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....

Thank you @secretpath @upinaballoon and @Mylovelygreendress for your comments, that was very kind of you.

Just on the timeline, while I think it’s very likely that Priti Patel and Andrew will have come across each other, I doubt it would have been in his Trade Envoy role, as she wasn’t a Minister until 2015 and started her International Development role after that. By that stage Andrew was long gone from the Trade Envoy role - he had to step down fro that in 2011.

I would guess the relevant connection is Patel’s involvement in the decisions around Andrew and his security following his disastrous interview with Emily Maitlis. That was aired in November 2019 and the fallout was swift.

On 16 January 2020, it was reported that the Home Office was recommending a major downgrade of security for Andrew, which would put an end to his round-the-clock armed police protection. Priti Patel was Home Secretary at the time, so she must have been involved in that decision (and, presumably, met Andrew then). Which makes her continuing to have personal views on the issue quite understandable - but not her deciding to lobby others about those views!

Yes I read that too. After his downfall, many of his staff and people who had the misfortune of having to deal with him revealed how awful he is. They also said his mother always took his side, against her employees, who she allowed to be treated dreadfully by her boorish son.

Clearly the ‘royals’ pull political strings all the time, behind the scenes

Nothing new there, and it could well explain why Charles wasn't questioned by the Met over the cash for honours - and now of course it's too late.
Only too easy, knowing his mother was coming to the end, to delay things knowing he'd soon be completely untouchable and they'd have an excuse for inaction

The real question is who leaked this and why?

We may never know, but without doubt there'll be an agenda involved; there always is with this lot

True, though, that the first year of Charles's reign seems downright seedy. Realistically it was always going to be so because, while the late Queen had at least some pretence to moral authority, Charles has none at all

True, though, that the first year of Charles's reign seems downright seedy. Realistically it was always going to be so because, while the late Queen had at least some pretence to moral authority, Charles has none at all

Interesting. Yes. The Queen was always going to be a hard/impossible act to follow and I think it's probably the case of continual fire fighting going on now. I feel just a small bit sorry for Charles in that respect until I remember his promises to slim down, downsize, trim the Monarchy and all of that... and then comes his hugely expensive Coronation and a massive payrise for less Royals. He was bequeathed a huge amount of goodwill by his Mother, it all depends on what he does with it, doesn't it...

I remember his promises to slim down, downsize, trim the Monarchy and all of that

TBH I've never been sure how much of this came from Charles himself and how much was PR puff from the usual sources; certainly I'm not aware of any such comments made in person

So I guess we're left with what he'd genuinely be likely to want to do, and I've never believed that trimming back his own lifestyle would feature

Exactly what I was about to say. He's never publicly said about trimming, but the royals have been trimmed down when you look at it in comparison to when all the 'smaller bunch' rumours started.

In the 80's and 90's when Charles opinion of trimming started there was a lot of working royals. The Queen, Philip, QEQM, Princess Margaret, Charles, Diana, Andrew, Sarah, Anne, Edward, Sophie, the Duke & Duchess of Gloucester, the Duke & Duchess of Kent and Princess Alexandra were all either full time working royals or expected to be.

Then the slimming started with Edward and Sophie attempting (and failing) to be part-time royals. Their children were announced to not be having titles, which started the process of Charles' nieces and nephews not being working royals.

I think it's very clear that at this point in time Charles was expecting the monarchy to have slimmed to him, his wife, his siblings and their wives, and his children and their wives. The slimming was that his nieces and nephews from his brothers wouldn't be working royals, like the Queen's cousins were/are.

Atm there "should" be, since the death of the Queen - Charles, Camilla, William, Kate, Harry, Meghan, Anne, Andrew, Edward and Sophie. That's quite the cut from the previous list. With the age gap between them and Charles, Andrew, Edward and Sophie would have been expected to be the bridges between Charles' reign and William's until William's children were old enough to be full-time royals.

I think the plan then would have been full time William, Kate, Harry, Meghan, Andrew, Edward and Sophie until such times as the latter three went part-time and were replaced by William's children. Each generation slimming down a wee bit more rather than a dramatic cut.

I don't think his own children not being full time working royals and any of his grandchildren being untitled (as the suggestion was made about Harry's children) was ever in his plan.

It was his sibling's children he was trimming. Not his descendants

The point about ‘ slimming down’ the ‘royals’ was pure PR puffery .
It was meant to imply that the ‘royals ‘ will cost the tax payer less.He talked about fewer people but never said they’d cost less.
The usual sleight of hand .

Of course to wasn’t true .
Hence Charles’ fat 45% pay rise while the poor struggle more then ever

Very well put, YetMoreNewBeginnings, though it still begs the question of whether the example of the nieces and nephews becoming more distanced was down to ssome diktat from on high or just something that happened organically

Personally I can't imagine anyone with sense actively wanting to take on the "duties", but with the RF it's only too easy to take something which may have been purely an individual's choice and present it as a glorious masterstroke by the principals

Doesn't work for Andrew though, since he hasn't made any choices which lend themselves to a glowing interpretation by anyone

He talked about fewer people but never said they’d cost less

Did he talk about "fewer people" though? I'm honestly not aware of it if so, but am very happy to be corrected

Agree about the possible savings from there actually being fewer people though; if anyone thought that would make its way back to the public rather than Charles keeping it for himself they'd got another thought coming

He talked about ‘slimming down’ the ‘royals’

The criticism was frequently made that the ‘royals ‘ had a bloated civil list of hangers on .
So this ‘slimming ‘ the PR response .
We assumed fewer people would mean cheaper .
Silly us !
Same if not greater costs but given to fewer Windsors .
That is how ‘royalty ‘ in. 2023 continues their scam .

