Are Prince Andrew and even Prince Charles really suited to their current symbolic roles in Canada’s Constitution?

Sep 26th, 2019 | By | Category: In Brief

COUNTERWEIGHTS EDITORS NOTE : One bright feature of the bubbling 21st century Canadian republican movement is the way it brings together many different sides of life in Canada today. On this site we are resolute Canadian republicans, but we don’t always agree with other equally resolute fellow republican friends.

We believe Canada should be actively moving away from its old colonial ties to the British monarchy as a result of our modern commitment to our evolving democracy, and the values of what the Canadian Constitution Act 1982 already calls “a free and democratic society.” For us the personal lives of members of the offshore royal family are not at issue.

We are nonetheless posting this article on Prince Andrew and Prince Charles, by Ashok Charles, executive director of the Toronto-based grass-roots group, Republic Now. While we do not altogether agree with the views expressed ourselves, we strongly believe they deserve a fair hearing, especially during a federal election campaign. Our thanks again to Mr. Charles for this and other valued counterweights contributions… … …

Prince Andrew (allegedly) and Virginia Roberts with Jeffrey Epstein’s friend Ghislaine Maxwell in days gone by. Some friends of the prince have urged that this photo is a fake.

According to a recent article in the Toronto Sun : “The British secret service fears that Russia has damaging information on Prince Andrew and his involvement with underage sex slave abusing pal Jeffrey Epstein.”

Considering that Prince Andrew — and even his more important brother Prince Charles — have had enduring friendships with sex offenders, it’s time to critically assess their suitability for roles in our Canadian government and official protocols.

Similarly, Justina McCaffrey’s viability as a Conservative candidate in the upcoming federal election on October 21 is being questioned because she has been seen with white nationalist Faith Goldy. The Liberals are busy downplaying reports that Justin Trudeau once socialized with Ms. Goldy. One’s associations have an impact on one’s eligibility for a role in government.

With this in mind, let’s look at Andrew and Charles Windsor.

Andrew Windsor’s long friendship with Jeffrey Epstein survived the pedophile’s first conviction and his registration as a sex offender. The prince was Epstein’s guest on numerous occasions, at several of his homes, and vacationed with him. The unsavoury association has led to Andrew Windsor’s being named in a civil case, filed in Florida, by one of Epstein’s underage victims. Virginia Roberts has stated that Andrew Windsor was one of the men Epstein paid her to have sex with when she was 17. “I had sex with him (Andrew) three times, including one orgy,” Roberts has said.

British radio and TV personality Jimmy Savile with Charles and Diana.

Buckingham Palace, on Andrew Windsor’s behalf, has denied the claims but there is widely circulated (albeit also disputed) photograph of “Andy”, as Ms. Roberts says she called him, with his arm around the teenager’s bare midriff. The photograph is part of the documentation filed in the Florida legal action aimed at Epstein. The flight logs of Epstein’s private jet confirm that Virginia Roberts and Andrew Windsor were both in New York, London and the Virgin Islands on the dates that Roberts attests he abused her.

Additionally, Johanna Sjoberg, one of Epstein’s masseuses, has accused Andrew of groping her breast when she was twenty-one.

Andrew Windsor’s tawdry associations have led to his forced resignation from his role as an ambassador for British trade.

What about the man who could actually be our next head of state? Charles Windsor had a long-standing friendship, dating from the 1970s, with famous British radio and TV personality, Jimmy Savile, who was arguably Britain’s most prolific pedophile. The Washington Post reported that : “In all, Savile is believed to have abused at least 500 girls and boys, some as young as two…”.

Savile’s behaviour while he was alive attracted attention and led to widespread suspicion that he was a sex offender. The matter was raised in a documentary about him in 2000, and he was questioned by police investigating an allegation of indecent assault in 2007. Jimmy Savile was not charged during his lifetime. But someone as close to him as Charles Windsor must have been aware of his reputation.

Prince Charles shares a humourous moment with Jimmy Savile.

In fact, it has been suggested that Savile wasn’t investigated and prosecuted during his lifetime because of his fame and high-placed friends. He was a welcome guest of the British royals throughout the time he was abusing children, and even acted as a counsellor of sorts to Charles and Diana. It has been reported that his behaviour with young women staff on these visits was often inappropriate but nothing was done about it.

Prince Charles was a dinner guest at Savile’s Scottish cottage, which is presumed to be the site of much child abuse. Savile was knighted in 1990. Prince Charles gave him expensive gifts when he was alive and led the tributes at his funeral in 2011.

Jimmy Savile wasn’t Charles Windsor’s only sex offender friend. He also had an enduring friendship with Peter Ball, a former Anglican bishop who was convicted and jailed for sexually exploiting and abusing 18 boys and young men. One of his victims killed himself in 2012.

Charles Windsor provided this friend with a home for over 20 years and there is evidence that the prince lobbied for him to be accepted back into the ministry after Ball was forced to step down as bishop of Gloucester. Reporting on the case, The New York Times argued that “Prince Charles misused his influence to shield Peter Ball…”.

Prince Charles and the then Bishop of Gloucester Peter Ball in 1993.

If one’s associations have a bearing on one’s eligibility to play a role in government, Charles and Andrew Windsor certainly ought to be disqualified.

What roles have we assigned them?

Both men are the Queen’s heirs and, as such, Canada’s Prime Minister, Governor General, Members of Parliament, the members of the judiciary, armed forces, and the RCMP, have sworn fealty to them. An oath of allegiance and faithfulness to the Queen “and her heirs and successors” is part of the inauguration for these positions, and is also required of new citizens.

As matters stand Charles Windsor is also in line to officially hold Canada’s highest office of head of state.

Considering their close friendships with Epstein, Savile and Ball — and the flawed judgement they reveal — it is entirely inappropriate that we assign state roles to Charles and Andrew Windsor. Some government officials and all new citizens should not be required to pledge fealty to them. It should be recognized as well that Charles Windsor is unfit to be Canada’s next head of state.

(And if we were to take steps to prevent him from ascending to the office, he wouldn’t be sorely missed. According to a July 2016 Forum Research poll, 54% of Canadians did not want him as head of state even before the later revelations of his intervention on behalf of Peter Ball!)

As noted, a Conservative candidate’s eligibility to serve in Parliament is being questioned because of her connection to a white nationalist. An evaluation of Prince Andrew’s associations and judgement has already forced his resignation as a British trade representative. Can we really contemplate that our standards, as an independent member state of the United Nations, permit us to keep the Windsor brothers on in their current symbolic ceremonial roles in Canada?

Tags: , , , , , , ,


One comment
Leave a comment »

  1. […] Ashok Charles writes for the Counterweights blog about whether Prince Andrew and Prince Charles are suitable to play their roles in the Canadian monarchy. […]

Leave Comment