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. The York girls' husbands seems decidedly shady to me, and Mike Tindall is busy hawking himself round every reality TV show going, yet the only person related to them that gets any scrutiny or snide comments is the mother of Beatrices stepson.

I know, but other European Royal Families have done that. I don't see why ours can't. I cant see people standing around flag waving in 50 years time to see a middle aged Prince Louis opening a supermarket.

I take your point on Andrews daughters. I do believe she should have done it before Harry's kids were born though. And not just because Harry has turned out to be Harry, but that going forward that would be the case.

Yes, there's been a couple of things that have blown in reported in the media then next day gone. Mike Tindall can do what he wants, yes. Ditto Peter Phillips.

I am not saying I want more headlines on these minor royals, it's just unfair that the men get a free pass. Quite frankly, I'd be happy if there weren't any Royal stories to speak of! It's all so tedious. Kate in a glitzy dress, Meghan walks her dog, Balmoral with all the family. I don't know who has the appetite for all this dross any more.
Ironic me saying that, given I'm posting on a RF thread I know!

Unfortunately I did enjoy writing …. Wish I didn’t need to.

The York girls' husbands seems decidedly shady to me, and Mike Tindall is busy hawking himself round every reality TV show going, yet the only person related to them that gets any scrutiny or snide comments is the mother of Beatrices stepson.

This to the max and I'll add in Peter Phillips.

The man who trousered more in fees for an uncontested tender for a charity lunch to mark some royal circus or other (CBA to check which but it's easily found) than the event actually raised for said charities.

@Gall10

I get it .
I often see posters who come on these threads just once or twice but they really see through the whole disgusting facade of the Windsors .

Unlike royalist posters , who seem
to comprise a significant minority ( could be more ) of non UK people , those who viscerally dislike the Windsors are UK citizens .

Some are hilarious - I’m thinking of the mournathon thread . Some are very angry .
I wish they’d feel able to post more often but I understand why they don’t.

Rather than starting a new thread, I am dropping this here.

Honestly... the RF are protected beyond belief. No details of his overseas trips when he was a 'Trade Envoy' until 2065. Andrew Lownie who has applied for information is a historian

This is deployed to shield members of the RF from scrutiny and to 'preserve the mystique'.

So basically, they can do what they want and all information is shielded for 105 years after their date of birth. The culture of secrecy is the default position. Government papers transferred to the archives are released after 20 years. The RF it's 105 years from their d.o.b.
Totally protected whatever they do.

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/e084304c-4a98-11ee-ae1a-79bb7c14d872?shareToken=eeb41405556a573c8ac4c5d506d92f87

There is an absolute exemption from freedom of information requests for papers relating to the sovereign, the heir and the second in line to the throne. That means that government departments can turn down requests without having to justify them in terms of the public interest.
There is also a qualified exemption for other members of the royal family, including Prince Andrew, the Duke and Duchess of Edinburgh, the Kents and Princess Alexandra until 105 years after their birth.

Truly disgusting.

Yes. I always imagined that more would be uncovered as far as Andrew's dodgy dealings particularly whilst supposedly representing this country as a 'Trade Envoy'.

At best, it would show up his endless golf trips tacked on to the trade travel paid for by us. I read somewhere he always added a few days at the beginning or end to these trips. In just one year as a 'trade envoy' he racked up nearly £1M in travel expenses.

At worst, it would show how often he travelled to Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan and other ME countries. He was, after all, friends with ME oligarchs, arms dealers and dodgy businessmen, taking backhanders whenever he could.
All this is now buried in our lifetime.

Even more extraordinarily, Harry benefits from that kind of protection in the US as well:

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/prince-harry-visa-records-homeland-security-b2357726.html

Rather different. In fact, very different.

Our Government. Our Constitution. Our Monarchy. Our country.

There was no way Harry;s visa records would become public property in the USA given others with far worse drug use would be examined too.
Harry's visa is one document. What we're talking about here with Andrew is decades of documents all hidden away. For a total of 105 years.

