Meet the Other Phone. Flexible and made to last.

Meet the Other Phone.
Flexible and made to last.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

The royal family
OP posts:
Thread gallery
20
CathyorClaire · 29/12/2024 20:22

Quitelikeit · 29/12/2024 09:21

Good to see this thread died a quick death!

That you, Fergie? Welcome 🙂

If Andrew had indeed been cosying up to oligarchs, Libyan gun smugglers, a member of the Gaddafi family, presidents and dodgy people known for corruption and human rights abuses while acting as a Trade envoy on behalf of the UK, then the Foreign Office would have no need to claim the records had been destroyed. They would have had every right to decline to release them under section 27 of the Freedom of Information Act, which relates to information about the interests of the UK abroad and the UK’s international relations.

Smooth 👌

Doesn't stop it reading like a dodgy prince's escape clause though.

All royal records should be permanently retained and readily accessible as a matter of course IMO.

I'd love to read the Harold files too...

CathyorClaire · 29/12/2024 20:34

All royal records should be permanently retained and readily accessible as a matter of course IMO.

Business and financial records that is.

Not medical before anyone starts 🙃😛

Serenster · 29/12/2024 21:24

Why?

CathyorClaire · 29/12/2024 21:36

Why not?

MerryMaker · 29/12/2024 21:55

Quitelikeit · 28/12/2024 20:18

Just leave them in peace

why are you so bothered

fgs

Andrew is an alleged rapist that escaped justice. In what world should he be left alone?

MerryMaker · 29/12/2024 21:56

Serenster · 29/12/2024 21:24

Why?

He was a public servant. Of course his work as trade envoy should be a matter of public record

Serenster · 30/12/2024 10:43

CathyorClaire · 29/12/2024 21:36

Why not?

Well, it’s just “all Royal records” is so very wide. Do you mean all the records of expenditure at any Royal residence? Electricity costs, food bills, cleaning products, refurbishments? What about staffing? Who was rostered on to clean, to garden, to cook, to provide security? Every email, letter, or other type of correspondence that they send or receive? What about their medical records, or children's school records?

Because if that is what you mean, you’ll have to spend public money storing it all (storage, whether of hard or soft copies is very expensive!) plus you need to pay people to read and to index it all, because there is absolutely no point in storing data on that scale unless it’s actually searchable in future. Even if you use AI to do that, it’s a huge cost and it would obviously need to be checked and have controls built in.

You’ll need to deal with all the other privacy rights you are trampling over in storing all that data (for example, details of staff who are working at any given time and what they are paid etc) and either get every single one of their explicit agreement to this (as required by GDPR) or if they don’t agree, paying someone to go through every single record and redact all personal data from it. You’ll have to work out safeguards so that sensitive personal data about the Royal Family members themselves in all this (their medical records, for example) is stored more securely than everything else so it can’t inadvertently be accessed by anyone.

And if you decide you want less than this, you’ll have to pay someone to sift through and identify what is worth storing, and what can be destroyed. Which is what I understand happens currently with the Royal Archives - although its scope is fairly limited compared to what you have in mind.

So to achieve what you want, you’d be looking at a very large outlay of public money every year just to keep a whole load of past information. On what basis? That some future person may at some future stage want to mount a fishing expedition into it? On a cost/benefit analysis, is that really a good or even a reasonable use of public funds?

We don’t do that Government, who actually has the power to impact the lives and livelihoods of residents in the UK.

Extiainoiapeial · 30/12/2024 12:10

MerryMaker · 29/12/2024 21:56

He was a public servant. Of course his work as trade envoy should be a matter of public record

Of course it should be. Yet it's locked down until 2065. He was taxpayer funded for god's sake, why should it be hidden! I think I know the answer to that. He will have accumulated private money whilst globetrotting round the world on the taxpayer's dime. Ten years he was on this gravy train.

The culture of deference and secrecy towards the royal family is atrocious. No other publicly funded body can remain so secret.

Serenster · 30/12/2024 12:16

No other publicly funded body can remain so secret.

That’s completely not true. Take judges for example. A single publicly funded appeal judge can have an absolutely huge impact on both people and businesses in the UK, claim all sorts of expenses and are completely immune from any scrutiny about their actions.

Extiainoiapeial · 30/12/2024 12:26

Defend the secrecy of the taxpayer funded Royal Family all you like Serenster. By picking up on one of my statements to prove me wrong. 😅

Why were Andrew's Trade Envoy records sealed? It was a public appointment. Underwritten at huge expense by the taxpayer. But many questions with no answers. Who travelled with him? Where did he go? All references to Andrew have been removed from the Dept of International Trade records... funny that.

You may find that OK. I don't. Start a thread about the secrecy surrounding appeal judges if that's your thing. I'm talking about Andrew... on a thread entitled Andrew.

Serenster · 30/12/2024 12:30

If you’ll read my post you’ll notice I’m just commenting on your hyperbole actually, not defending Andrew. I don’t think you help your cause by declaring everything to do with the royals in whatever context, to be the absolute worst. I don’t find it terribly persuasive

SkiingonKaraSea · 30/12/2024 12:34

FOI requests do not apply to individual’s private information and that includes my private information, your private information and Prince Andrew’s private information.

