The Royals are on the Brink of Collapse - SHOCKING REPORT !

[vera99]

As the late Queen said 'apres moi le deluge' and here we are 3 weeks away from a coronation in which only 9% of the population are highly interested.

Change the law so they are treated the same as everyone else, but that also includes permitting them to maximise commercial opportunities and the legal tax efficiencies everyone else can use.

That's a risk I'm happy to take. It will show which of them is for the common good and which just want to maximise their ex-royalty status won't it? And if they are public citizens, like us, why shouldn't they be able to operate tax efficiency? At least they'd be paying all the taxes we pay.

@Foreversearch
I think we are on the same page !

All equal under the law

As if they don't already use tax loopholes!!

I also want Andrew treated like everyone else under the law.

Yep

They would all bugger off abroad to exploit their Royal status and make money. No chance the younger ones would stay in Britain anyway. Charles and Camilla might stay, they are probably too old to want to emigrate now.

Our local Lidl is pushing the boat out with Chinese made Coronation tat.😁

.

Can't post that photo from my phone.

They would all bugger off abroad to exploit their Royal status and make money

😂😂
What, you mean they would 'do a Harry'?

No. They would do a Peter Phillips.

@AskMeMore legal tax efficiency is used by significant numbers of people not just the RF. There is a difference in the way the RF are currently taxed and I am happy for that to be brought into line but as I keep saying they can then fully utilise the legal tax efficiency rules open to all of us.

No issue about Andrew being treated the same as everyone under the law, but that includes the rights we all have such as innocent until proven guilty, a fair trial and not trial by media.

Is there much difference?

Yes Harry has made money through talking about his experiences and the impact of the media.
Peter makes his money by using his status as a member of the Royal Family to promote a companies milk.
Kate could help advertise luxury learning toys for under fives. William could help promote electric cars.

On Andrew, that would be irrelevant because it's all happened and Mum paid out for him.

@Roussette a legally compliant settlement agreement frequently used in private prosecutions, Employment Tribunals etc. Look at the settlement Fox News have just had to pay.

Not sure what your point is? I know it was an agreement between them.

Good job Mum helped him out. Apparently funds were taken from the Duchy of Lancaster. I imagine she paid the massive legal fees too.

you are still missing my point, that this is about what happens if you abolish the monarchy. The RF become members of the public just like you and I, and in that situation, we cannot legitimately apply standards that are not also applied to us.

I haven't missed anything.

You are starting from a hypothetical standpoint and then arguing for the obvious.

@Roussette I said I had no issue Andrew being treated the same as everyone under the law.

You responded that was irrelevant because, despite there being no trial, you know it all happened and Mummy paid out.

My response was that a settlement agreement is treating Andrew the same under the law. Many other people use the same legal option with Mummy or Daddy paying out. As far as I am aware there has only been a private prosecution and a settlement agreement is not an unusual outcome.

With regard to a criminal prosecution, in the UK the CPS decide on whether or not to prosecute a case, this is done on the basis of evidence. I can only assume that there was insufficient evidence to proceed. The US justice system I am less clear on but again if there is evidence then he should be prosecuted.

Kangaroo courts in the press and on social media are not currently lawful means of determining guilt.

Honestly I know all this. I am not sure what point you are making. The case is over. It was a civil case. VG was paid out. Funds from the Queen. Innocent until proven guilty etc.

I did not say 'I know it all happened', not sure what you are implying there. All I know is... he/the queen paid out. It's history. The civil case has happened.

Your last sentence is patronising. Of course kangaroo courts and social mediaa don't determine guilt. Odd thing to say.

@Roussette just because they settled the private prosecution doesn’t mean there can’t still be a criminal case. That is why I believe saying the law should apply to Andrew is still relevant because if more evidence comes to light it’s still a possibility he will be prosecuted.

I apologise and with draw the kangaroo court comment. I have been on other threads where Andrew is called an untrue name suggesting he is guilty of things for which there is no evidence. your post triggered me. Sorry.

No problem, @Foreversearch
I think we are on the same page. I don't agree with the P word at all. There may be a lot wrong with him (indeed ythere is!), but he has not been convicted of anything remotely like that. As you say there can still be a criminal case, I doubt it will happen though.

He has paid a hefty price for his arrogance, stupidity and entitlement.

@Roussette agreed

@Foreversearch
The issue re Andrew is not as cut and dried as you imply

He swore on camera that he would help the FBI in any way he could
We are still waiting

The queen , disgracefully in my opinion , made sure she was photographed with him by her side
when US courts were attempting subpoenas

We also have this :

www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/cps-cash-honours-scandal-king-charles-b2228880.html?amp

Don't tell me - the 'royals' are just too honourable and hence get into these messes .
That's the line isn't it ?

@Novella4 try re-reading my posts - I have said I believe the case may still go to criminal court.

Please point out where I have stated or indicated “the royals are too honourable …”.

What I have said is “go ahead have the bun fight. It’s laughable you think they wouldn’t have the best advice on investments, yes they can go wrong but it’s highly unlikely they would mess up spectacularly.”

Not messing up investments is not in any way stating they are too honourable etc.

I have enough empathy for a 90+ year old mother to understand why she may have believed what her son told her and to want to publicly support him. She isn’t the first and won’t be the last.

@Foreversearch

I wasn't quoting you - I was quoting Andrew
I thought it was well known .

Did you watch Andrew's car crash interview on the BBC?

The 'too honourable ' was a quote from that .
Andrew claimed he was 'too honourable ' to cut Epstein off once Epsteins crimes were known
And as such had to go and stay with Epstein in Epstein's house in New York to explain that Andrew was too honourable to just cut him to his face .

That was the honourable thing you see