Anti Monarchy Protects

[JuliesBicycle]

The anti-monarchy protests seem to be increasing. They are appearing regularly at events Charles attends. This one happened only yesterday.

twitter.com/i/status/1635304322052534274

The protests are still too small to make any major difference, but they are slowly growing. And importantly Elizabeth did not face these types of protests. I wonder if they will continue to grow.

@MarshaMelrose Charles is King. A suitable comparison is the CEO of the electricity company.

So over a long reign the Queen got eggs thrown at her a few times. Whereas Charles is averaging every few months.

Your dad might be the CEO. Would that be OK, then? Is it OK to throw things at people if you don't like them?

I love watching the shameless goalposts moving that you get here. It never happened! Yes, it did. Well then, it wasn’t as bad for the Queen as Charles… etc etc. 🤣🤣

If Charles faces a proper investigation into his million in cash in suitcases, he is no longer exempt from hundreds of laws, we get a proper public record of wills and inheritance tax is paid, and all the other indefensible privileges are abolished - then I might see it just as a personal attack.
As it is Charles like Andrew is above the law. So people will vent their frustration in the only ways to left them.

@Serenster Can I have an apology for the lie you told about me?
I said when did the Queen have eggs thrown at her. Zero moving of the goalposts. But lots of lying - and not from me.

If Charles faces a proper investigation into his million in cash in suitcases

it’s not against any law to receive donations to a charity in the form of cash rather than by bank transfer. What that kind of transaction does do however is oblige to recipient to satisfy itself that there is no reason to believe the transaction is money laundering. In other words, do they know who the donor is, and that the donation isn’t the proceeds of crime. Once the organisation has done that due diligence (and in this case they did) them there is nothing to investigate.

No, because you started off by saying there were never protests against the Queen. Quite aside from the multiple times she’s had eggs thrown at her, there have also been protests at her various events over the years. Before she was Queen, even.

I'm a republican, yet I'm also fairly patriotic. But I'm patriotic despite the royals, not because of them. Frankly, they embarrass me. I'm dreading the coronation. The sight of Charles (who I like btw) sitting in that ridiculous gold carriage with those prats dressed like characters out of a Disney cartoon. Oh, god, it's SO humiliating.

However, I'm proud to be from the island that produced Chaucer, Shakespeare, Milton, Blake, Defoe, Jane Austen, Keats, Wordsworth, Byron, Shelley, Coleridge, Dickens, the Brontes, George Eliot, Ruskin, Pater, Browning, Tennyson, H. G. Wells, George Orwell, Tolkien, Thomas Hardy, Virginia Woolf, not to mention Charles Darwin, Isaac Newton, David Hume, Adam Smith, John Locke. This was the island in which DNA was discovered, where the atom was first understood, where modern liberal democracy was born. Those are the things we should be proud of – our writers and scientists and philosophers. Not an ignorant, vulgar little oaf like Prince Harry. It often takes an outsider like Bill Bryson to point this out.

Andrew isn't above the law. He's been investigated by the FBI that have all the statements from the various accusers. They have chosen not to prosecute him. As they have prosecuted over the accusations, it points to the conclusion that they don't have a case against him. Time will tell.
VG did take a lawsuit against him but that was not a criminal case. However, it does show he is subject to laws.

Apart from your first issue, everything in that list is legal. Fight to change the law, don't chuck stuff at people. As for him accepting a donation in cash, I agre that it was an ill-considered thing to do. But no one is suggesting that Charles kept any money for himself. The police have done an investigation into the cash for honours and they have sent a partial case to the CPS. The investigation has not yet been concluded.

If I went to a royal event and protestors were getting my way, I might get frustrated. You're saying it would be ok to chuck food at them. Fortunately, I don't believe assaulting people is the answer to frustration.

It's odd isn't it... you couldn't turn up at your bank with carrier bags full of cash to pay in, without questions asked, I think it's an absolute maximum of £10,000 without it being reported and investigated. If I tried to do that and said it was from a Qatari Sheikh, I'd probably get arrested!

