Prince Andrew BACK in the royal fold

[tatalan]

How do you feel about this development?

I wonder if Republic sends e-mails to its members, with the Chuck, Willy, gurning and smirking stuff, so that the obedient subjects trot it en masse on different media.

I can assure you they don't.

Except the 'anti-monarchy' argument doesn't rest solely on that at all, and its you thats insulting actually. You're not British so it doesn't affect you. There is a very simple argument against a monarchy: its elitist, undemocratic and completely out of place in a modern society. It is also a huge problem for most republic supporters that the monarch is actually exempt from laws, the main one being of course that the monarch can't commit crimes. If they commit what is a crime by law, as soon as they do so it is not a crime. For them.

In the 1970s a Shakespearian scholar made the news one night because he had studied the Bard and decided that when Will Shakespeare used the word 'will' it could mean the female sexual parts as well as the male, so if he said something about 'your will yielding to mine' it was nudge, nudge, wink, wink, missus, aren't we naughty?
A world-weary teacher of infants once looked at a funny little drawing which a child had done on the back cover of a school exercise book. It had been brought to her attention, and she said, famously, "Ooh, they're always drawing willies on things."
When I stood outside the House of the Vettii in Pompeii, creasing with laughter, with two friends, her words came back to me.
If there were any Richards or Franceses in the current Royal Family Novella could shock us all by going on about Dicks and Fannys. Come to think of it the Duke of Gloucester is a Richard I think, and Diana was Diana Frances.

In practice though in a constitutional monarchy the monarch has no political power. I think there was a recent study which found that in practice countries which are constitutional monarchies rank higher on the democracy scale than republics. Obviously skewed by the number of republics who are headed by horrible people! Will see if I can find it.

The undemocratic argument doesn’t hold water as the monarch can only follow the instructions of the elected government. I was very shocked to see on the Republic movement’s website that they want an elected head of state precisely so they can overrule the will of the elected prime minister. Despite Boris and his shenanigans that doesn’t sound very democratic at all.

The undemocratic argument doesn’t hold water as the monarch can only follow the instructions of the elected government.

The monarch and heir can and do view and veto proposed legislation that affects their interests.

I think you are talking about Queen’s consent which is a bit different. From what Republic want, an elected head of state would be able to overturn the will of the democratically elected government and I am not sure this would be better.

I think you are talking about Queen’s consent which is a bit different.

Can you explain how?

And link to the 'Republic' content?

It would be Democratic if the Head of State was elected though! They would have more authority to act as a go between between opposing parties or a chair in disputes for example. I'm not sure what the Irish or German President does, but both those countries are stable democracies and Republics. Its possible.

Hippyhippybake · Yesterday 16:24
The Sovereign’s wealth pales into insignificance when compared to that of the large number of billionaires who are in receipt of land subsidies, forestry grants etc.

I believe much land in East Anglia is own ed by Middle Eastern billionaires. Can't give you any facts, I'm afraid, simply caught this on R4 farming programme. There were complaints about grubbing up hedgerows, and making "prairies".
They also get U.K govt subsidies - and are far richer than the RF

CathyorClaire · Yesterday 20:29
The undemocratic argument doesn’t hold water as the monarch can only follow the instructions of the elected government.

The monarch and heir can and do view and veto proposed legislation that affects their interests.

If this happens, it is the fault of the P.M. who, in such a situation, should put the Monarch firmly in his/her place.
But, like many in elected high office is probably more concerned with his/her "leaving honours".

“The hideous Andrew is not a convicted pedophile nor a sex offender - even the civil case didn’t allege either. The photo was taken on a private family trip to a church service as part of a private family holiday”

OK . I’ve quickly caught up on this thread and here we have two classic royalist attempts at defending Andrew . I don’t remember who posted it .

-So the usual defence is ‘he hasn’t been convicted’ - so all is fine then? He was a close friend of Epstein , had Epstein and Maxwell photographed on the thrones in BH and in som e private cabin in Balmoral .Both Maxwell and Epstein are convicted pedophiles and sex traffickers
If Andrew didn’t have the ‘ we had no idea they were pedophiles’ Windsor defence protecting him , he’d be facing charges too .

