[Andy McDandy]

Will he face a further name strip to single barrel? And then Andy Batt if convicted.

Well, he might take "Andy Mount" as an instruction.

[Abernathy]

I looked it up. Apparently, he is called “Mountbatten-Windsor” because Brenda decreed that all of her offspring with Phil the Greek should have that hyphenated surname, to reflect their father’s lineage as well as her own - otherwise, they’d apparently just be “Windsor”, which Brenda thought was a bit of a raw deal for poor old Phil.

The name “Mountbatten” is apparently an anglicisation of the German “Battenberg”. The family’s original name is of course “Saxe-Coburg Gotha”, a German dynastic name which it was thought expedient to change to “Windsor” when the UK was at war with Germany in 1917.

[AOB]

I've associated the name Mountbatten with noncery for a few years now, following the allegations against Lord Mountbatten many years ago. Supposedly the offences took place at a children's home in Northern Ireland. I did wonder that if it wasn't true then why on earth would the victim would pick his name, it seems incredibly random. Not much is mentioned about it, but it is on a smattering of news websites if you search, I suspect the Royals have made sure the press don't go on about it.

[Abernathy]

The BBC news coverage is beginning to get right on my tits, though. The lead presenter on the lunchtime bulletin had no sooner intoned that “Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor continues to deny any wrong-doing”, than he handed over to a reporter stationed at Sandringham, who within about 90 seconds had also said that “Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor continues to deny any wrong-doing”. Cut to another reporter, stationed at Windsor, who didn’t say it, but there was an on-screen banner proclaiming yet again that “Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor continues to deny all wrong-doing”.

They must have repeated it about 25 times in a 20 minute bulletin. I think we all understand that he denies all wrong-doing.

[Malcolm Armsteen]

Mandy Rice-Davies comes to mind.

[Andy McDandy]

I suspect he's very litigious, and the media are aware of it. Also, that clips can be spliced together or cut to give the impression of guilt - hence the repeated caveats.

I think that at least when this first became public, the RF could hold access to them and their considerable archives over the media - want any sort of exclusive (or indeed a reply from the press office)? Play nice.