Yet Charles can take a total £2.5million in carrier bags (on three seperate occasions) and it's not money laundering?

Harold Wilson had absolutely loads thrown at him at one stage on the 1970s - 14 or so in a couple of weeks. He probably holds the record.

maybe he was out and about more with less organised security. If C&C had the same level of protection they would probably get more.

Given the choice ,I would prefer to have a random King or Queen as head of state over Rishi, Keir or whichever lib dem is leader. I don't mind Charles and Camilla but I think the whole institution needs to get with the 21st century. I think all royals need to lead a more humble and normal life. Get rid of as many titles as possible (it is weird that Prince Harry can't bear the royal life but still want his kids to use their titles - very strange as if I were him I would want to leave it all behind) and let them have fewer staff etc.. and houses and get rid of all the curtseying nonsense.

Of course you’d get asked questions Roussette, but if you had credible answers to them then they would accept it from you too. The questions are the due diligence.

Agreed.
And Andrew refused to be interviewed by the US. They asked the UK government to intervene and they refused.
Of course they are above the law. Do not treat us like idiots.

If you can prove where the money came from and it wasn't laundered, why would you be arrested? A relative of mine has been requested by their bank to fill out forms, giving information on a large sum that's been deposited in their bank. Obviously it's about money laundering. They've not been arrested. They just have to prove it's legitimate.
Charles and/or his charity will have done the same.

The organised Republic protests had yellow placards saying "Not my King". And then there was one white placard which read, "Slavery; Empire; Bloodline". What was that about? Slavery & Empire are past history - Bloodline??

The UK government doesn’t need to assist US law enforcement agencies because they already have Mutual Assistance in place with UK law enforcement agencies. They are well-used on both sides. If the FBI had wanted Andrew to be interviewed in the UK that could have been easily arranged. They could have flown agents over to attend as well (the agents can’t wear their guns though - from experience I know they don’t like that!). But they didn’t.

The late Queen Elizabeth was the best argument for a hereditary monarchy.

The current King Charles is the best argument against.

You don't have to curtsey or bow. No one has to curtsey or bow. It's not expected. It's up to the individual. So that's one thing they've already done on your list.
Charles let a load of staff go after the Queen died. Another thing off your list.
King or republic, the royal palaces are never going to go. They make money and they're used for governmental purposes and offices.

Cash in that sort of amount has to be laundering surely. I bet Charles wouldn't be asked the same sort of questions that I would.

Why cash? Why after the first carrier bag was he not told 'this is not a good idea'.

It was only after it became public that it was three bags of cash, that he's now been told don't do that again.

Charles had meetings with this Sheikh who had plans to modernise Chelsea Barracks, something Charles was dead against. They discussed it many a time, then lo and behold, bags of cash and no going ahead with the £3billion development. Funny that...

There is an awful lot of derision being applied to an elected Head of State. That must be from looking at the abysmal politicians out there at present, and no one is denying that.

However..... as in other civilised countries who have a titular HOS, the UK could ensure that the incumbent has no political power and must keep his/her trap shut in relation to controversial or political events. The only function would be to cut ribbons, wear nice clothes, speak proper, and give a good impression of the country s/he represents. That AND scrutiny of legislation before it is passed, any doubts, off it goes to the courts to decide.

Many people think that the only HOS available to UK in the event of a Republic is someone who actually has political power like POTUS and to a lesser extent Prez of France. Not true at all, look at Ireland for example and although Higgins is a motormouth he has no power to change anything.

Cash in that sort of amount has to be laundering surely.

Why though?

And how do you recycle “dirty” money to get in back in your hands as “clean” money by giving it away as a charitable donation? the whole point of laundering money is that you get it back.

Cash for favours. Cash for honours. And we all know about the latter.

That’s a bribe you’re alleging there, though. Not money laundering. Completely different.

(They will have gone through all their anti- bribery checks though too)