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

Neither William or Kate have worked very hard at all in their years as a Royal Married Couple. I couldn’t care less how much they work or don’t work.

Just don’t piss on my leg and tell me it’s raining.

Nothing is going to piss off the public more than seeing one thing but being told the opposite. Unless you are devoted RF fans. A similar dynamic happens with Trump followers who believe his bullshit.

@BigMoonRising Exactly! Telling the public they are just having the same number of holidays as lots of other people are going to make them snort with derision

In the newly released Sky Australia documentary, Jason Knauf makes quite clear that W & C will continue to put family above everything, even once they have crowns on their heads. It would suit them to have their children marry young and immediately have children then they can be hands-on grandparents like CarolE.

Yes, but if you take 4 weeks unpaid leave each year plus 2 weeks’ of your annual leave, that equals 6 weeks’ leave total and the summer school holidays are covered. If you have three children, that 18 weeks’ unpaid leave entitlement per child comes to 54 weeks in total - so you can take 4 weeks leave each summer for 13 years. So yes, perfectly possible to do that every summer, and I have worked with someone who did that.

And where I worked, everyone got the ability to have 35 days’ leave. It did not depend on grade or length of service.

@Serenster so in 2 years time William and Catherine would have used up all that unpaid leave and would not be able to take it.
But it is irrelevant. Their leave is not unpaid. They are very handsomely funded to do very little.

The issue is it’s not a job, it’s a role and the only ‘job description’ is to support the monarch. The monarch gets to decide what she/he wants various team members to do. The monarch holds the purse strings, and decides who gets ‘paid’ / expenses, etc.

So you can’t really make it comparable to more normal working practices and expectations.

It’s definitely time to remove the expectation that a monarch’s children should automatically be one of the team full time.

I hope we’ll see Charlotte and Louis focus early on a non royal career path.

@wordler It should be a job, Abolish Monarchy and appoint a Head of State as a job.

As you’ve just acknowledged now, it’s not the same as a job. You may want it to be do, but that doesn’t change things.

No if it was a job some Royal family members would have been sacked. But they can not be sacked. Its not a role, it is a travesty.

In your opinion, clearly. Again, not everyone thinks that.

Anyway this thread is supposed to be about that reprobate Andrew not the Waleses.

I hope that some lessons can be learned at the very least and that roles such as trade envoy or other made up title don’t get given to someone by virtue of their birth.

It does not matter what I or anyone thinks. They can not be sacked no matter what they do or do not do.

Yes, parliament can sack the sovereign. We’ve been here many times before…

It would be a national crisis. When has the parliament sacked a Royal. Tell me just one occasion.

Never would happen but could you imagine the Wales on rich house poor house...at least then they can actually understand what's its really like for their 'subjects'. At least when they trot out the we are relatable and just like one of you they would actually understand what that means 🤪

Actually send all the royals haha the Andrew and Fergie one would be hilarious

It’s definitely time to remove the expectation that a monarch’s children should automatically be one of the team full time

Yeah even a 76 year old Monarch with cancer, his heir not being one of the team there and supporting him in his duties. Instead it's holiday holiday. I bet Andrew and Ed are pissed off at that idea

As for the future, someone on here once said I would expect William to be doing very little until Louis is 18 and that's fine as they wish to prioritize their children..so we can expect peak laziness for the next 12 years, no difference to how it's ever been then.

I don't think of them as an heir and a future Queen. They are just hugely rich aristocrats both doing exactly what they want. I honestly don't think that will change even when Charles has gone.

Not Andrew. Quite obviously. That should read 'Anne'.

Well, we know where he was dragged up but not necessarily by who, and that's despite the PR fluff about the late Queen being much more hands on with the younger two

Either way, whoever it was they sure made a lousy job of it ...

1649 ?

No we wouldn't sack a Monarch. Given all questions about them are banned from being asked in parliament, it's hardly likely is it? Let's talk about probabilities here.... answer NIL
They are untouchable. They decide their own rules like sending Edward VIII off to the Bahamas or wherever. No one else decides on the fate of any of them. As illustrated by Andrew in today's times.

@flippantlydone reply to original post. Of course they are! It is very much in there interest to do so.

What amuses is me is that the same set of posters here who are calling for William to Come Home And Work regularly dismiss what he actually does as 'not work'.

Shadow the Red Boxes? Can't take more than ten minutes a day max to do that.

Visit somewhere? He gets driven there and someone reads him some crib notes on the way.

Support a charity in some way? Someone else does all the leg work - he is just the face.

Evening attendance somewhere? Free dinner out, call that work?

And so on...

But if he comes to the same conclusion (not saying he has) and decides to blow it off until he's on the throne - outrage.

You really are embarrassing yourself, holding forth on the British monarchy while showing this level of ignorance of its history.

If they aren't going to be doing.uch in way or engagmentd ans forth then we shoukd see the sovereign grant go down by quite some amount, which after all pays for these engagements. So less engagements, less money spent.

Except we won't see that happen

Infact why isn't the government asking the question..during covid when you were do fuck all engagements why did we still give you the full sovereign grant money....should of seen a huge drop in how much was spent.

Majority of SG goes towards building maintenance and staffing costs (including pension contributions etc) so fewer engagement expenses wouldn’t make a significant dent in that - however if the money isn’t spent it goes into the reserve fund and if the reserve fund gets to a certain level it will trigger an evaluation of the SG amount.