A genuine question for royalists.

I know .
Sometimes I think individuals are are new to questioning the propaganda and are just repeating what they’ve absorbed via the media -
’they bring in money ‘
’trump ! ( entirely different system )
’they work hard’
etc -
it’s hard to tell if they genuinely believe these things or know it’s bullshit but hope someone else will believe it .

Tiring though

In theory you can, but it's harder to do that when most of them are out of touch as there often isn't anyone else you can vote for. Having a working class MP who is 200 miles away is no good if all your local ones are privately educated.

@LoopedLooped

I’m sure this back and forth is as tiresome for you as it is for me .

What that statement ‘ no public money has been used’ means is the Windsors didn’t hand the bill to Parliament

Where do you think Elizabeth Windsor got her so called ‘private money’ money from ?
From us

She was said to have paid off her son’s accuser with Duchy money .

Furthermore did you also miss the Duchy scandal with William and Charles charging the NHS , charities , schools , life boat charities rent ? They call that money their ‘private money’ too . So private it is in fact that we do not know if William even pays a penny of tax on it . He tells us he does but he has refused to to make his accounts public ( Charles did to some extent ). We know that they don’t pay Capital gains tax or corporation tax - because they don’t want to .

Public / private money smokescreen .
I hope MPs finally listen to the public and debate this medieval rip off properly now .

Okay, opinion acknowledged. 'You do you' is a polite way of telling someone to f off where I'm from.

First of all, monarchs aren't voted in. They appear organically, either by blood (inherited) or by sword (a King is killed and replaced).

If you don't like living under a constitutional monarch and prefer not being a subject of a King or Queen, feel free to go and settle in France, Nepal (who recently overthrew their government and voted in an interim President via Discord), America (that's too complex to unpack here, but you get the idea.)

Anyway, I will bid you a good day and I shall step over.

You could say the same with plenty of politicians too. Plenty of them have no experience of poverty, NHS, public transport, non private schools, etc.

You and I have witnessed politics and history directly and up close. What do you think he's witnessed that makes him better qualified than us? Has he experienced poverty up close? Has he experienced employment difficulties up close? What's his experience of public transport or the NHS or COVID furlough or the poll tax riots?

What does "legally politically neutral" mean, to you? He's no more neutral than any of us.

You or I or anyone could be given access to confidential state papers. That's nothing to do with him.

Institutional continuity is only a benefit if it leads to good outcomes.

IDK - a King Ralph style freak accident that only Andrew survives because he is barred from royal events making him king would be pretty standard post-2016 fare

"No public money has been used to pay legal or settlement fees".

The Sovereign Grant is audited rigourously. It wasn't used for the settlement.

The crown estate legally belongs to the monarch. It's plain fact.

Only the monarch is legally immune. The other royals are not immune. They've received traffic offenses and Anne was convicted under the dangerous dogs act.

I think what Andrew is accused of is disgusting and vile. Ultimately any decision to prosecute would be up to the US DOJ (I think) , given the island is a US island.

If something happened to William and family and Harry refuses ( quite likely ) Andrew would be king

I don’t see your point .
His material position has not changed was my point .

If somehow Andrew ever became first in the line of succession, I think that there would be bigger issues happening in the country than him becoming king.

One last nugget from VG’s book which some may find relevant

In 2011 when Andrew was asking officers to dig up dirt he also wanted to set up paid trolls to blacken Virginia Guiffre’s name on online forums
So the royals were thinking along those lines nearly 15 years ago

@LoopedLooped

Re your link .

I suspect you are new to defending the Windsors online . The whole point of that link was to prove once again that there is no transparency. The second sentence states that they have no information to offer to answer your question

Public and private are deliberately mixed and misused by the Windsors to hide their wealth and to avoid taxes

All the queen had was taken from us. It’s all public money no matter how they dress it up
And no they do not own the crown estate - that’s ours too

@LoopedLooped

No it is not ‘bog standard ‘ to deny something.

That applies to individuals who are subject to the law before they stand trial.

The Windsors are not subject to the law. And that statement in 2019 was a disgraceful misuse of power and privilege. How dare they issue a statement rubbishing VG especially as they had known about the issue for years before 2019

years before Andrew had somehow obtained Virginia Guiffres’ national insurance number and emailed the queens office to inform them that he had asked his tax payer paid for protection officer to dig up dirt on Virginia .

I’m sure policeman would have refused to do this.

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/62277be18fa8f526d2688da2/FOI2022-03452_-_for_disclosure_log_publication_on_8_Mar_2022.pdf

Here are some cold hard facts. The taxpayer didn't fund it.

I admit my mistake on the 2019 statement, pretty bog standard to deny something. Now Charles is doing the right thing and kicking Andrew to the curb.

@LoopedLooped

The King won't 'live long'.

@LoopedLooped

The King won't 'live long'.

@FuckRealityBringMeABook

And Andrew is STILL in his place in the line of succession!

So all the moving him off to a different mansion and removing ‘prince’ has done the square root of nothing

So what happens when you get someone eminently unsuitable like Andrew as your king?

I'm not a royalist as such , but I'm OK with the King as head of state. I come from a country with an elected president, and I don't think in my lifetime there was anyone elected for more than one mandate, or who hasn't had a whiff of scandal and corruption attached to them. And when they are shown up as idiots on the world scene, that reflects badly on the people who elected them. Compared to that, a king provides continuity, no allegiance to a political party, no incentive to grab as much as they can before they are voted off, and no real power. To me, it works.

@LoopedLooped

Oh and FYI the Windsors are not subject to FOI requests - they made sure of that - so I don’t know what you think you were looking at

@LoopedLooped

You didn’t search very well then did you ?

After Andrew’s BBC lie fest Buckingham Palace issued a statement saying that the allegations against Andrew were ‘ "false and without any foundation’
The date was Nov 2019

On what did the Windsors base this blanket statement that the allegations were ‘false’?

Now Charles has acknowledged the allegations are true - after a decade of protecting Andrew .

The Windsors had known about Andrew and Epstein for at least a decade at this point . But they thought - get the official lines to issue a statement and see if that shuts plebs up.

It didn’t obviously .
The latest wheeze of paying Andrew off will also not work

It is not like Charles and co are Britain's best and brightest. I reckon me and my family (decades of public service between us) would do a better job. And a lot cheaper, too. I'd only ask for 10 castles. You can sell off the others and use the money for hospitals.