RF covering for Andrew?

[flippantlydone]

www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2024/dec/28/dubious-use-of-the-freedom-of-information-act-stopping-access-to-files-on-prince-andrew-researchers-say

Yes it absolutely needs to be slimmed down further and their remit trimmed accordingly.

The “smoke and mirrors” over the RF’s vast property portfolio is one of the reasons I object to the Institution the most! There is too much confusion between what is public and what is private and which monies go from the Sovereign Grant to maintain which properties. Far more clarity would be demanded from an elected head of state.

It is said that the reason Sophie and Edward renewed their lease at Bagshott Park for 150 years in 2024, is that they wanted to secure the property for their dc. Ditto Andrew. IMHO, this all has to stop.

Why should these people with such average capabilities, live in mansions worth £30 million to do a job less demanding than your average NHS manager?

And in Andrew’s case, although he no longer works for the royal family, his privilege still allows him to carry out dodgy deals which potentially threaten national security? And the heir to the throne drives him to church? Marvellous!

We really have had the wool pulled over our eyes and out of deference, no one objects!

As legislation changes, I would expect whether information is generally available or not, to change. That applies to everyone in the RF, government and public eye.

That Andrew was foolish, ill advised and commercially incompetent is not news, but it's not the RF who are covering up. It will be the govt, most probably because there are aspects that do not reflect well on them.

Also bear in mind that PA is legally entitled to a private and family life, as much as the rest of us.

That Andrew was foolish, ill advised and commercially incompetent is not news, but it's not the RF who are covering up

LOL. yeah, pure as the driven snow the rest of them!

Totally agree. Andrew paid way less than his property is worth. And was protected from the law and even public disclosure.

Andrew was working as a trade envoy. Anyone else doing that job is open to public scrutiny. The allegation is that he simply used to position to further his own business interests.
Of course it is the Royal Family covering it up. Why would a Labour Government cover up something that happened under a Conservative government? It makes zero sense. We know Angela Rayner dislikes Andrew intensely. I am sure she would like to expose what he actually did, not cover it up.

It is said that the reason Sophie and Edward renewed their lease at Bagshott Park for 150 years in 2024, is that they wanted to secure the property for their dc. Ditto Andrew. IMHO, this all has to stop

Course they did! One child at Uni, one child at boarding school and Soph & Ed just two people of course need 120 rooms and 51 acres. It really is obscene. Of course they need to live somewhere fitting to their position but it's a joke. How do they maintain it? Andrew can't afford to maintain Royal Lodge, how do Sophie and Edward pay for what would be a great number of full time staff, gardeners, maintenance people etc. Silly me... I imagine we pay for it somehow.

Yes... smoke and mirrors over all the properties. The secrecy is a joke.

I would be happy to know of any forthcoming legislation that will bring more clarity to the Monarchy’s accounts, including their special tax privileges and the advance notice they receive of any bills in Parliament which could affect the prerogative or interests of the crown.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/feb/08/royals-vetted-more-than-1000-laws-via-queens-consent

And nearly two and a half years in to Charles’s reign, I haven’t heard of any moves to make any such reforms; have you MeadowFinch?

And it may not be the RF that is covering up Andrew’s activities, but as stated below, it is the system of monarchy and its protected privilege that allows these activities to take place and be hidden from the public.

You raise an important question that I hadn’t thought of before though; how much does the monarchy itself know about Andrew’s activities? Presumably, if these activities are are a potential threat to the security of a Commonwealth country, as stated in the DM article quoted below, the King would be informed of this? And if he was informed, why hasn’t he acted on this information?

Finally, I wasn’t aware that Prince Andrew was being denied a private, family life MeadowFinch? What does that actually mean? That he is beyond criticism because he is the brother of the King?

I think the general public would very much prefer it if he went and lived in a modest cottage available to him on one of the RF’s vast estates, on a stipend of £400,000 or thereabouts from the King without having to lift a finger for it! It would hardly be a life of penury! That would constitute a very nice life for most ordinary people!

It’s Prince Andrew’s alleged nefarious activities that are pushing him in to the limelight time and time again. If he was living a boring, prudent life, no one would care!

That's the old thing of folk getting confused between monarch's assent and monarch's consent, @Alongleadtimeplease, but good luck expecting any legislation to change the arrangements. Does anyone really imagine Charles would give that up easily? (and before anyone says it's up to the government and not him, the two are far too intertwined for my taste)

On a related note, this "consent" - which was intended just for the monarch - somehow got extended to Charles too while his mother was alive, but I'm not aware if it's since been granted to William also as heir

Does anyone happen to know?

Edited to add ignore me, I've just found it. Seems the proposal was extended to include Prince's Consent, which covered the late Queen and the PoW ... which of course William now is: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/kings-or-princes-consent/kings-and-princes-consent

It’s not necessarily the politicians but more the senior civil servants in government departments who were party or at least privy to what Andrew was up to. The senior courtiers and aides for the royal family are often swapped back and forth between government positions, royal appointments and then lucrative board positions on charities and non-profits.

These people have all the dirt on each other and have an interest in maintaining the current establishment for their own interests no matter which political party is in charge.

It’s also why I don’t believe much would change even if the House of Windsor was swapped for an elected head of state tomorrow.

