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.

So agree with both those posts. It's the whole circus of the thing that gets me. I want pared down, slimmed down, less of all the wider family. I do not want to know about them. I will put up with C&C as they are the Monarchs, but I wish all the rest including W&K, their kids, Edward, Anne etc just slipped into obscurity. An impossible wish of course because the media just spoon feeds us endless royal crap on and on. It is infuriating. And nothing will change. I honestly think that they are now quite simply getting on peoples nerves a bit now.

I mean even yesterday you couldn't get away from Kate's blue peplum outfit, it was ridiculous! And oooh Camilla's hat nearly blew away! Is this what we've been reduced to?

As for my idea on the Nobel Laureate idea... of course I do not have a maiden speech prepared to present to the Royalists on here!
Yes there would be problems with where they lived, yes there would be problems with terms of office, but it was an idea to prove we do have good people in the UK and there are other options than those that continually throw in Boris Johnson as a way of shutting down conversation for an alternative to the RF. To ask me for the finer detail on it is ridiculous, it ain't happening, we're stuck with the bloated RF for a long time yet, so do excuse me if I haven't crossed the 'T's' and dotted the 'I's'

As an Irish person , I find your your recent parade of British Prime ministers far more embarrassing.

Here you go, @BadgerB - the more it's looked into the more invidious it gets:

ukconstitutionallaw.org/2013/01/26/tom-adams-royal-consent-and-hidden-power/

And here's a list (you need to click "see more") of the actual examples:

www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/feb/08/royals-vetted-more-than-1000-laws-via-queens-consent

Puzzledandpissedoff · Today 08:52
ukconstitutionallaw.org/2013/01/26/tom-adams-royal-consent-and-hidden-power/
And here's a list (you need to click "see more") of the actual examples:
www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/feb/08/royals-vetted-more-than-1000-laws-via-queens-consent

Thanks for that. But it seems to me that its the spinelessness of our democratically elected Govts. which allows the monarch to get away with it. Would they perform any better against an elected HOS - especially if s/he was one of their own?

Even Tom Adams say, "it is a power only in the symbolic sense: assent has not been refused since the reign of Queen Anne"

But it's cheaper than going to court in the US, paying two teams of lawyers over there and over here,

He (or rather his Mummy) had already spent huge sums on top lawyers including a £1k an hour extradition expert. He retains a legal team to this day. Cost saving wasn't and isn't an issue. He paid to make it all go away before the Jubilee.

He would have been forced into court if VG hadn't taken the money.

No-one can be forced into court in a civil case, least of all one taking place outside the UK.

Even Tom Adams say, "it is a power only in the symbolic sense: assent has not been refused since the reign of Queen Anne"

I know, BadgerB, but I was talking about consent rather than assent - hence the article which helps to explain the difference

Definitely agree there's a potential for the same shabby deals with a HoS though; however the whole point is that an elected one could be got rid of should the public wish, which is also the answer to those who insist "We could get a Trump/Boris/(insert bogeyman of choice)"

Yes 'king's' consent is a huge issue and not the dusty relic royalists try to pretend it is ( if they are even aware of it )

I'd like to see Charlie try to refuse assent but like Elizabeth and alll the rest he's busy making sure his personal interests are protected - that is why royal consent is so offensive
He can and does pick and choose which law of the land he doesn't like the look of and exempts the royals from it
The freedom of information act being a key one
How unsurprising

So the monarch is useless as any sort of 'defender' of political freedom - as Boris's proroguing of parliament showed .
But they are very busy interfering in laws to suit themselves and themselves only
That is one reason of many why this whole feudal nonsense needs reformed urgently

amp.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/feb/08/royals-vetted-more-than-1000-laws-via-queens-consent

He had a legal team both in NY and over here, costing literally thousands a day. It was reported that this cost him (or should I say... someone, maybe Mama?) a massive amount of money because he hired the very best. Bloomberg estimated it at between $200,000 and $300,000 a month.

Of course he’d hire the best. He’d hardly hire the worst or someone mediocre!

I often had to represent clients here, who had cases in another jurisdiction who also had representation there.

Yes the Royal family took a leaf out of politicians book and look after themselves.

Yes of course he would. But the cost will have been eye watering. And the fact he needed them in the first place is all of his own doing... his arrogance and belief he would do exactly what he wanted.

(He was advised time and time again to drop JE. He ignored that. He was advised not to stay with him in NY but to stay at the Consulate. He ignored that. Even the Queen criticised the friendship before it blew up! So he was very lucky to have Mama or whoever to fund these astronomical legal bills for his very own wrongdoing)

No-one can be forced into court in a civil case, least of all one taking place outside the UK.

No, but if you don’t show up and defend yourself then judgment will be entered against you in absentia. Then the UK and US have arrangements allowing for reciprocal enforcement of judgments, so Virginia Giuffre could have come over to the UK with her New York court judgement and enforced it against him here. Not defending himself (when he had the financial means to do so) was not a realistic option.

Novella4 · Today 10:40
So the monarch is useless as any sort of 'defender' of political freedom - as Boris's proroguing of parliament showed .

But surely the monarch couldn't refuse the P.M. proroguing parliament? It was a legal decision (and I seem to remember a hard-fought one) The Queen was not a lawyer, nor should she have been able to refuse assent to a Bill her P.M. put in front of her. That really would have been out of order.

Not defending himself (when he had the financial means to do so) was not a realistic option.

His very best option would have been never to have allowed himself to be placed in a position where his alleged conduct made 'defending himself' necessary.

Obviously a bit of stretch for a morally challenged, entitled oaf who's always done as he pleased though.

His very best option would have been never to have allowed himself to be placed in a position where his alleged conduct made 'defending himself' necessary.

Anbsolutely! But I generally find advice that requires people to go back in time is not particularly practical. Once you are in the situation, you just have to deal with it.

Once you are in the situation, you just have to deal with it.

Not like there weren't clues to Epstein's nature before the eventual allegations though.

Sleazy topless yacht parties might have been a pointer.