Goodbye Monarchy, as is

[Poopoolittlerabbit]

that’s it really. I’m not fussed about the ‘king’ -
happy to downgrade the entire system.
the jewels, the palaces, the changing of the guard belong to the country, and/or people … if Charles buggers off we keep all the tourist attractions, and all that people say makes the royal family worth while ££
now the Queen has gone, the ‘firm’ needs to go
done with them. AIBU?

Democracy is a necessary evil. If we have to have a government, run by politicians, it's the least worst way of selecting the people involved. But politicians are by definition, not good people. And if we can have a head of state that is not a politician, nor selected by politicians, that can only be a good thing.

But politicians are by definition, not good people completely disagree with this sweeping statement. Many are good people, many try to make positive change. We have three big problems in our system - FPTP gives entrenched majorities in some seats meaning complacency, FPTP gives too much power to party structures, appointment of unelected Lords is institutionalised corruption. But it is wrong to write off all politicians.

Time we had meaningful constitutional change in the UK.

‘Democracy is a necessary evil’

wow, that’s some statement. Given the alternatives.

I want to keep the monarchy, though would like to see some reform. Taking any theoretical political role for example, so that the House of Commons would vote in and out a Prime Minister.

Good news for all your Royal fans, Prince Andrew ( he’s the one who had sex with children that his good mate, convicted Paedophile Epstein, grimes and acquired for his and then was protected from the law by his family and mother. The Queen)
is reporting looking for a come back into public life.

Shall we stick to the facts? He didn’t have sex with children. He’s alleged to have had sex with a trafficked woman, that’s quite bad enough without embroidering it. And far from there being any possibility of a come back, steps are being taken to sideline him through an amendment to the Counsellors of State Bill this week. There’s no way he’s going to re-enter public life.

Well, she wasn't a child but she wasn't an adult either

Anyone thinking that Prince Andrew spent all that time with Epstein but was guilty of just one crime against a trafficked 17 year old should probably give their head a good wobble.

British law defines the age of consent as 16, the alleged offense took place in
London. The latest events the other side of the pond are interesting

Ms Giuffre sued Mr Dershowitz in 2019, where she alleged that he defamed her when he denied claims that she had been trafficked to the attorney by Jeffrey Epstein between 2000 and 2002.

However, on Tuesday, she agreed to drop the allegations and went on to admit that she “may have made a mistake” when she also accused him of sexual abuse.

Where have you seen that?
I have only read the exact opposite. Charles seems to come down very hard on the side of him not being a public representative for the royal family.

@Blossomtoes it doesn’t change the fact anyone 17 and under is considered to still be a child for all safeguarding.
it’s not like in schools our 17 year olds are considered adults so we don’t pay any attention to their home life, their safety, their physical and mental well being, or would be - oh it’s fine if she’s groomed and trafficked for sex with grown men, one of whom is a Prince, she is over 16 after all…

but if you feel the need to defend a sex offender in the name of protecting a British institution- you go for it.
not sure he needs it, though, he does have the might and money of the royal family behind him.

A question I asked before but did not see an answer to:

Some people on here say they love the Royal Family.

What do you mean by that? What is it about them that you love?

Maybe we should go back to the good old days of Henry VIII and have a Monarch as absolute Head of State with final say over everything?

You would allow courts in your system with a jury system, where people were allowed to vote on whether someone was guility?

The continuity. The long-term thinking. Politicians only care about the next 5 years.

Having a politician as head of state would be a really bad idea.

For all those going on about Prince Andrew, what about all the politicians that have done similar things and actually far worse things?

I don't hate all politicians but they are a necessary evil. The nature of the job attracts the very worst people in society.

And if we can have a head of state that is not a politician, nor selected by politicians, that can only be a good thing

It would not matter if they were a politician if the role was not political. Which requires a carefully written constitution with checks and balances and a clear role for the Head of State. So it would not matter if they were 'left' or 'right' leaning as their position would not be political.

And there could be ways of removing them from office if they went 'political' in their role.

‘Some people on here say they love the Royal Family.

What do you mean by that? What is it about them that you love?’

I’m interested in that too….

If it could be proven that she was paid or renumerated in some way or had reason to believe she was trafficked then he committed an offence. He repeatedly visits Epstein properties which have young girls "on tap" and visits Epstein after he has been prosecuted for child sex offences and is photographed cautiously looking out of the door into the street.

There is a prima facie case to answer and in normal circumstances, we would expect him to be interviewed under caution. Indeed the UK can prosecute for child sex offences committed abroad. There are very good reasons why the late Queen spent a small fortune in trying to shield him from the force of law and continuing reasons why the monarchy won't allow his rehabilitation. But as yet justice has not been seen to be done both from the UK and US ends. Indeed the opposite has happened but this is one stink that just won't go away.

Although the age of consent is 16 throughout the United Kingdom, it is illegal to buy sex from a person under 18 where the perpetrator does not reasonably believe they are 18 or over.[5] In England and Wales, it is an offence to pay for sex with a sex worker who has been "subjected to force", constituting a strict liability offence - wherein the client of a sex worker can be prosecuted for the offence, even in the absence of fault or criminal intent to force a sex worker to provide sexual services for them.

YABU and obviously don’t understand the Monarchy.

YANBU. But mumsnet is a bit rabid when it comes to defending the monarchy for whatever reason. Certainly where I live in North Scotland, I know of only two people who support it. Both English if that is relevant.

There are plenty of people alive now who are responsible for keeping stolen riches & other items from the days of colonisation.

but if you feel the need to defend a sex offender in the name of protecting a British institution- you go for it.

I’m not defending him. I’m presenting you with facts. Inconvenient, aren’t they?

I completely agree with you @vera99. The trafficking is the issue, not age.

It’s right there with the ‘she looked older ‘ argument… Prince Andrew’s belongs behind bars and if he didn’t have the word ‘Prince’ before his first name, there’s a really good chance he would be in prison.

The Queen paid huge amounts of money to attempt for a legal problem to go away from her son. Weinstein and Epstein did the same with their NDAs and payoffs. Let that sink in for a moment.

Our country's foundations are built on democracy, justice and the rule of law if the Royal Family can't grasp the importance of that to our unwritten constitution then they better begin packing their bags.