Andrew, his £3M per year Security and Priti Patel

[Roussette]

Well I never.

Andrew is at it again.

He lost his security last year. He enlisted the help of Priti Patel to have it reinstated. She lobbied Charles's Private Security to this purpose, and someone has leaked that.

He never gives up does he....

This. Also they all know that cutting Andrew out - say by removing his titles - shows people that actually they can be removed. Not just retired to the side.

Charles was hated by large swathes of the public when Diana died. He knows that any of them could be in the position of "he/she should be removed and X in their place instead".

No matter how bad anyone gets they're never going to show that removing titles and places in succession can be done, because they might be next!

You appear to be muddling up Serenster and I. I haven't posted anything about the committees...

So I picked up from @Roussette kindly copying the telegraph article, Priti Patel did this recently? In what capacity? Makes no sense for her specifically to ask about it now.

No matter how bad anyone gets they're never going to show that removing titles and places in succession can be done, because they might be next!

Yes and it also makes a mockery of the whole thing because its just meant to be something you're born into, not something you can choose. Otherwise the whole thing makes no sense.

It's a very bizarre thing to voice an opinion on.

So far none of the reports seem to have an accurate date of when she sent the email. I think that would be an interesting thing to know - was she still in government at the time or is a random recent musing on her part?

Also why send it to someone who has no power to change anything? Surely if it was a 'lobbying the committee' she would have sent it to multiple people?

It's very odd.

Exactly. And once people start questioning it too much then it's the end of the monarchy for all of them.

They'll all be aware of how destabilising the abdication was (the Queen Mother will have made sure of that!) and they've seen countless monarchies fall over the years.

The may make silly decisions sometimes, but they're not completely stupid.

The abdication is always brought up in regards to how terrible abdication is, and the reason why The Late Queen didn't abdicate, but how much of that was, yet again, blaming a woman ( Wallis Simpson, American divorcee) for the massive shortcomings of a Blood Royal? If not for Wallis Simpson, we would have had a Nazi sympathiser on the Throne during WWII. It seems a mighty coincidence that he had to abdicate for love. I agree they are not stupid. They will do whatever it takes to keep the Windsors going. The RF must have known about Edward VIII

oh ok maybe I misread, I thought this was recent. If done when she was home secretary it would make more sense.

I thought this was more recent too
She is a backbencher, and a Dame now.

Was this done whilst she was HS? If so, even worse, surely...
Wouldn't that be using her position to lobby for a member of the royal family?

I think the abdication shook things because the whole foundation of the monarchy is birth order and only a tragic death should interfere with it.,, It was one of the first "wait a minute, it can be changed if necessary..." moments.

It's what has planted the comments of "Well the Queen should abdicate..." "Charles should abdicate his place to William" in people's minds as if the abdication had never happened it just wouldn't be thought of so easily. Rather than the cause of the abdication being part of that (I hope that makes sense in what I mean!)

Tbh I think if he was still on the throne and there was that much concern about him then he'd have met a tragic fate in an accident... I don't think it's remotely beyond a wartime government to have done that.

I don't know. None of the reports I've read have given any timing of the email. Just the leak of it.

I'm not surprised Andrew is getting anyone who will listen to lobby on his behalf. It's pretty much a given.

I'm more intrigued about Patel's motives for getting involved. It seems so random.

I can't decide if I think it would be better or worse if it was when she was HS.

In some ways I think it would be better because as HS she was at least in charge of overseeing law enforcement, national security and the security services. So if she was going to be the one who ultimately carried the can if he was killed then it's understandable she would say "is the process to decide this robust enough?"

On the other is it a government minister lobbying on behalf of a royal?

I think the exact timing of this is important - if she was HS and questioning the committee system/way of doing it then it might not be an issue, but if it a recent thing then what does she stand to gain by interfering?

Also would be very interested to know if Andrew and Patel know each other (other than perhaps crossing paths nominally at state events).

I have the same questions. Without seeing the whole letter I don't know if she said, this is a process that might need looking at, or, hey I think my friend Andrew should get security and could you look into it and sort it out.

interesting thread.
I find it shocking that at a time when people are struggling so much, that 3million being paid for his security is even talked about.
he is a suspected abuser. if he needs protection it should be paid for by him.

Regardless of when it happened, the point about politicians is that they're even more venal than the RF; they have to be to cling onto power, since they can be more easily removed

This makes them even more susceptible to being "promised things", and it may have been thought at the time that Patel was a better bet than most

I don’t think your point about politicans follows logically but I agree that the current crop are quite literally asset stripping the country.

However the ‘royals’ do just as much asset stripping ( if not more as they very handily exempted themselves from the FOI) with the huge difference that the ‘royals’ are also above the law.

As we have recently seen . The MET spent 2 years investigating cash for honours and didn’t once speak to Charles . And despite the letters where such issues are clearly discussed , no case to answer .
Of course .

I won’t repeat all the other allegations over the years .
If the ‘royals ‘ stopped taking from the public purse and were made subject to the law of the land just like the rest of us, many Republican complaints would be silenced

I’m quite confident that that won’t happen though .
And if the money was stopped I also believe the Windsors would scarper . And all the talk of ‘ life of service’ would turn to dust .
It was always a lie

Did you enjoy writing that?

As we have recently seen . The MET spent 2 years investigating cash for honours and didn’t once speak to Charles . And despite the letters where such issues are clearly discussed , no case to answer .
Of course

Yep.

Once he was Monarch there is no questioning.

Hmm timing worked out well for them didn’t it ?

I have very little emotionally, culturally or socially invested in the BRF although I do think a constitutional monarchy one of the more stable political systems going around.(I did find the Harry and Meghan saga fascinating which attracted me to the forum, but it is getting boring now).

As a relative outsider, though, I have consistently gained from the knowledge, expertise and experience that Serenster holds and bestows on us in her calm and measured way.

She(?) gives examples, explains scenarios and backs up her opinion with considered judgement every time. In these fevered political times, this approach is becoming rarer, and I for one appreciate it and feel I can learn from it.

It is also clear to me how much Serenster and her expertise threatens those who lack it, another sign of the heat (rather than light) that political discussions engender these days.

But this is just my observation of course.

One of the things which I learned from Serenster was the difference between a criminal case and a civil case.

Far be it from this rapid republican upstart to attempt to ‘bestow ‘ expertise @secretpath but here’s a little critical thinking exercise for you

It is not factual to state that countries with monarchies are more stable because I can equally confidently state that monarchies are stable where society is stable .

And yet again I point to the fact that so many misty eyed royalists on this forum are not UK citizens !
And so many republican posters ARE in the uk
Says it all really

Btw, I am still waiting for a royalist to ‘bestow’ their expertise and answer the simple question I have asked 3 or 4 times now

‘ Do you think it right that during their two year investigation into cash for honours the MET didn’t speak to Charles once ?’