Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Child-safe in minutes.

Meet the Other Phone.
Child-safe in minutes.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

To think the royal family are a bloody embarrassment

999 replies

MariaAngustias · 12/09/2021 09:53

Just that - why are we paying for this bunch when we could be spending the money on essential services? Let the Queen continue then after her just get rid of the whole bloody lot of them. We have and alleged paedo, a whinging multi millionaire in his 30's moaning constantly, an allegedly corrupt heir to the throne meeting dodgy russians for money....... just go, enough. Seriously - this is all Jeremy Kyle for poshos.

OP posts:
ponyexpress22 · 15/09/2021 11:33

I think it's this arrogance that they truly are superior to the rest of us and the huge sense of entitlement that they deserve all the castles and palaces that we bestow on them, that grates.

But their PR is good. They know how to present them to ensure continued adulation. It's all an illusion, once people see that they really are no better than the rest of us then it's game over

Puzzledandpissedoff · 15/09/2021 12:19

He's still got a bust of Van der Post in the garden at Highgrove and it's cheerfully pointed out to visitors!

Dear god I didn't know that Hmm

Why not an entire new sculpture garden - someone else paying for it of course - with a whole rogue's gallery of them??

TatianaBis · 15/09/2021 22:26

Looks like Andy hasn’t avoided being served.

BigGreen · 16/09/2021 08:57

I was so glad to see that @TatianaBis. Let the truth come out in court.

OhGiveUp · 16/09/2021 15:55

I could be wrong, but I thought he could claim queen's indemnity so he couldn't be made to go to any court or give evidence whilst ever he's in the Queen's company, hence he's been living where she's been living?

prh47bridge · 16/09/2021 16:46

@OhGiveUp

I could be wrong, but I thought he could claim queen's indemnity so he couldn't be made to go to any court or give evidence whilst ever he's in the Queen's company, hence he's been living where she's been living?
You are referring to sovereign immunity. It is not possible to take either criminal or civil action against the Queen under UK law, but that does not extend to any other member of the Royal Family. It is true that they cannot be arrested in the Queen's presence or in the grounds of a Royal palace. However, that isn't relevant. This is a civil matter, not a criminal one, so no-one is talking about arresting him. Also, the case is being heard in the US so UK law is largely irrelevant. Its only real relevance is that one of Giuffre's claims was that he had sex with her in the UK when she was underage. I don't know if she has dropped that claim but, on her own evidence, she was over the age of consent in the UK at the time, so that allegation doesn't fly. He, of course, denies having sex with her at all, in the UK or anywhere else.
ponyexpress22 · 16/09/2021 16:52

Isn't it outrageous that the queen can't be held to account for any crime she might commit. Unbelievable when you think about it.

Jaysmith71 · 16/09/2021 17:24

The monarch can be tried by a special court established by Parliament.

There is no evidence or suggestion that Andrew has committed any criminal offence in any jurisdiction. The plaintiff alleges she was trafficked to the UK and the BVI, which would be a crime, but not on Andrew's part.

prh47bridge · 16/09/2021 17:52

@ponyexpress22

Isn't it outrageous that the queen can't be held to account for any crime she might commit. Unbelievable when you think about it.
This is the norm for heads of state around the world. The vast majority cannot be prosecuted for a criminal offence while in office. Indeed, diplomatic immunity means they cannot be prosecuted anywhere in the world.
TheKeatingFive · 16/09/2021 18:13

The plaintiff alleges she was trafficked to the UK and the BVI, which would be a crime, but not on Andrew's part.

Having sex with a trafficked woman is rape. Because there is no meaningful consent.

Jaysmith71 · 16/09/2021 18:28

Not before 2003. As I stated previously, under the 1967 Act Giuffre would be considered a prostitute.

Jaysmith71 · 16/09/2021 18:38

Also under the 67 act, a husband could not be guilty of raping his wife, and a boy under 14 could never be guilty of rape.