Extiainoiapeial · 30/12/2024 12:34

I have no desire to persuade you... I imagine your views are set in stone.

I don't have a 'cause' as you so quaintly put it. I just find the culture of secrecy around the Royal Family wrong in a democratic society, and will post accordingly and freely.

Extiainoiapeial · 30/12/2024 12:36

SkiingonKaraSea · 30/12/2024 12:34

FOI requests do not apply to individual’s private information and that includes my private information, your private information and Prince Andrew’s private information.

When undertaking 10 years as a publicly funded 'Trade Envoy' going all over the world so say promoting the UK, all details of that are not (or shouldn't be) private information.

CathyorClaire · 30/12/2024 14:11

Well, it’s just “all Royal records” is so very wide.

Well, yes.

That's why I narrowed it down to business and financial records and excluded (obviously) their medical notes.

10/10 for the essay though 😁

MrsLeonFarrell · 30/12/2024 17:52

The first sentence of the linked article reads

"Researchers have called for greater transparency from the Foreign Office over the files it holds on the Duke of York. Officials responding to freedom of information requests have given a variety of reasons why the files cannot be released."

There is no claim, presumably because there is no evidence, that the Royal family is covering up for Andrew as the thread title suggests.

It's pretty obvious that the archives contain information about Andrew as Trade Envoy that reflects badly on the governments under whom he operated and probably him personally. But I don't see any evidence to support the title of the thread.

flippantlydone · 30/12/2024 22:10

Whilst I completely agree the requests are being made of the Government, I think the RF are also very keen to keep it hidden. Far more embarrassing for the RF than for today's Government. For those that say the RF don't have influence over the Government...

amp.theguardian.com/uk-news/2022/jul/14/queen-immunity-british-laws-private-property

OP posts:
MerryMaker · 31/12/2024 00:19

@MrsLeonFarrell the government has changed. There is zero reason for the government to want to cover up. There my be plenty of reason for the royal family to want to cover up though

MerryMaker · 31/12/2024 00:21

SkiingonKaraSea · 30/12/2024 12:34

FOI requests do not apply to individual’s private information and that includes my private information, your private information and Prince Andrew’s private information.

If you work as a trade envoy for the government, who you meet is subject to FOI requests. That is not personal private information

MrsLeonFarrell · 31/12/2024 08:17

MerryMaker · 31/12/2024 00:19

@MrsLeonFarrell the government has changed. There is zero reason for the government to want to cover up. There my be plenty of reason for the royal family to want to cover up though

Still not evidence they have though.

I suspect that there are plenty of civil servants who would rather not touch the whole Andrew as trade envoy debacle with a ten foot barge pole and would prefer to be well retired before details emerge. Politicians change, the machinery of government does not, and there is actual evidence that that machinery doesn't want facts in the light of day.

BananaNirvana · 31/12/2024 08:18

Quitelikeit · 28/12/2024 20:18

Just leave them in peace

why are you so bothered

fgs

Why the fuck should we leave them in peace when we fund them?? Jesus 🙄🤦‍♀️

BananaNirvana · 31/12/2024 08:19

Quitelikeit · 28/12/2024 20:20

You seem like royalty haters - yawn

I’m sure some of your fellow nasties will be along sharpish

Yes best not ever question power - just bow and scrape 🙄

BananaNirvana · 31/12/2024 08:21

wordler · 28/12/2024 22:23

It’s not ‘the royal family’ covering anything up - as an institution it doesn’t have that kind of power.

The monarch can use his influence with government behind the scenes but can’t demand any particular result.

The institution covering this up is the British Government - and you can bet it’s not Andrew they are protecting.

Anything Andrew managed to do was facilitated, monitored and ‘approved’ by those with real power. You don’t think the security services weren’t keeping a track and reporting to the foreign office and upwards on all the people Andrew was consorting with?

You are incredibly naive if you think the royals don’t have power to cover things up. They absolutely do and they have on many occasions.

TheCrowPeople · 31/01/2025 09:49

Resurrecting this thread from last month to draw attention to this article in this morning's Daily Telegraph.

It looks as if Andrew may have lied to Emily Maitliss, shock horror quelle surprise etc about when he was last in touch or had any contact with Epstein. It is appears from email records disclosed by the FCA in an appeal involving yet another business associate of 'the Duke' that the 'too honourable' goodbye trip to New York in Dec 2010 was not in fact the end of a beautiful friendship, because he was still emailing Epstein in Feb 2011.

(Drop the article's URL into archive.ph for a full read, if you do not have a Telegraph account.)

www.telegraph.co.uk/royal-family/2025/01/31/prince-andrew-contact-jeffrey-epstein-longer-email/

Serenster · 31/01/2025 11:02

Is that from the Jes Staley investigation, TheCrowPeople (haven’t read the article, sorry).

Swipe left for the next trending thread