The important point here is whether or not the "legal threats" were directed to the board of the LAA or the LAA in general?
Where only the board are cited, then it is a matter for them; but if the association is in the firing line, then I would suggest that all "shareholders" in the LAA are entitled, and indeed compelled by law, to be made aware of the specifics.
I foresee this dragging on for another year, and some member raising a motion, ten months from now, to suggest that the LAA distance the membership and association, from TC-T, Prince Michael of Kent and anyone on the board or committee within the LAA who still supports her case. I say this on the basis of the obvious deceit, dishonest statements and thoroughly objectionable behaviour involved. I speak not of what she has been alleged by others to have done, but the actions claimed in statements that she has made in public.
Do the general membership feel comfortable having as their Patron, a man who so obviously approves of what TC-T has done?
I am sure that a suitable untainted figure, if a Patron is in fact desired by the membership, could be found. I freely admit that I remain somewhat in the dark regarding the benefits & role of a Patron, in current times.
Taking a cue from TC-T and wanting to dispel the notion of the LAA being old men in blazers, perhaps we should ask Simon Cowell to take on the roll, as he is clearly a modern man with much public influence, and certainly has a lot more money than Prince Michael of Kent. There is also the benefit that he would appear likely to be immune to the rather dubious "charms" of TC-T.