Imagine the scenario.
It is 1964.
The press and TV are full of a sensational story that Anthony Blunt, longstanding Keeper of the King's Pictures from 1945 and subsequently Keeper of the Queen's Pictures was a paedophile, as well as a spy.
Imagine that the Queen, having been informed of Blunt's (alleged) paedophilia, immediately sacked him as Keeper of the Queen's Pictures and insisted that his disgraceful behaviour be made public and that he be prosecuted in accordance with the Law.
Imagine that many of Blunt's high-ranking (alleged) fellow paedophiles in Northern Ireland and, likely, elsewhere are energetically investigated by British Police forces.
Imagine that the Director of Public Prosecutions deems it to be in the public interest to prosecute these pillars of the Establishment.
Imagine that the judges don't find a legal pretext to throw at least some of the cases out of Court.
Of course, none of this happened in 1964.
In 1964 it appears that the Queen was informed of Blunt's treason.
The public record is silent on whether or not the Queen was also informed of Anthony Blunt's (alleged) child abuse.
The Queen, it seems, allowed Blunt to continue as Keeper of the Queen's Pictures despite knowing of his crimes in the spying realm.
It seems to me to be a hugely important question as to whether the Queen was informed in 1964 about Blunt's (alleged) abuse of children.
If the Queen was informed of Anthony Blunt's abuse of children in 1964 and chose to say nothing what does that tell us about Britain's Head of State?
This seems to me to be a key question for the Child Abuse Inquiry - Did the Queen know in 1964 that Anthony Blunt was an abuser of children?
Perhaps the Queen knew nothing about Blunt's (alleged) child abuse.
Perhaps MI5 kept from the Queen the child abuse aspect of its (alleged) deal with Blunt.
Perhaps the Director of Public Prosecutions blindsided the Queen regarding Blunt's immunity from prosecution.
Perhaps the allegations that Anthony Blunt was an abuser of children in Northern Ireland and elsewhere are false.
Perhaps the reports that the Queen was informed in 1964 of Blunt's treason are also false.
Any or all of these are possible.
However the possibility exists that the Queen was told in 1964 of Blunt's child abuse and chose to stay silent.
What are the effects of the Queen's silence on Blunt's child abuse?
Would child abuse in the UK have come to an abrupt halt in 1964 or soon after? Or at least been hugely reduced because it was no longer under protection from on high?
Would children abused in the UK in the 1960s, 1970s, 1980s and beyond have been spared the destructive effects on their life of abuse in childhood?
Questions of that nature must be asked by the Child Abuse Inquiry, in my view.
Why was Blunt, so it seems, untouchable?
Was it "merely" to conceal his treachery and spare the blushes of Britain's intelligence services?
Was it because Blunt was a relative, albeit a distant one, of the Queen?
Was it because Blunt knew about the Nazi sympathies of the Duke of Windsor? He, it seems, went to Germany in 1945 to retrieve papers on the matter and was made KCVO, an honour then in the personal gift of King George VI.
Was it because Lord Mountbatten was a fellow abuser of children in Northern Ireland?
In my view the Child Abuse Inquiry must grasp the nettle of these questions.
Some of the reports may, on full investigation, prove to be untrue. For example the allegations that Blunt and Lord Mountbatten were paedophiles may be untrue.
Some aspects of the swirling allegations may prove to be worryingly close to the truth.
The citizens of the United Kingdom and the Commonwealth should, in my view, know whether for some 50 years the Queen has been a patron and protector of paedophiles.
I believe the Queen must make a full disclosure to the Child Abuse Inquiry of Palace papers dating back at least to 1964 and must also give evidence to the Child Abuse Inquiry about these hugely important questions.