To think it's time the Queen passed the throne to Charles?

[CatherineOfAragonsPrayerBook]

Given recent events concerning Prince Andrew, and the ensuing scandal, is it time for Charles to take over as King now? The Queen has been dedicated all her life to her civil duties, and continues to perform them well, but as she and the DOE are getting older, it appears her/their ability to control situations with some of the other members of the royal family is waning.

It could be argued that both Harry and Meghan and now Prince Andrew seem to be ignoring advice, unwisely sharing their grievances with the media and striking out on their own with the inevitable backlash (I am referring to interviews, not libel actions). Anecdotally, more and more people are saying it's time to get rid of the royal institution.

If Charles were to become King, it is probable that he would streamline the RF to just William and his heirs and make some needed adjustments, such a move might renew interest in the RF, increase their popularity and ensure their continuance as Charles is more in touch with the mood of the nation.

Also just read this provocative Daily Mail article,

Headline: 'The Queen 'backs' Prince Andrew and 'believes him 100 per cent'

www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-7698021/Queen-goes-horse-ride-Windsor-Castle-grounds-days-Prince-Andrews-car-crash-interview.html

Do think something has to change.

Oooh, can I 'step down' from my job and still get paid, please?

Pathetic.

Andrew is "stepping down" from public life. Couldn't happen to a nicer guy

Mor arrogance! The public are kicking him out as a liability - universities, business links and charities. What the hell do they mean by making it look like his decision and then Queen gave her permission'.
Geez - no end to the audacity of these spivs.

End the monarchy forever!

All the businesses are pulling out from PA, he’ll be living on a lot less than he has been used to. I think he may disappear for a couple of years.

Andrew only get £250,000 a year from the Queen. But he's amassed a multi-million pound fortune through "working". He used his position to gain rich contacts and then helped those contacts to gain business deals by email on their behalf, and signing his emails as "The Duke". He received a small percentage from every deal he helped close, and those deals were for hundreds of millions of pounds. And he did it all while being a full time trade ambassador for Britain. And no one stopped him.

He's got millions. Even if he loses his £250,000 from the Queen, he will be fine.

What an utter
Y vomit inducing man he is. Galls me to think he has lived off my flipping taxes and no doubt will continue to do so!
Bet second daughter doesn't get her 'big royal expensive taxpayer funded wedding' now.
He is reaping what he has sown - unfortunately so are taxpayers.

So he's now saying he regrets his 'friendship' with Epstein and expreses concern for the victims. Perhaps if he'd said that on Saturday night, he wouldn't have needed to 'resign'. Much too little, much too late.

Andrew only get £250,000 a year from the Queen

Well, poor old him! Even on Mumsnet, which is notorious for threads starting 'I earn £100k and I'm struggling' I have never heard of anyone who couldn't lead a perfectly comfortable life on £250k per annum, which he won't even have to work for because he is 'stepping down'.

Tip of the iceberg IMO regarding many of the Firm.

@KittenLedWeaning

You kinda missed my point. People are moaning that he will still receive money from the sovereign grant to live his high flying life. I was explaining that he is a multi-millionaire because he had a little side business going whilst he was meant to be working for the country. People should be angry about that. The £250K is really quite paltry in the grand scheme of things. I'm more angry that he could use his position as a Duke to make shady deals with characters more questionable than Epstein.

Lulualla Oh, yes, I'm angry about that too. My point is that if he's no longer performing Royal duties, he shouldn't be receiving anything from the state.

But he's amassed a multi-million pound fortune through "working". He used his position to gain rich contacts and then helped those contacts to gain business deals by email on their behalf, and signing his emails as "The Duke". He received a small percentage from every deal he helped close, and those deals were for hundreds of millions of pounds. And he did it all while being a full time trade ambassador for Britain. And no one stopped him.

I have some admiration for this. A sort of 'I'll be damned if I'm third in line and have to live like a pauper' mentality.

However, where have the newspapers been until now? Not reporting much. For some reason they've been given the signal that he's fair game to an extent. Still not all has been revealed.

