A Very Royal Scandal (Amazon Prime)

[MrsLeonFarrell]

Apologies if there is a thread about this.

I haven't watched Scoop, because Netflix won't work on my old TV box so I have no idea how this compares. I watched all 3 episodes and found it bizarre. I did like that it didn't include any royals outside the York family.

What struck me the most was how sheltered Andrew's team must have been to think him doing an interview was a good idea. I'm just a member of the public and I wouldn't have advised him to speak for himself going only by what I read about him before Epstein was even heard of. Why on earth would anyone advise him to do this? Why did they think it had gone well? And why has he not just retired out of the public view and accepted there is no way back.

The arrogance of some people is astounding. I don't even think it's a royal thing but more a monied sense of entitlement, although ironically he didn't seem to have much money.

Anyone else seen it?

It's impossible to predict because we don't know what society will be like when things are unsealed. Having a baby outside marriage used to mean women were cast out of polite society, these days it's accepted. It may be that things which would cause a scandal if revealed today will be seen as not worthy of comment, but things which we accept today will be a real scandal.

From a purely historical perspective, I'd love to be able to time travel and see how future historians write about the days we are living through. I bet their ideas would create a picture of today's society we'd hardly recognise!

No idea how long the monarchy will last, all I hope is that if it gets replaced the replacement will have more thought put into it than the UK post Brexit did. It's not something you can change on a whim and it will take years.

Once people are bored with the Harry/Meghan drama he will have the spotlight shone back on him.

I suspect that the H&M drama is only getting started.

There is too much $$$$$ at stake for MM and so much vexatious fragile ego ready to implode when the 'useful idiot' gets given the boot.

They may well take lumps out of each other, keeping everyone entertained for many years to come.

I doubt the BRF will even need to bother leaking / briefing any of the ammunition that the likley hold on H&M as they will let them both carry on being the own undoing.

But you are right the next generation of the BRF will likely considered dull, conservative and unnecessary.

I agree. But the thing is Brexit has had real repercussions for everyone and what we did was unprecedented. We know what happens when cou tries don't have a Monarchy. We will probably be the only democratic country with one. A ceremonial Head of State will make little difference to what we have now which ironically is probably a reason to keep them but really, really slimmed down. They don't do much so why not just have Monarch/ spouse/ heir/spouse fewer homes, fewer hangers on, fewer servants and lower costs and keep them just for the glamour? The rest of the family can turn up for weddings etc just for the show.

The devil is in the details though. All those bills that receive royal assent, the royal appointments, turning up to represent the country, hosting visitors. Who would be head of the armed forces, who would be Head of State and carry out the constitutional rules required? Who would be there to put the brakes on if the Prime Minister started running amok like Boris prorogueing (that can't be spelt correctly) parliament? The late Queen wasn't very effective in that case because she knew that certain powers have to remain theoretical in a monarchy but replace the monarch with a political Head of State and those powers become a lot more concrete.

I think to remove the monarchy you would probably need to also bring in a constitution because precedent isn't an efficient way of dealing with it all. I am always amazed at the things that the crown gets involved with.

Which isn't to say that it can't be done, just that it isn't the simple procedure the "Not my King" lot make it out to be. Brexit was a mess of epic proportions because no one had thought through the details. Changing Head of State, or the powers of the Monarch, is far more complex than just removing the crown and letting them retire to Sandringham.

It may be that things which would cause a scandal if revealed today will be seen as not worthy of comment,

We know that the passage of time can turn serious issues into a bit of a joke like the Queen (Mary?) who'd fix a magpie eye on a host's valuable trinket, tell them she 'liked' it and expect it to be handed over as a 'gift'.

Even from what we know Andrew squeezed the envoy role until the pips squeaked (off-piste visits to plug private bankers and visit top golf courses) so I sincerely hope the historians see it our way.

William is massively lazy.

Entirely agree

They don't do much so why not just have Monarch/ spouse/ heir/spouse fewer homes, fewer hangers on, fewer servants and lower costs and keep them just for the glamour? The rest of the family can turn up for weddings etc just for the show.

Fred's pretty much achieved the first part albeit more by accident than design.

The problem lies with the fact his much touted vision for a 'slimmed down monarchy' hasn't so far involved lower costs to the public and all indications are that it won't.

We've covered their covid related hits and as a further example while he's seemingly generously handed back a proportion of the profits from offshore windfarms, the fact said profits derive from seabeds stolen from the nation by his grasping mother 50 odd years ago seems forgotten.

I'd far rather see even half-hearted debates on a fixed Civil List predicated on the number of 'working' royals taking place than this creative accounting.

I’m not sure William is lazy. I suspect he just hates being in the public eye and finds the demands of his role a strain.