—Willy and Kate and all the rest of them disappear for months on end on holiday. Neither hide nor hair seen of them.They are properly ‘private ‘ for a large proportion of the year .
The car ride to the church at Balmoral ( for the 100th time !) is PUBLIC. This was a coordinated PUBLIC show of support for Andrew - they ensured he was seen and Willy had him in the front seat. This is who they are

One other illuminating detail.
When the story first broke Willys face was fully visible in the photo. He must have straight on the phone to his tabloid contacts because the photos seemed to change . Kates face now filled the photo along with Andrew ( no inching forward needed after all - silly me) . Just the slightest sliver of Willys face now seen- though he was still recognisable as you’d know that perma scowl anywhere

@BadgerB

Look up Kings consent and kings assent .

Elizabeth made sure that the Windsors were excluded from thousands of laws that are perfectly fine to apply to the rest of us .
One law ( ie no law) for them , and another for us .
All kept very much under wraps . The guardian have dedicated years to uncovering this.

The so called ‘apolitical’ monarch is anything but and their interests only cover Windsor INC .

The only explanation that makes sense to me is that Andrew is pushing back and threatening to sing .
He must have plenty on them all - but esp Charles and Willy.
Wasn’t there brief mention of a book that Andrew was thinking of writing?
That’s gone quiet and so has talk of Andrew giving up his mansion .

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/feb/09/prince-charles-vetted-laws-that-stop-his-tenants-buying-their-homes

How would it help him though? Because surely they're also covering for him? I think it would make his situation worse, like the interview, and I don't see him having that kind of power over them. I think they do what they do for their family image, not for him personally, necessarily.

@Iwantcakeeveryday
But how does cosying up to Andrew help their image ?
We’ve seen the backlash - I even looked at the comments in the Daily Mail and the majority we’re very negative .

I just can’t understand what they are thinking. It was deliberate and planned .

Maybe because of what Fergie has been going through they thought it would not get this reaction? Maybe they expected a bit. but that others would think it was a positive.

@Louloulouenna but it’s a completely pointless piece of research that proves nothing. The fact that some “republics” are nothing but tinpot dictators doesn’t mean a reformed constitutional republic in this country would be based on that - in fact it’s incredibly clear it wouldn’t be like that at all! The Irish model is the one I’d go for. So no need for the research.

@BadgerB why does the fact that there are families richer than the RF make the existence of the RF ok? 🤷‍♀️

DivingForLove · Today 13:02
@BadgerB why does the fact that there are families richer than the RF make the existence of the RF ok? 🤷‍♀️

How rich the RF are has no bearing on whether they are, or are not, a "good thing".
A previous poster, forget who, had said that they should not take the subsidies the U.K government gives to land-owners in some circumstances.
My query was, why is it, seemingly, OK to pay large wads of cash to land-owners even wealthier than the RF, and sometimes not even U.K. residents, and exclude the RF. even when they qualify for the hand-out under the same rules.

It also seems a bit odd to me that most, not all, Republicans, dislike the RF BECAUSE they are rich. Envy is not a good look

That’s a total misrepresentation @BadgerB

Republican objections are to the ‘royals’ greedily hoovering up of public money , their interference In democracy to further their own interests , their corruption ( esp links to pedophiles).

To say the main objection is to their wealth is ridiculous .
If so where are the threads attacking other rich families ?

Republicans object to ‘royals’ avoiding paying their tax ans also to the huge financial burden they place on the tax payer .

I’m afraid your assertion is merely a weak attempt to bat away the serious allegations that just keep piling up

Novella4 · Today 13:27
royals’ greedily hoovering up of public money
huge financial burden they place on the tax payer .
a weak attempt to bat away the serious allegations that just keep piling up

and to quote myself here-
BadgerB · Today 13:21
most, not all, Republicans, dislike the RF BECAUSE they are rich. Envy is not a good look

It's easy to "pile up" allegations, and throw in Andrew as make-weight, naturally.

I stick by my assertion.