I have some admiration for this. A sort of 'I'll be damned if I'm third in line and have to live like a pauper' mentality.

You have admiration for a high-level public servant (because that is what the 'royals' are) using his taxpayer subsidised office to cream off cash to supplment his already lavish, unearned lifestyle?

Isn't that what's normally called 'corruption'? Don't people go to gaol for it?

However, where have the newspapers been until now? Not reporting much.

In fairness, they've reported the unfolding Epstein scandal every step of the way. It's just that as there weren't that many developments regarding Andrew, there really wasn't that much to report. Until now.

Well it is all a handy diversion from the impending Election which may bring us to Brexit Hell. But that hell will never affect the Firm or people in their milieu either. So obvious.

So the proletariat is being fired up with anger in order to divert attention away from a generational long disaster that awaits around the corner.

Happy Days.

It is Iced true. But I think I admire that sort of craftiness. Sometimes wonder if too much ethics is what keeps me poor. It's not like a lot of MPs don't do similar after all. Offering consultation to companies for hundreds or even thousands of pounds an hour, or using their networking to line up high paying senior roles if they leave. No politician is in it for the pay they receive. It's also the generous perks.

Nothing pays as well for a future cushy life as time in politics. Look at Blair. And I learned that Nick Clegg is working for Facebook, for doubtless a pay packet that would make anyone happy.

If you watch this then it will give you more insight to Andrew's mindset

All is still not being told though. So yes the newspapers have done good, but how much more did they know, or worse, know and are not reporting?

But I think I admire that sort of craftiness. Sometimes wonder if too much ethics is what keeps me poor. It's not like a lot of MPs don't do similar after all

So do you 'admire' them too? And at least MPs are elected and can be unelected. Royals.... not so much.

All is still not being told though

How do you know? Are you privy to some information that the press are not?

Nope I'm still focussed on the election and doing my bid to keep the Tories out.
I also want rid of the monarchy. There has to be an end to cronyism and inherited privilege.
If people work hard to accumulate a fortune and pay their taxes - fine. Fine too if they pass their hard earned cash on to their family.

If people get privilege of position, like the royals, that allows them to live off taxpayers, and live in palatial mansions and demand more taxpayer funded privilege for their offspring - that is a problem for me.

End the royal pantomime.

I saw the cringeworthy interview with the self styled IT girl, V Hervey. What a self obsessed, self indulgent, removed from reality crew they represent.

Itself time the queen passed. Period.

It's, not itself

FFS! Lady Victoria Hervey

"I saw things but I didn't see it"

followed by

"I think sex trafficking is too strong a description to use. When you think of sex trafficking you think of a 12 year old that is chained in a cage. This is not the same thing"

Well then of course you didn't see anything love, what did you think you were looking at? I'm starting to see that Epstein only had to rely on people being ignorant in order to be able to parade a stream of trafficked kids in plain sight. Just make sure you invite overly privileged, out of touch stupid people with inflated egos to dinner, and you have a perfect alibi fgs!!

Don't these people get the best education money can fucking buy?

I saw things but I didn't see it" Exactly
Andrew was all about the money. Full stop

She also said but it's not unusual to see loads of girls hanging around famous people, so maybe what she's saying is it's just so normal to see, that you don't think any of them are being abused against their will?

So maybe Andrew had the same ideas about what 'trafficking' is. It's not well fed, attractive girls with smiles on their faces and money in their pockets, it's chained up, miserable looking girls who are clearly unhappy?

She does make a case for PA's ignorance. I do think he slept with the girl, but may not have realised she was unwilling (because he's PA and loads of girls want to sleep with him)

So I'm getting the sense that Es crimes kind of relied to a degree on people not being in touch or knowing the difference between women hanging around powerful men of their own accord for the meal ticket and young girls being there under duress. Hidden in plain sight. When Andrew said he thought of them as staff, maybe that bit was true. Possibly. It's hard to imagine he didn't at least notice their ages.

Amazing how out of touch some people can be!

Epstein's house had portraits of nude young girls everywhere. Bit of a clue there.