Yes I don't want to see Andrew's reputation change over the years because what he has done should be unacceptable in any age.

To make a determination on how hard individual royals work, we'd need to know exactly what each does in their week, rather than the selected bits they choose to put in the court circular. At the moment judgement on who is lazy seems to come down to whether we like a royal or not.

Then of course there is the whole debate about what constitutes working hard which is a whole other thing!

Well the benefits of a Monarchy is that someone is prepared from birth for their role. If he hates being in the public eye then they haven't done a great job. If people are forced to do things they hate, even if they do it in return for unlimited wealth and privilege then maybe all the more reason to have someone who has chosen to stand for election. The 'demands'of his role are minimal and couched by not having to do anything else.

Keir Starmer is lazy. Tess Daly is lazy. Clive Myrie is lazy. James Cleverly is lazy. Amol Rajan is lazy. Judi Dench is lazy. Nick Clegg is lazy.

Utter, utter, twaddle, to call anyone else lazy if you don't spend 10 years going around with them and doing all the things which they have to do in the course of their daily work. That's why the apprentice was sent around the factory, to work on different things which didn't need too much skill, so that he could understand the problems on all of the steps toward the end product, and appreciate the work of his fellow-workers.

I've just looked at the thread name. Shucks.

Anyone would be hard put to have trailed W for ten years given he's only been what's rather inaccurately termed a full time royal for seven.

But anyway there are indications as to his work ethic. He takes off every school holiday (some fourteen weeks p.a.), he was consistently bottom of the engagements list for years and he's been known to skip a high profile event (Commonwealth service) in favour of a lads' holiday. Even Harold made that one. He's now reduced his patronages in order to focus on fewer issues despite royal charity work being constantly cited to us as a chief reason to keep them.

He wasn't dubbed the Duke of Doolittle for nothing.

Well, he’s going to have to be King till he drops. No retirement for him or his wife. I think that’s pretty depressing. No amount of perks make up for having no real autonomy or privacy , but in his position I would try and genuinely make a difference. He seems to play around the edges .

Well, he’s going to have to be King till he drops. No retirement for him or his wife. I think that’s pretty depressing.

He's a very wealthy man and could walk away anytime he likes.

Very few royals ever seem to wander far from the trough though and I don't suppose he'll be any different.

For me it is not about how many patronages or whatever, it is about the difference made. Time will tell how much difference he makes with the Duchy or his various projects but that is how he should be judged in my view. Too soon to say. Just my opinion

I agree with this. Look back at all the flack the King received as Prince of Wales banging on about the environment. These days, in those circles at least, he is treated with the respect due to someone who was right at a time no one wanted to listen. The Prince's Trust also started small but it's impact can be seen now.

Whereas, to go back to the subject of the thread, Andrew used to at least be liked by many. Randy Andy may not have been respected but he got positive press and admiration for going to the Falklands. It turns out that being brave in a battle doesn't mean you have a good character and sound moral principles.

My thoughts are that Charles started the Princes trust when he was in his twenties, it was his baby and it was proven as a great initiative after many years. William is in his forties and I just don't see his equivalent. As for the Duchy, William straight away appointed a CEO and two of his closest friends as senior people to be instrumental in running it

I don't think you just walk away from being King without serious repercussions.

There might be repercussions but a hereditary monarchy is predicated on Buggins' turn which means there's always someone who slides seamlessly into the top job.

As it stands if W walked away we'd still have a king. If the king died before George is of age we'd have a regent.

The fact that regent would be the deeply unpopular Harold might give some pause for thought though.

William was serving in the airforce and the air ambulance until 7 years ago. He spent his 20s differently.

I don't see an equivalent yet but I'm prepared to wait and see what happens. I don't want the royals to fall into the political trap of only thinking in the short term because they can work on longer timescales.

I'm willing to bet some chocolate coins that Harry wouldn't be Regent. No matter how many precedents get changed in the process. They've changed the Counsellors of State to avoid having to use him or Andrew after all!

Charles was in the Armed forces in his 20's too. Didn't he use his pension to set up the prince's Trust? I doubt William will do anything close in terms of impact as the Princes Trust or DoE judging by his impact so far.

Oh, yes. I'm sure they'd find some way of not letting it happen.

Harold (or the next-up disgrace, Randy) getting anywhere near the levers would spell the end of the monarchy.

Seven years ago puts William in his 30s before he became a full time royal, not his 20s. I'm not claiming he has done anything as large so far, I'm just willing to give him a chance to see what he will achieve in the next 10 years. The world is very different than it was when his Father and Grandfather were creating organisations, he needs a model that works for now, not a copy of one which worked then.

Watching this now and it is hideous that Andrew has gotten away with it. The way he was shielded whilst that poor girl was completely destroyed. I loved HM but my goodness this is making me change my tune.