Always blame the dead; never the living! The normal practice of the British Establishment!

Self-explanatory.

By Stanley Collymore  

I'm no monarchist: and that's
literally neither an excuse
nor a bitingly scathing
condemnation, just a naturally candid
explanation on my part, but evidently
all the same, rather intelligently, very
sensibly, and similarly logically, why
I literally don't see, that a now dead
Liz Windsor ought obviously really,
to be truly dragged into, this latest
mess surrounding and discernibly
occasioned by her offspring even
if, as we all do know, he was truly
and effectively her favourite son!
As obviously, it was Andrew who
of his very own volition, crucially
and effectively got involved with
Jeffrey Epstein and significantly
there's certainly no unequivocal  
evidence, positive nor obviously
very egregiously circumstantial,
that anyone actually forced him
into that close and significantly
personal relationship that aptly
existed, between both of them!

So whether guilty or not of any
misdeeds Andrew was most
undeniably very physically
present and therefore unquestionably
had some idea of what was evidently
rather distinctly going on; and ought
therefore, to have literally distanced
himself from it all, at first sight! But,
quite self-evidently and for his own
personal reasons, he simply didn't!
So obviously there was something,
whatever it was, which was clearly
interesting and likewise also quite
beneficially compelling to actually
have kept Andrew very genuinely  
interested and also participatorily
and simply committedly, involved
as well, as implacably, interested
in obviously what Jeffrey Epstein
and an unswervingly dutiful moll,
Ghislaine Maxwell were odiously
and egregiously noxiously doing!

(C) Stanley V. Collymore
9 January 2024.


Author's Remarks:
Mr Alan Dershowitz says? What an utterly sick joke! Seems that anyone can practice law in the USA, including the likes of Alan Dershowitz and Rudy Giuliani, and usually does! And to quote Mandy Rice Davies in the Profumo court case, Alan Dershowitz "would say that, wouldn't he?"

Sensibly, logically and most intelligently why would anyone literally pay millions to any person they publicly claim not to have ever met simply because their mummy told them to? Try fathoming that one out!  

Ah well! It's all about image and actually protecting the supposed sanctity, in the eyes of the gullible and distinctively very sycophantic serfs, of this allegedly quite divine monarchy at all costs. And all this public exhorting of Charles Windsor to be the reincarnation of Jesus Christ requisite to the sinful brother of his Judas Iscariot, Andrew Windsor, is preposterously quite laughable if it wasn't, so bloody serious!

Undoubtedly Andrew was a spoilt rather overindulged child who unrestrictively was allowed to and even decently permitted to grow up to become a pompous middle aged man. But amongst the Windsor of both genders he's not alone in that!

Charles personally for over two decades had very close, personal relationships with noxiously, verminous, paedophiles in the form of Jimmy Savile and Bishop Peter Ball, to name just two among this coterie of paedophiles that infested the Windsor households across the board, had full and unhindered access to these peoples' homes and likewise their personal staff and other employees.

And had Diana not resolutely put her foot down Charles would have had Jimmy Savile as one of Harry's godfathers. As well, there's the issue of another odious paedophile who was commissioned to paint Liz Windsor's portrait. Where is that portrait now that the world knows what an evilly, vile paedophile Rolf Harris was? Damage limitation they've all like bat out of hell distanced themselves after Harris' conviction from it. Go do your research on the aforementioned and other rather sick behavioural patterns of the Windsor family, and not simply concentrate on one convenient bad apple, that fictitious stories about Meghan and Harry were quite racially used to cover up!

Then there's the irony of a serial and odiously adulterous pair, not a single apology in sight, happily going off to Church purely for show and the serfs swallowing it hook line and sinker. But I guess if the Church of which you're the hereditary Head, and founded both on murder and adultery was good enough for Henry VIII it should be equally so in the British feudal system that comprises the 21st Century.

Henry VIII had his blood lust and wanted request with Anne Boleyn and Catherine Howard, Charles his with Diana Spencer; as yet though no one has accused or thinks that Andrew has been complicit in or has actually had murder carried out on his behalf; has he Charles?

Author's Note

As per previous works of mine.