To think the royal family are being tacticle...

[Olivegreenstrawberries]

By talking about the environment to try and get us to forget about the racist allegations. I'd even go as far to say that what the queen said was all staged to make it more of a headline.

To think that the royal family is not racist is so redickulous...they are more than racist, they think their blood line nevermind race is worthy of all their wealth and luxuries over other people.

You forgot to include Camilla's very own blackamoor statue at Ray Mill, Mariel ... an interesting choice for someone who apparently aspires to be Queen Consort

Gosh I'd no idea that existed, isn't it charming

That's new to me as well, Puzzled. A bit of family one-upmanship by Camilla maybe, as Princess Michael of Kent only has the brooch. Obviously as PC's wife she needs to make more of a statement about the family philosophy.

God they are vile.

Even my royalist loving friend recently surprised me by remarking on how you can see everything they remark on and every idea ‘they’ have is scheduled to be released as news or allowed to be overheard, at just the right time on just the right day.

Good for your friend .
She has an open mind . Once you see the strings they pull you don’t stop .

@MargaretFaffter

You’re probably right. I saw my neighbour putting out the recycling last night and I thought to myself “that’s just to distract from the fact that he’s a white supremacist, probably”.

Op, Yeah ....no.

@Stopandthinknow

prh47bridge Before you exhaust yourself further in your defence of the royals , could you comment on the fact that the queen lobbied to have her land in Scotland excluded from Green legislation ?

I'm not defending them, simply pointing out that the opinion polls suggest you are wrong.

I do wish journalists would consult lawyers before writing about the law. This story re Scottish green legislation originated in the Guardian who have persistently misunderstood the law when pursuing these stories about Queen's Consent.

The general principle in UK law is that it is not possible to compulsorily purchase Crown land - that includes the Crown Estates (which belong to us) and the Queen's private estates. If you believe the press, the amendment to the Heat Networks (Scotland) Act prevented Crown land being purchased compulsorily for heat networks without the consent of the Queen. However, the reality is that, without this amendment, it would not have been possible to compulsorily purchase Crown land at all - legislation does not bind the Crown unless it specifically states to the contrary. The amendment enables compulsory purchase with the Queen's consent, echoing enabling provisions in the Highways Act 1980 and the Coastal Protection Act 1949.

Whether the Queen's private estates should be exempt from compulsory purchase is certainly debatable (to say the least - I can't think of a good reason to keep this). It is also debatable whether the Queen should retain an effective veto on compulsory purchase in those situations where it is allowed (see my comment in the last sentence!). However, given that, far from lobbying to have her land excluded, the amendment suggests she actually lobbied for it to be included, I think that is a good thing even if it doesn't go far enough.

@Puzzledandpissedoff

You forgot to include Camilla's very own blackamoor statue at Ray Mill, Mariel ... an interesting choice for someone who apparently aspires to be Queen Consort

Damn. That's horrible!

@prh47bridge so your argument is that journalists on the Guardian the Independent, the Scotsman and the BBC ( that was just a quick google ) have all got it wrong? But you haven’t …

I completely agree with @Olivegreenstrawberries . The royal family (with the exception of Charles) have never demonstrated much interest in the environment.

And Prince William said the royal family was not racist after his own sister in law provided examples of the racism she’d experienced.

People who say racism doesn’t exist are racist.

However, given that, far from lobbying to have her land excluded, the amendment suggests she actually lobbied for it to be included, I think that is a good thing even if it doesn't go far enough.

That's the whole point. It will never go far enough. Q is a control freak who'll go as far as to humiliate her eldest son by remaining in charge until maybe he dies first. When the rest of Europe's ageing monarchs at least have the grace to step aside.

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-58005875.amp
Whatever your views on Royals green washing , clearly they are above the law which applies to the rest of us plebs.
And that’s just how royalists like it

@RhiWrites

I completely agree with *@Olivegreenstrawberries* . The royal family (with the exception of Charles) have never demonstrated much interest in the environment.

And Prince William said the royal family was not racist after his own sister in law provided examples of the racism she’d experienced.

People who say racism doesn’t exist are racist.

To be fair Prince William did make a point of saying they are ‘very much not’ in reply to that question. Rightly or wrongly I thought for someone who makes a living from public speaking he worded his reply well.

;

But the timing of it.

Ummm cop26.

When the rest of Europe's ageing monarchs at least have the grace to step aside.

She’s allowed him to live as normal a life as possible and doesn’t want to lumber him with being king and all that entails.

She can’t step aside as she is like the Pope.

[quote Stopandthinknow]@prh47bridge so your argument is that journalists on the Guardian the Independent, the Scotsman and the BBC ( that was just a quick google ) have all got it wrong? But you haven’t …[/quote]
The other news organisations simply copied the Guardian. The Guardian's articles on Queen's Consent have been littered with legal errors, frequently making claims that are the opposite of the truth.

If you look at where I post on Mumsnet you may understand why I think I know a lot more about the law than journalists.

If you want another source, you could do worse than take a look at assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/964686/CPO_guidance_-_with_2019_update.pdf and read section 20. Paragraph 261 correctly states, "As a general rule, Crown land cannot be compulsorily acquired, as legislation does not bind the Crown unless it states to the contrary".

Prior to this amendment, there was nothing in the bill that applied the compulsory purchase powers to the Queen's private estates. The amendment was worded negatively ("The Scottish Ministers must not authorise under subsection (1) any acquisition in relation to land which belongs to Her Majesty in right of Her private estates unless the appropriate authority consents to the acquisition.") so is easy to misunderstand if you don't know how the law works in relation to the Queen's private estates, but without this clause it would not have been possible for the Scottish Ministers to authorise any compulsory purchase at all. Now this clause has been inserted, it is possible for them to do so under some conditions.

For clarity, I do not support Queen's Consent. It is an anachronism, and I don't see any good reason to keep it.

On your last paragraph we can agree

The journos are mostly hopeless on the law, agreed

It’s true that the guardian has been running a long standing investigation regarding the queens consent and the ‘vetting ‘ of laws before taken before parliament .
I’m glad to see this .
amp.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/feb/08/royals-vetted-more-than-1000-laws-via-queens-consent

I don't believe all I read in the Guardian by any means. But with all their mistakes, they are at least drawing attention to things that have to change, because a society built on this much hypocrisy and inequality is very weak. I don't care whichever law from whichever century says what can or can't be done with the Crown Estates. Our laws are there for 65 million people, not just for some random parasitic foreign dynasty that's dug its claws in and won't let go.

Laws must be fluid, they must evolve, they are there to be amended and campaigned against, not blindly obeyed and certainly not rubber-stamped or vetoed on the whim of somebody we did not vote for and whose actions we are not allowed to scrutinise or object to.

The UK is a sham democracy and the Windsors are a big, big part of the problem.

Well said

@ChurchofLatterDayPaints

I don't believe all I read in the Guardian by any means. But with all their mistakes, they are at least drawing attention to things that have to change, because a society built on this much hypocrisy and inequality is very weak. I don't care whichever law from whichever century says what can or can't be done with the Crown Estates. Our laws are there for 65 million people, not just for some random parasitic foreign dynasty that's dug its claws in and won't let go.

Laws must be fluid, they must evolve, they are there to be amended and campaigned against, not blindly obeyed and certainly not rubber-stamped or vetoed on the whim of somebody we did not vote for and whose actions we are not allowed to scrutinise or object to.

The UK is a sham democracy and the Windsors are a big, big part of the problem.

100% agree with this.