As legislation changes, I would expect whether information is generally available or not, to change. That applies to everyone in the RF, government and public eye.

I don't expect this in relation to the royals for a minute.

Successive governments have enabled and abetted royal scammmers and grifters for decades and still do.

How do they maintain it?

Very good question given they haven't even been able to rent out rather average looking office space in their converted stables since forever.

Maybe the eye-watering price tag has something to do with it?

It's very odd. A 120 room 90 acre royal estate needs a humungous amount of maintenance and full-time staff. Eddie paid £5million to extend the lease apparently, ready for the two children to take over. Why do the Royals have to live in such huge royal estates, 2people 180 rooms is unbelievable, except of course when the children are home and then it's 4. Why don't they put it to good use in some way?

I think what he should have done, especially when Harry walked away, was say that apart from the children of the heir, none of the other grandchildren would be HRH or Prince/ Princess. Then Anne and all the elderly cousins would be allowed to carry on, but in the future it would not happen where we are still seeing The Late Monarchs nonegenarian cousins wheeled out because they wee grandchildren to a long dead King. Arguably The Late Queen should have done it. Currently, Charlotte's children can't have titles, but Louis can, despite her being higher in the succession. We don't need 8 people doing the job that in most countries just the head of State and their spouse do. We do not need William, Kate, all their children, and their children's potential spouses swanning around. They can turn up for family occasions like Zara, etc, but the cost of the Monarchy needs to be cut. They don't need several fully staffed houses each. By the time the Wales kids grow up, the generation that really is deferential to the Royals will be long gone.

They've still got time to do that - just need to make sure it goes through before any of the Wales kids have kids of their own.

HRH isn't used by Edward's kids by choice and none of the other great-grandchildren from QWII are entitled to HRH apart from Harry's children and I believe it's been agreed they won't use that. And it can't be passed on for them, and the Prince/Princess title can't be passed on.

When George is King it's very unlikely he'd have any of his cousins involved in royal work - the Middleton cousins aren't ever going to be titled or involved and I can't see a scenario where Archie and Lili are ever in that position.

I'm fairly sure after the disaster that Harry's situation turned into that Louis is going to be helped to find a non-royal life purpose, and Charlotte will be better supported as the 'spare' with a balance between having to be prepared to be the heir but ready to pivot without as much mental health strain for previous spares to a non-royal career.

The thing with allowing them to choose is that it is people like Harry and Andrew who will choose it for their kids, and the ones like Edward who wont. It needs to be a rule, not voluntarily. It needs to be done before the Wales kids are adults, but it also needs to be done when they are young, and before they start dating, otherwise you get the same problem they had with Harry, where he meets a mixed race woman and simultaneously they have discussions about not allowing the children of that marriage be Prince etc. I suspect Harry did not want this to happen, so didn't disabuse Meghan of the notion that it was because of racism, rather than a need to slim down the Monarchy. George doesn't have any Royal cousins, but he has two siblings. I think both of them should be told that they will not be expected to do Royal duties. In this day and age, we don't need a human hanging around in case their elder sibling dies, not as important, getting more and more irrelevant as time goes by. One ceremonial Head of State does not need to have 'support' from their siblings to do one minimal job with no consequences. They should be able to have meaningful independent lives themselves instead of being bankrolled by their dad/older brother for the rest of their lives.

Update on (Lord) George Foulkes in his parliamentary quest to hold to account Andrew and his use and alleged potential misuse of public funds.

Other royals may also potentially be implicated.

The government is to face questions about Prince Andrew and other members of the royal family’s use of public money after talks to overcome restrictions on scrutinising the monarchy in parliament.

Labour peer George Foulkes has had the first of what he intends to be a number of questions about Andrew accepted, after “helpful” discussions last week with the deputy speaker in the House of Lords, John Gardiner. Their talks came after Lord Foulkes said recently that he had been refused permission to table a question ­proposing a ­public register of royal interests. He has called for greater scrutiny of the royals, including in parliament.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2025/feb/15/questions-prince-andrew-public-money-parliament

This is excellent news. Top marks to George Foulkes for his persistence!

Great news.

I wish George Foulkes every success and hope he is not thwarted further.

Well it would be in theory, but I can practically guarantee Foulkes will be shut down (or should that be out?) like everyone else who seeks information they'd rather not disclose

Sadly you may be right Puzzled

On the plus side while the royals have traditionally and successfully exerted an iron grip on suppressing their less than glossy activities more and more is now being revealed through the determined investigations of intrepid third parties.

Slow and steady wins the race 😎

Yes I pay a small annual subscription to the Guardian for this sole reason, as they seem to be one of the few newspapers who actually seem prepared to report about the RF objectively.

Yes the left wing used to pretty much ignore the Royal family. But there are an increasing amount of investigative journalists looking at them.
There is also more criticism of the Royals even in media usually supportive. Look at the backlash of comments about William and Catherine missing the Baftas to go on holiday to Mustique.
As you say, these things all add up to a drip drip drip effect.

I'm not seeing this backlash. In fact it's been highlighted that William attended last year when Catherine was very ill. William isn't the King as yet.

Look in the Daily Mail comments section.

Why? I thought the DM was not to be trusted, is a rag, the lowest of the low etc etc ? Suddenly it's a valued source?