Prince Andrew BACK in the royal fold

[tatalan]

How do you feel about this development?

He thinks of the public as idiots.

And the ‘in a manner unbecoming..,’ bullshit was also insulting

Me too.

I hope the analysis is that the Epstein scandal was one of the major turning points in the public's perception of the monarchy leading to its eventual abolition.I have wondered for a while what the TV programmes (or equivalent) will say about him in 100 years time.

Followed by a repris of scandals involving our popular elected presidents since then? The cost of regular elections to replace them. And a sentimental look-back to the days when our Head of State was received with cheering, flag-waving crowds, in foreign capitals?

At least we wouldn't have to wonder whether we were paying security for the Head of States pension aged unemployed brother and why he lives in a Palace and was allowed to evade questioning by the FBI!
In any case, I doubt we'll ever get rid of them. The only hope is that they are reduced in size of personnel, with the corresponding reduction in houses, staff and costs to the level of most other Heads of State of Democratic countries.

I hope the analysis is that the Epstein scandal was one of the major turning points in the public's perception of the monarchy leading to its eventual abolition.

Personally, I don't think it will.

I think Andrew is all but irrelevant now, to the general public at least. He is the most unpopular Royal by far. His unpopularity and actions do not appear to have impacted the perception of the RF, who are still viewed very positively since the Queens death. PA has been unpopular for a long time now, since his Airmiles Andy days, he just slumped lower down in most peoples opinion of him.

When the whole Epstein scandal is eventually and, hopefully, exposed. I think PA will be such small fry, in comparison to others involved, his relaltionship with Epstein will probably barely register.

I think it would take a huge scandal involving other much more senior members of the RF, for it to be a turning point leading to a possible demise of the monarchy.

Andrew is not irrelevant and never will be
The ‘royals’ of course don’t give a damn that Andrew associated with pedophiles - Look at Mountbatten and Charles’ friends

Windsors abuse the tax payer financially and have no problem with the kings brother abusing trafficked teenagers.

The Windsors are kept in place by the tabloids and propaganda

@BadgerB

I’m not sure what point you are trying to make- are you inventing ‘scandals’ associated with imaginary presidents?

You really don’t need to try to invent scandals- are you aware that Charlie Windsor made off with bags of cash and there was no case to answer?
Andrew paying off his accuser and hiding from the FBI?
Any thoughts on those REAL scandals ?
No? Thought not

And those are the ones we know about !

Novella4 · Today 16:04
@BadgerB
I’m not sure what point you are trying to make- are you inventing ‘scandals’ associated with imaginary presidents?

Yes, just that.

You are aware that "power corrupts"? And the Windsors have very little? But maybe the President's second cousin once committed a crime - and even after that the President gave him a lift... Shocking

Well the Monarch has to provide Royal Assent for every law passed, and if it doesn't suit them they lobby to change it.

They have power when they want it. But when it comes to something like illegal prorogation of Parliament, they don't say a word. And accept it.

So yes. Power to suit themselves.

@BadgerB

You are now IMAGINING a pretend president ??
Tell me are clutching at straws without telling me ….
For anyone who hasn’t heard this 100 times ( and you BadgerB):

-an elected head of state can have very proscribed powers . And they would be clearly delineated . The Windsors have no mandate and yet interfere in each and every law to exclude themselves as and when it suits them . They also are above the law . That is fine according to royalists .

Power to suit themselves.

^This

You are now IMAGINING a pretend president ??
Tell me are clutching at straws without telling me

^^And this

The breadth and scale of the scandals the Windsors have embroiled themselves just in the last five years is breath-taking and that's the ones we know about.

Charles' crisis management team are reported to have war-gamed responses to the top hundred allegations they thought Harold might make in his NF documentary.

That's just 100...

Royal Family's 'detailed game plan' ready for Sussex allegations in new bombshell series | Royal | News | Express.co.uk

Novella4 · Yesterday 17:45
@BadgerB
You are now IMAGINING a pretend president ??
Tell me are clutching at straws without telling me ….
For anyone who hasn’t heard this 100 times ( and you BadgerB):

-an elected head of state can have very proscribed powers . And they would be clearly delineated . The Windsors have no mandate and yet interfere in each and every law to exclude themselves as and when it suits them . They also are above the law . That is fine according to royalists .

Is it "clutching at straws" to imagine a future President might be corrupt?

The monarch also has very proscribed powers - if they are exceeded it is up to Parliament to put him in his place. Has been done in the past.

And don't call me a Royalist - I'm a Parliamentarian. We vote for them: many are definitely corrupt. And we vote for them again.

@CathyorClaire I am sure you would be familiar with Tony Benn's 5 questions for those who hold power, but I think they apply to the royal family more than anyone:
what power have you got?
where did you get it from?
in whose interests do you exercise it?
to whom are you accountable?
and how can we get rid of you?

If the answer to the final question cannot be answered, we do not live in a democracy. For me, these questions highlight why I do not support the monarchy. Enormous power, so great you can exempt your family from laws everyone else is subject to, the monarch themselves being unable to commit crimes as they cease to be crimes if committed by you! Power you did not work for but merely inherited by being born, exercised in your own interests always, accountable to nobody and unable to be removed!

@BadgerB

sorry to break it to you but if you support the status quo re the Windsors - you are not a parliamentarian .
The Windsors are above the law . Police , soldiers etc all must swear allegiance to the Windsors NOT the people .
You are flailing re the power of the Windsors . Can you explain how and why Elizabeth and Charles Windsor personally exempted themselves from laws and how that fits with your view that Windsors are not above the law ans are subject to parliament ?