Is it? Novak Djokovic was openly deported from Australia because he gave an incorrect answer on his visa form about his Covid vaccination status. Nigella Lawson, was denied permission to board a flight to the United States after admitting she had in the past used cocaine (this was publicly confirmed by the US Embassy, by the way). Kate Moss and Amy Winehouse had similar problems. Why is Harry different?

I'm sorry, I don't think this has anything to do with what I brought up.

The 105 year sealing of records of Andrew's overseas trips and thereby finances.

I think it is very linked.

Its part of a wider picture of royals being given different treatment with regard to privacy than other people, here and abroad.

Also makes me wonder how many other royal families it applies to and how much there is out there about the British royals and others that we don’t know about because of these special privacy privileges

Novak Djokovic was openly deported from Australia because he gave an incorrect answer on his visa form about his Covid vaccination status. Nigella Lawson, was denied permission to board a flight to the United States after admitting she had in the past used cocaine (this was publicly confirmed by the US Embassy, by the way). Kate Moss and Amy Winehouse had similar problems. Why is Harry different?

Their documents weren't made public were they? It didn't happen because some random sued the DHS to force them to show the documents. British royal family is exempt from FOI request here in the UK. the two things aren't comparable.

There is no indication Harry lied on his visa, it's simply others think they should be able to demand that the DHA release private documents to prove it simply because they want to harass him.
Nigella admitted it in court under oath, that as an adult she had taken cocaine. A book is not the same. She then lied on her visa application so thats why they could deny entry, she met both requirements, that she lied to them and she had admitted use under oath in court.

Its part of a wider picture of royals being given different treatment with regard to privacy than other people, here and abroad.

It isn't though. The DHS don't publish private visa applications. His drug use wouldn't exempt him from entry.

This is deployed to shield members of the RF from scrutiny and to 'preserve the mystique'

The "mystique" thing always makes me smile - as if there's really any left - but I've learned something today in that I thought it was 100 years, not 105

The only small point I'd query among this disgrace is that you said "He was, after all, friends with ME oligarchs, arms dealers and dodgy businessmen, taking backhanders whenever he could" ... what's to say the same doesn't still apply?

True! Puzzled

The 100 year thing has been changed to 105! Very odd.

Mr. Lownie the historian who has made these requests, because he is writing his next biography on Andrew, finds it extraordinary.
So Andrew is protected for the rest of his life and we will never know the sordid secrets.

“There is also a strong public interest in knowing, for example, who is paying for Prince Andrew's security, now he is no longer a working royal,” Mr Lownie told the Telegraph.

All I can say is... getting all this archived so we are unable to look at his travel documents and financial gains until 2065... must mean it's bad. Very bad.

Andrew Lowrie has been doing some very good work uncovering lots of information that the ‘royals’ don’t want revealed

He describes himself as a monarchist but I suspect he’s clear eyed enough to see that the corruption will be end of them .

I don’t see him scrambling for excuses for Andrew’s behaviour - and this only concerns his ‘trade envoy’ junkets not the deeply serious Epstein friendship .

Its the 5 years added on to the 100 that really is revealing . Absolutely making sure that the Individual is gone - couldn’t risk them still being alive at 100 as many are now .

Surely they can understand this. By locking it all down they leave it to our imagination and to the speculation of journalists. If they really think that is better, the truth must be very shocking indeed.

I think with Andrew there likely will be a few bits in it that are bad.

I do think though that even if he was squeaky clean they’d always use that privacy clause.

For the same reason they’ll never start removing titles officially, kicking people out the line of succession and why they added Anne & Edward to be Counsellors of State rather than any removal bids - they know that they could be the next to fuck up, or in William’s case that it might be one of his kids that does.

Once they make an exception for Andrew, if they did, because he’s a disgrace then they leave it open to public opinion who the next one should be. They won’t risk that being them.

Given the rule has been in places for decades, and applies to various royal family members (for example, Princess Alice of Gloucester who died 20 years ago and the current Duke of Kent) that seems unlikely. Unless you are suggesting they are all engaged in very bad dealings?

No, I am not suggesting that.

I am talking about Andrew.