Blossomtoes · 16/09/2021 18:41

@ponyexpress22

Isn't it outrageous that the queen can't be held to account for any crime she might commit. Unbelievable when you think about it.
All criminal trials are Regina versus Accused. How can she be both the prosecutor and prosecuted simultaneously?
TheKeatingFive · 16/09/2021 18:58

Not before 2003. As I stated previously, under the 1967 Act Giuffre would be considered a prostitute.

Ah, just when I need more proof of how disgusting the world is. 🙄

Anyway, I’m sure her legal team have more in their hand to play. Andrew’s clearly spooked given his panicked response to the papers.

She’s already destroyed him anyway (with plenty of help from the man himself). He can’t recover from this, best he can hope for is to skulk pathetically in mummy’s castles for the rest of his life.

prh47bridge · 16/09/2021 19:03

@Jaysmith71

Not before 2003. As I stated previously, under the 1967 Act Giuffre would be considered a prostitute.
This isn't quite right. The 1967 Act concerned homosexual offences. The main legislation on sexual offences at the time of the alleged encounters was the Sexual Offences Act 1956, although that had been modified a number of times. By 2000, a man could be convicted of raping his wife (that changed in 1992) and a boy under 14 could be found guilty of rape (1993).

Having sex with a trafficked woman is rape. Because there is no meaningful consent.

Even under current legislation, having sex with a trafficked woman is not automatically rape. In that situation, it is assumed that the complainant did not consent and that the accused did not reasonably believe she consented, but these assumptions can be rebutted if there is sufficient evidence. As Jaysmith71 says, at the time of the alleged encounter, it would definitely not have been rape.

Puzzledandpissedoff · 16/09/2021 19:05

Best he can hope for is to skulk pathetically in mummy’s castles for the rest of his life

But soon enough they'll be his elder brother's castles, and it really will be interesting to see how welcome he seems

As said elsewhere Charles is in no position to start acting as some sort of moral arbiter, and there's also the thorny issue of what Andrew may know about him, but it's still going to be worth watching

MsFogi · 16/09/2021 19:07

@LizzieSiddal

I think we’re all watching the beginning of the end of the monarchy. The fact Andrew can dodge legal papers by hiding behind tax funded security is the end of any respect I have for any of them.
Hear hear!
TheKeatingFive · 16/09/2021 19:10

But soon enough they'll be his elder brother's castles, and it really will be interesting to see how welcome he seems

Hmm quite

Blossomtoes · 16/09/2021 19:11

Anne Sacoolas killed someone and has hidden behind diplomatic immunity for a very long time. We don’t seem to care about that though.

TheKeatingFive · 16/09/2021 19:16

Anne Sacoolas killed someone and has hidden behind diplomatic immunity for a very long time. We don’t seem to care about that though.

I don’t think that’s okay either, but nice bit of whataboutery.

It doesn’t make any difference whatsoever to how our prince of the realms actions should be judged.

ponyexpress22 · 16/09/2021 19:41

you think about it.

All criminal trials are Regina versus Accused. How can she be both the prosecutor and prosecuted simultaneously?

Yes I know that. My point was how outrageous it is. Another reason why we shouldn't have a monarchy.

StoneofDestiny · 16/09/2021 19:50

And now Philips will is to be kept secret 'to preserve the dignity of the Queen'.
You couldn't make it up.
Another law for them that is not available to us.

prh47bridge · 16/09/2021 19:59

@StoneofDestiny

And now Philips will is to be kept secret 'to preserve the dignity of the Queen'. You couldn't make it up. Another law for them that is not available to us.
Wrong. This law is available to all of us. The beneficiaries of a will or the executor can apply to have it sealed, which is what has happened here. Admittedly, most of us would fail with an application but, under some circumstances, an application would succeed. An example would be if the deceased is famous but that is not the only situation where it would be allowed.
mathanxiety · 16/09/2021 20:02

YANBU, but the royal family has always been like that.

StoneofDestiny · 16/09/2021 20:10

prh47Bridge

Thank you - I stand corrected. I doubt an average citizen would succeed. I guess he's left money to his mistress or just left so much money overall the Queen could be embarrassed. What else could offend her dignity?

Swipe left for the next trending thread