The one time in recent years when Elizabeth could have used these amorphous powers - she did absolutely nothing.
But my god she was tireless when it came to own pocket and her own benefit. Once she got the civil lost removed the wealth of the Windsors has ballooned .
Any thoughts on the secrecy re excluding themselves from laws and not paying tax ?
If it wasn’t for the Guardian most people wouldn’t be aware that that’s what the Windsors do .

I agree that part of the problem with the Monarchy is that their limited powers are meant to be held to account by Parliament the courts and a free press. They are not. If I was an unelected leader of a country, and I could get out of something I didn't want to do (adhere to race equality legislation for example, or hide my tax affairs) I would be tempted to do so. Especially as it is almost a certainty that I would get away with it. It is up to others to make sure that I know the boundaries. But instead Parliament waves through exemptions, the courts allow them to get away with extremely complex tax dodges and the press forelock tugs and engages in whataboutery about Meghan and Harry in exchange for an invite to a cocktail party at Kensington Palace.

Novella4 · Today 10:37
If it wasn’t for the Guardian most people wouldn’t be aware that that’s what the Windsors do .

So, we are to believe Newspaper A which tells us the bad things the monarch does.
We are NOT to believe Newspaper B which tells us bad things about those members of the RF we like?

Because that's all tabloid lies.

"Power corrupts" If we are incapable of electing a House of Commons which is honest , why would a President be any better?

One party is powerful and holds sway over politicians, the courts, and the media. They are the family providing us with Heads of State, whoever they are and whoever they turn out to be for the foreseeable future. The other members of the RF ( I presume you mean Meghan and Harry) have no such power. Harry is 6th in line to the throne, and will only get further away. If he does a dodgy deal with Netflix, then Netflix have wasted their money. Nothing to do with us. They are not equivalences. Added to that they are convenient distractions when the papers need a Royal gossip story which keeps them away from the main players

What a great post. I'm just amazed that people can't see through them. I know without a shadow of doubt we are stuck with them, but surely we can question and look for change?

We are stuck. The Tories did a great disservice back in 1993 when funding became the SG and will always go up, not down.

This article should be read by everyone who thinks there is nothing wrong. As it says QEII's reign typified 'entrenched secrecy' which has given rise to a culture in which the British people are deprived of the most basic information about the monarchy. How in god's name can anyone think this is Ok???

This is a long article but please read it everyone. There are literally hundreds of unanswered questions. It makes me sick. It's not a coincidence that Charles is now a double billionaire, they are very good at hiding their wealth. Thank goodness we have the Guardian plugging away with investigative journalism and BadgerB this is not 'tablolid journalism'. Some of what has been uncovered has taken years and years, court cases, challenges to FOI. It's hardly making up crap about Meghan having no friends or whatever.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/apr/05/how-the-british-royal-family-hides-its-wealth-from-public-scrutiny

Absolutely this! And is another reason why the honours system is so questionable … not for scout leaders or lolly pop men perhaps … but when it comes to anonymous civil servants and those in government who can grease the palms of those in positions of power.

And the RF must abide by the law of the land. For example, why is everyone else’s will open to inspection by the general public and theirs are not? What are they hiding?

I’m a Republican but if we are to have a royal family then all of information about their finances and assets must be totally transparent and above board. It’s outrageous that it’s not!

I’m a Republican but if we are to have a royal family then all of information about their finances and assets must be totally transparent and above board. It’s outrageous that it’s not!

It never will be whilst they exist. That article I linked spells it out. It really is absolutely awful that they are exempt from laws we the people abide by. The secrecy is off the scale.

And all the obsequiousness and applause when they do something completely hypocritical. The Queen being held up as a shining g example to the world when she said at Cop22 that people are ' saying but not doing' on climate change, instead of the press pointing out that her son and grandson especially are ' saying but not doing' when it comes to helicopter flights, private jets and several near empty homes, and she was ' saying but not doing' even it comes to abiding by environmental legislation, and ' saying but not doing' by visiting hospitals while avoiding tax that could have been used to fund said hospitals. No one laughs at William when he proclaims that he is going to ' end the conflict in the Middle East and end homelessness and save the environment all at the same time. They all clap and nod and talk about Kate playing with her own children shows she is the perfect mother and a shining example to all mothers the world over because she shuts up and toes the line.

Thank goodness we have the Guardian plugging away with investigative journalism and BadgerB this is not 'tablolid journalism'. Some of what has been uncovered has taken years and years, court cases, challenges to FOI. It's hardly making up crap about Meghan having no friends or whatever.

Journalists, to earn their status, dig out, stretch, even invent, the type of story their proprietors wish to push.
Do you really think those who work for the The Guardian above all this?

No one laughs at William when he proclaims that he is going to ' end the conflict in the Middle East and end homelessness and save the environment all at the same time.

He's not stupid enough to "proclaim" any such things! He has said those are areas he intends to work on/take an interest in/lend his support to.
You've been reading those wicked tabloids!

If you were to read the series of articles and see what lengths they have gone to, to find out information, you might feel differently.
It's hardly Dan Wootton

I doubt you've read one article in the series they painstakingly produced.

Well I for one am very glad that The Guardian is asking these questions! So much of the British press is geared to the establishment and to the right. There are very few voices speaking up from the other side, and it’s my view that we all lose out when there isn’t a free, balanced press.

Well I for one am very glad that The Guardian is asking these questions!

So am I. At one point or another, all the articles have been linked on threads on here. Trouble is true Royalists don't want to know, they don't want their fairytale tarnished, so it's doubtful they will read anything like that.