Prince Andrew Thread 3

[Roussette]

Here is the previous thread...

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/the_royal_family/4443261-Prince-Andrew-Thread-2?watched=1&msgid=114083283#114083283

@Skiptheheartsandflowers

Under what circumstances have Counsellors of State had to take action in the past? Has it ever actually happened? And what have they had to do?

The nearest equivalent I can think of is when a prime minister has surgery under general anaesthetic and technically their deputy is in charge for a day. More seriously, Raab was technically running the country (shudder) for longer when Johnson was in hospital with Covid. I can't see that anyone stepping in for the Queen would need to do anything comparable. In short, the fuss over who they are seems fairly pointless. But I'm open to correction if there are dramatic interventions in history that I don't know about..

If the monarch is ill or absent from the UK, they attend Privy Council meetings (the Privy Council has very little power these days), sign routine documents and receive the credentials of new ambassadors. They cannot, by law, award honours. They also can't deal with a number of the Queen's constitutional functions such as appointing a Prime Minister. They cannot dissolve parliament except on the express instructions of the Queen. This did happen in February 1974 when the Prime Minister (Edward Heath) wanted to call an election, but the Queen was in New Zealand at the time.

Counsellors of State have only existed since 1911. As far as I am aware, there have been no dramatic interventions (unless you count dissolving parliament in 1974).

I know the Queen has a reputation of making decisions that are good for the country at the cost of her own family

An undeserved reputation.

Her reputation is based on nothing except fabrication. She makes decisions to preserve her family's status, for the benefit of that family and her enormous horseracing stable, yacht, mansions, train, offshore investments, duchies, art collection [extend list ad infinitum]. She has passed on that flair for self-interested decision making to her kids and grandkids.

Can one of the queen's fangirls on here please explain how and why the queen makes decisions for the benefit of her subjects? Please. Genuine question. My faith in human nature is at stake here.

My faith in human nature is at stake here

Lol. I worry about your hope for this!

Lol. I worry about your hope for this!

Don't worry Rousette. I may have just temporarily killed the thread while the monarchists seek justification for their idols' vile existence, fail completely, and resort to 1950s cliches and personal insults.

Monarchy's finished guys. You worship asset strippers now. Deal with it.

It would be very sad indeed if one sleezy twat brought down a monarchy that can be traced back 1,000 years.

Okay, I don't idolise the RF, I love the history and the uniqueness of being one of the last working Monarchies.

They're mainly for show at this point but it's cool to me as a history buff, like living History and let's not forget that while nothing and no one is perfect they do in fact raise a lot of money and awareness for good causes.

Just one sleazy twat that we know of.

Sadder still that we'll have to sit around watching the royal boil being lanced and finally drained. As will have to happen.

Isn't sleazy twatness a trait of the royal family going back centuries?

Isn't sleazy twatness a trait of the royal family going back centuries?

Yes. Far easier to prove with 21st-century tech, though.

Yeah, compared to some of our past Royals, the current lot are saints tbh.

Sleezy twatness is more to do with arrogant rich men in general I think.

I don't know, I'm not sure that this is the end for them, I think there's a lot to be admired about HMTQ, and I expect to feel sad when she's no longer with us, I think they're kind of stagnating right now. The queen is of a very different generation and younger people can't relate so well to her.

The sad thing is that Charles isn't much better, although to be fair he was the OG eco warrior, way before it became a thing.

Wills and Kate are already 40, but they're certainly more representative of the population than the other two.

I really don't want to lose the institution of Monarchy, I'm not overly fussed who the figure head is (not Andrew though, sleezy twat that he is).

They're mainly for show at this point

They happily redirect the plebs to the circuses laid on in their name but at the taxpayer's expense while busily lobbying behind the scenes in their own interests. Just this summer the queen got the tax bill on shooting at Balmoral reduced to below the level paid by local pubs and restaurants.

they do in fact raise a lot of money and awareness for good causes

Royal patronage has been shown to have little or no effect on charitable income. A stunning 74% of charities with a royal patron report not seeing them darken the door in the previous year and that's despite the yawning gaps in the royals' oh so busy schedule evidenced in the Court Circular:

www.charitytimes.com/ct/Royal-patronage-fails-to-boost-charities-income-report-finds.php

Now tell me they raise billions in tourist income

Williams charity raised millions last year alone. In fact if you combine the income of all the Royal charities (the ones they run themselves, Prince's trust, etc ) the income is more than they receive from the state.

No need to be a arse about it Cathy, just having a conversation.

If a royal figurehead makes no difference, why are charties so very, very keen to have them?

There will however be fewer which do, as the number of working royals is slimmed down

Awareness!

Charities raise money so they can help people, you have to know you can get help, so even if a Royal association doesn't boost donations it definitely boosts the profile of the charity and people's awareness of the issue.

Oh, yes. I will link this report again on these threads.

giving-evidence.com/2020/07/16/royal-findings/

Before it's dismissed out of hand, bear in mind , bear in mind they involved themselves in a database with 3 million entries.;

I have read it before and I don't know of any reason why I shouldn't believe it, but that's patronages and the awareness of having a Royal figurehead is more than about raising money, awareness is very important to charities.

But their own charitable entities raise more money per year than they receive from the government. That in itself is enough to justify their existence IMHO.

@RoseAndRose

If a royal figurehead makes no difference, why are charties so very, very keen to have them?

There will however be fewer which do, as the number of working royals is slimmed down

Because people do things they think will make a difference, even when the evidence is either not there, or does not back it up.

There's no evidence that it doesn't help, a mental health charity gets more attention so more people know they can get help.

It's not rocket science.

It's like people forget that the primary purpose of charity is to help people, yes they need to raise money to do so, but that is not it's sole function.

@amusedtodeath1

It's like people forget that the primary purpose of charity is to help people, yes they need to raise money to do so, but that is not it's sole function.

Bless you. I'm sick of the negativity on here. It's utterly depressing

You too derxa, I know how you feel, remember Mumsnet isn't real life, thank god.

It's utterly depressing what hoops the RF have jumped through to protect one of their own. It's a modern day problem with an archaic institution that needs changing.