts of how he believes he was manipulated. In particular, Harvey says that Bill Maloney introduced him to another man, Ian Puddick, who provided “ninja” cameras so Harvey could film testimony from Andrew Ash — material Harvey now argues was meant to lure him into promoting unverified allegations. By putting this raw evidence into the public domain, Harvey has made it possible for others to see how sensational claims can be seeded and recycled.

Wedger in the mainstream spotlight.

Wedger’s profile is also climbing rapidly beyond the campaign circuit. In recent weeks he has been picked up by mainstream outlets after publicly challenging London Mayor Sadiq Khan over what he sees as the city’s failure to confront grooming gangs. Wedger himself has remarked that he’s “never had so much attention from the mainstream media,” and that his message is finally breaking through. But with a higher public platform comes sharper scrutiny — of both him and those around him. Which leads straight back to Bill Maloney and Brian Harvey. Someone’s account does not add up; and on the face of the evidence Harvey has produced, it appears Maloney’s story may be the weaker. If so, Maloney becomes Wedger’s problem.

Why this matters for Wedger.

Wedger’s credibility is a vital part of his advocacy. Survivors and police whistleblowers need public trust to force reform. Endorsing figures such as Maloney without addressing serious concerns — especially those raised by Harvey, who says he was “set up” — invites doubt about Wedger’s judgment and his screening of sources.

The cause Wedger champions is too important to be derailed by association with unreliable or manipulative voices. Campaigners have a duty not just to speak out but to test what they are told, weigh the evidence, and avoid amplifying sensational but unproven allegations.

David Icke

A call for care.

Jon Wedger has achieved real impact, encouraging survivors to speak and challenging institutional complacency. But to protect that progress, he must be discerning about his alliances. Publicly calling Bill Maloney “the bravest, toughest and bestest pal” while credible figures question Maloney’s methods and reliability creates a vulnerability that opponents of abuse reform can easily exploit.

The fight against child abuse cover-ups demands both courage and care. Without both, the work risks losing the very credibility it needs to succeed.

https://guerrillademocracynews.wordpress.com/2025/10/06/the-problem-with-wedger-is-maloney/