The British Monarchy On The Tropes

The Epstein thing has rocked the very foundations of the British Monarchy. A summary, so far...

Former Prince Andrew is now Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor, having been stripped of all titles by Charles III. He had sexual relations with a girl who was underage - Virginia Giuffre. He is a paedophile and a criminal. 

Andrew has been arrested and questioned by the police relating to allegedly sharing British trade secrets. This is the first time this has happened to a member of the royal family in almost 400 years. 

His ex-wife, Sarah Ferguson, has been disgraced owing to her regular contacts with Epstein, including bringing her daughters to visit with him a week after his release from prison after being convicted for soliciting a minor for prostitution and procuring a child for prostitution. 

The King has banished Andrew from Royal Lodge, where he lived for over 20 years. 

Andrew remains eighth in line for the throne.

We here at mewetree.blogspot.com think this is about to get way worse. 

Read on.

It is inconceivable that Charles III did not know "something". He must have had some knowledge of various allegations against his brother going back decades. 

Charles III would also have known about some of his reprehensible behaviour while he was trade envoy for the British Government, and no doubt many other scandalous goings-on, many of which we do not know about yet. In fact, Charles recommended that Andrew not receive this trade post when it was first proposed, likely owing to what he thought could happen once Andrew was let loose on the world. He certainly knew of the allegations related to Epstein for years, as did we all. He has been the King for three and a half years. He did basically nothing about these things until the release of the Epstein files. He may have even contributed to the pay-off that Giuffre got to settle her lawsuit against Andrew. 

This is a very bad look.

And so, it will likely come out that Andrew has behaved abominably for decades. Now that he is not a royal prince, he is "fair game". The stories are just starting. 

We here at mewetree.blogspot.com strongly suspect that it will soon become obvious that the Monarchy protected Andrew, not for a few years, but for decades. This protection would include silencing journalists, politicians, and any witnesses of his behaviour, especially security personnel. His armour is gone; his crimes and misdemeanors will soon become known to everyone. The fact that he was protected will leave the Monarchy under siege unlike anything since Charles I lost his head in 1649.

But it could get worse...

  

Andrew will soon be removed from the line of succession, which requires legislation in 14 different countries. Once he can no longer become king, we may be witnesses to a revelation that would rock the Monarchy to its very core.

It could be this...

Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor is not the son of Prince Phillip, the late husband of the late Queen Elisabeth II. He is the son of a man named Lord Porchester, who was the Queen's horse manager., with whom she had a close friendship.  The clear implication would be that Andrew, "The Bastard", should never have been in line for the Throne. at all 

The lies that may have been told by the Monarchy and their protectors to keep this hidden for over half a century would put the bona fides of the Monarchy into question regarding each and every issue they have touched on going back 75 years. Literally everything they stand for and have ever said could be questioned. No one would trust these people.

But it may get even worse...

Reality - Harry looks nothing like Charles, but is the spitting image of Diana's alleged illicit lover, James Hewitt. This affair is said to be impossible as Diana is claimed to have only met Hewitt two years after Harry was born. This has been verified by a member of the security detail that guarded Diana - Ken Warfe - who confirmed the dates.

Regardless, Harry himself has claimed that he thought he was Hewitt's son until 2014! There has never been a DNA test done to confirm paternity. 

Note that red hair is often given as an indicator that Hewitt is Harry's father. In fact, there are redheads on both sides of the Charles and Diana union, meaning there was about a 25% chance that Harry would have red hair. 

What is more striking is the fact that Harry looks nothing like Charles! He is the spitting image of Hewitt! Look for yourself...

This is Charles and William...

Harry looks nothing like either of these men. How is this scandal not obvious? 

But what about the defence that Diana and Hewitt did not meet until after Harry was born? Hmmm - a man who was professionally loyal to the Crown was the witness to the fact that the Diana-Hewitt affair could not have happened. Given his sworn obligation to protect the Crown, do you think he might lie about something like that to do just that, namely protect the Crown? How many security people turned a blind eye to Andrew's goings-on?

If Harry's questionable paternity is revealed, the Monarchy will have to go on bended knee to the British People begging forgiveness. This scandal will rekindle and strengthen the veneration of Diana, who will be said to have tried to tell all of us what a bunch of lying creeps these people really are - before she was allegedly killed, that is.

But it may get even worse...

To be in the line of succession, a person must be delivered through a natural birth to a woman who is either in the line of succession, or who is married to someone in the line of succession. Children who have been delivered by a surrogate cannot be in the line of succession for the British Crown.

How were Lilibet and Archie born? 

Did Meghan Markle actually carry them to term? 

There are questions circulating on-line about all of this. The board here at mewetree.blogspot.com thinks much of this is Internet Slop, but you never know.

If Markle did not carry her children to term, it would not matter should Harry prove to have been Hewitt's son as he would not be in the line of succession, so neither would his children. 

If this is the case, however, coming on the heels of other lies and distortions, this could be the end of the Monarchy as we know it. One would think that the only thing that could save it might be the abdication of Charles III to signal a break with the Old Guard, and the ascension of William and Kate to try to pick up the pieces. In fact, even if the Andrew-related things noted above happen, it is hard to see the Crown continuing on as it is.

The Epstein debacle has exposed that the elite of Western society believe they are untouchable. Some of these people carry on in abominable ways, secure in their belief that they are safe from justice. 

No one is more elite in the West than the British Crown. Andrew has been found out, and there seems little doubt that more findings are to follow. 

Dare we expect an abdication by the end of the year? 

If yes, could the Crown survive?

Of course, all of this is speculation. 

But if it reads like it's right, might it be just that?