I think the slimming talk was partly to make crystal clear that the children of the Queen's cousins wouldn't be taking on their parents duties when they took the titles.

I think he just knew that (had everything gone to plan and Andrew, Harry and Harry's then-future wife were working royals) adding Andrew and Edward's future children into the mix would just be too many of them.

The Queen's cousins being working royals was all down to unfortunate circumstances - if their parents had all lived until very old ages I don't think we'd have seen them all working (plus had they expected to be King and Queen I think the Queen's parents would have had more children).

I think you're right because didn't Anne say recently that it never came from Charles and was a media invention?

The Queens parents had fertility problems, didnt they, in part due to her father being such a heavy smoker.
I think The Queen should have made the decision before Harry married to reduce the HRH and Prince/Princesses from Harry's line, so it wouldn't be left to Charles to make a decision about cutting his living grandchildren from the list of Royals. It should have been set out clearly, and not up to individual parents to choose titles for their children from birth. This then leaves clarification for the children that they know they will have to build their own careers. Andrew shouldn't have been able to choose to style his daughters as Prince/ Princess when Edward didn't, and Harry should not have been allowed to do the same. Charlotte and Louis children should again be Lord/ Lady whatever only. That will get rid of the sexism aspect when Louis children are Prince/ Princess but Charlotte's not, even though she is now higher up in the succesion than Louis.

I never really thought they would take a pay cut with less people, but I absolutely think they should. Its bizarre how it doesn't affect things.

Also a question, has Anne's husbands ever done any working for the firm? It's expected of the women that marry in or are born to it, but I don't see much about any of the husbands who married in.

Yes very well put @YetMoreNewBeginnings

I thought the extra money was for repairs to Buckingham Palace ( another case of ' your Palace if repairs need to be done, my Palace if people want to come and see it) It will be interesting to see if after the repairs are done, the money to the Royals went back down. They seem to have a huge bloated staff that they 1. Don't seem to listen to and 2. Have nothing better to do other than leak stories to the press and brief against other Royal households

Theres another thread about this with more details, Charles 45% pay rise, basically the percentage is going down to just under what it originally was but the crown estate profits have increased so much they'll get 45% more cash than before, with significantly less of them working. Check out the thread :)

Oh understood. Yes, I would have thought with fewer of them, they should get a lower percentage. They already get a large enough proportion to enable Princess Anne to support both of her adult children living on her estate. It's not a pittance. Where was all the ' Charles is giving all the windfarm profits to the State to help the poor' coming from then when the increase in profits is for a large part down to that? I'll read the other thread gor the answers I presume!

"Andrew shouldn't have been able to choose to style his daughters as Prince/Princess when Edward didn't, and Harry should not have been allowed to do the same."

Andrew's daughters were born quite a while before Edward's or Harry's children. When Beatrice and Eugenie were born they were princesses. What would have been the reaction if HMTQ had said they couldn't be, a few years later.

Example. I have 3 children. I give the first one £5000 towards his/her wedding. I don't give the second or third anything when they marry. In fact, when the second one gets married I ask the first one to give me the £5000 back.

Has Anne's husbands ever done any working for the firm?

If they have I'm not aware of it; they've turned up at her side for the various "big events" but I don't think they've even gone along for her Save The Children visits and so on

Then again Anne tends to get on with things without making much noise, so I guess it's possible they've been somewhere in the background and it's just not been reported

I would have thought with fewer of them, they should get a lower percentage

There's a slight problem with that though, Angrycat
In theory the Sovereign Grant (used to be Civil List) is there to cover the "costs of doing the job" so involves funding other working royals, and if there are fewer to fund it's logical that they need less

BUT the Grant's been organised in such a way that it can go up but never down, so as things stand there's no mechanism for reducing it.
All we'll get is some flowery assurance about how well stewarded it all is, what excellent value it offers, and oh - it only costs us all a pence a year anyway

Anne's husband, Tim Lawrence, just shows his face by her side when needed. He was 3 years as equerry to Queen 86-89 too, and was given honours at various points by her.

It never ceases to amaze me how there is no scrutiny of the men who marry in. Zilch. Nada.

Mike Tindall, Tim Lawrence, Jack Brooksbank, Edo Mozzi. They can do whatever they want with barely anything noted or reported to speak of.

Very unfair.

No idea about the others but Tim Lawrence served in the navy from 1973-2011. He was an equerry to the late Queen for three years but presumably had other naval roles during the rest of that time? Wiki shows where he served etc and the roles he took.

Has Anne's husbands ever done any working for the firm?

Since retiring from the Navy Tim Lawrence has been a Vice Chairman of the Commonwealth War Graves Commission and also a Chair of English Heritage - though I’m not sure if he held those roles due to his position as Anne’s husband (although his profile because of that would presumably have been a drawcard).