A genuine question for royalists.

[Tutorpuzzle]

I am a republican. I believe that absolute power can only end in disaster. Trump appears to want absolute power. Boris Johnson tried it (proroguing of parliament, amongst other things.)
Please can you tell me why you think (ignoring the Windsors self-destructive present tendencies), having a head of state who is in position only by accident of birth is a good thing?

@LoopedLooped

The King won't 'live long'.

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

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.

@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

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

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.

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 .

"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.

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

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.

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.

The point being we can vote them out @Kpo58 .

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.

@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 .

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.

It doesn’t matter how much evidence you present, @Ukisgaslit , there is a certain percentage of society who would happily go to the gallows declaring the Windsors are as innocent as the driven snow.

What I’ve found interesting on this thread is the quantity of clearly well informed ‘agnostics’ regarding the present system. I suspect that if the drip, drip of scandal, corruption and greed continues (and it looks like it is) it is they who the RF need to be wary of.

No, @Kpo58 , we can vote out our politicians in practice, not just theory. Every four of five years (more frequently recently.)

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

I agree with all those, who believe that an elected head of state is not the way to go.
I think the late Queen was so good at her job precisely because she was not born into the immediate line of succession. She followed the example of her late father, who assumed the role out of a sense of duty.
Sadly the late Queen ascended the throne far earlier than she could have expected, and it was her sense of duty that made her reign so remarkable.
Unfortunately, I am not so impressed by those born into the immediate line of succession. There is a definite air of entitlement.
Not wishing ill on anyone, but I do wonder if the country might not be better off, were some terrible stroke of fate to cause the line of succession to take a side-step.

Not wishing ill on anyone, but I do wonder if the country might not be better off, were some terrible stroke of fate to cause the line of succession to take a side-step.

Guess what? It doesn't work like that. We know who the next two kings will be. You have no say and they could be the worst people in the world, worse than Andrew.

You can stand for election. You can't stand for monarch.

I'd be in favour of a system like Ireland's Presidency. And would you believe that country also has PR/SVT system which means that a gang like Reform could not be elected despite the fact that the opposition parties amongst them got more votes overall. Yes it can result in coalition governments but it is what it says on the tin - representative.

Time for a big change methinks. Although I must admit no system is perfect.

And would people please refrain from comparing a possible Presidential system to Trump/Macron. They are executive presidents with political power as we can see. A non executive constitutional president doesn't. Similar to the monarchy, exept WE decide who becomes HOS.

It's a matter of continuity and a figurehead that is apolitical that citizens can rally around. All countries have something along these lines, like Americans saluting the flag which serves as a rallying point during crisis, mourning etc., and having this mythical "Uncle Sam". The monarchy is the embodiment of the nation which carries on, and provides a sense of steadiness, no matter what the political situation is.

Sure, let’s have a child rapist for King. The bar for the Royals is so low now, I’m not sure anyone would be surprised.

I just feel at this stage that my reserves of respect for the RF is largely gone now. No matter what actions they take re Andrew, not much will change overall to any of their lifestyles including Andrew. He will be paid a sum for relinquishing RL, he will get a stipend, he will keep his security detail, and won't be in a one bedroom flat afraid to put the heating on and eating beans on toast every night, or driving a second hand Skoda (like me). Great car BTW!

You really would have to be a die hard sycophantic fan to want to see any of them performing their PR designated duties. Ugh.

That's it, no respect. I have no personal animosity and wouldn't wish any ill on any of them, but respect is earned.