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

What did Simon Case say to Angela Rayner?

114 replies

JoyousGreyOrca · 15/02/2025 18:52

The Times published the following anecdote from a new book about the Royal Family. You need to read it first, but I wonder what Simon Case said to Angela Rayner?

"All but one aspect of the royal succession had been settled immediately: who would now deputise for the King, giving assent to legislation and representing him officially at state functions, if he were abroad or incapacitated? The Regency Acts of 1937 and 1953 decreed that the sovereign’s spouse and the next four adult royals in line to the throne would serve as counsellors of state: Camilla, now Queen, Prince William, Prince Harry, Prince Andrew and Princess Beatrice.
The press made much of the inclusion of Harry, brooding in Californian exile. But Rayner, who was the opposition’s Commons spokeswoman on questions relating to the constitution, was more exercised by Andrew. His desire to play an active role in public life was undimmed by allegations — which he has always denied — that he sexually abused a 17-year-old, his payment of a £12 million settlement to his accuser or the ongoing taint of his long association with Jeffrey Epstein, one of the world’s most notorious paedophiles.

Rayner thought that an outrage. “She was very actively reaching out to the Palace, the upper echelons of the civil service,” an adviser recalled, “and said she thought this was a huge problem, and that the government needed to address this, and that she would offer cross-party support to make sure it happened. That’s — to be stereotypical — her working-class view. She’s not anti-monarchist, but she doesn’t like a paedo.”

In those discussions, she offered the empathy of a mother who knew what it meant to raise a complicated family. Her message, according to her adviser, was: “I know how difficult it is to be in a big, dysfunctional family where you’ve got the black sheep, they’re really damaging to the rest of you but they’re still in your family.” She nonetheless advocated excluding Andrew from royal duties entirely.

That nuclear option proved too much for the Palace and Downing Street to take. Together with the cabinet secretary, the King’s private secretary Clive Alderton alighted on a diplomatic fix: the list would be expanded to include Princess Anne and Prince Edward, so that neither Harry nor Andrew would ever be required to act on the King’s behalf.

Doing so still required new legislation, setting in train an intricate waltz between royalty, government and parliament. Rayner would be required to deliver a statement on the new settlement on behalf of the opposition. Extending the list to add new counsellors of state, however strongly she agreed with the intended effect, would require her implicit endorsement of the existing cohort. That proved too much. With negotiations ongoing she walked indignantly into her office and told her team: “I’m not going to vote to keep that nonce on … I can’t go back to my constituency and say, yeah, I support that.”

After the deep state learnt of her disquiet, Rayner was summoned for a Zoom meeting with Simon Case, the cabinet secretary and former courtier to Prince William. She made her point with no less force but emerged from the meeting chastened. “After that conversation, she went quiet,” an adviser said. “She never, ever spoke about the royals like that again.”"

OP posts:
TulipTiptoer · 16/02/2025 15:37

I have huge admiration for Angela Rayner. She doesn't always get it right but we need more MPs like her as opposed to Eton, Oxbridge, Charterhouse elitist snobs who haven't a clue about the real world.
She's lived a life. And look where she is.

Funnily enough... whenever I see her disparaged on other threads it is always always snobbery... council house/single mother made good.

She can be a loose cannon but she's sharp as a tack.

Tomatotater · 16/02/2025 16:01

Sunholidays · 16/02/2025 15:23

I'm trying to say that Angela Rayner and the King have a very good relationship. They get on well.

They do look like they get on well, andcshe was invited to see Poundbury. I donthink its jot Chsrles who is petty, and I alwsys find him to be quite empathetic to others when Ive seen him talk. But the officials are clearly vindictive on his behalf and he doesn't pull rank. The story about Rayner not being invited to the event was in the same book being serialised in The Times. I'll see if I can find it, but Im not good with links to The times. It always goes awry!

IAmATorturedPoet · 16/02/2025 16:03

JoyousGreyOrca · 16/02/2025 15:37

I agree that Angela Raynor is not anti Monarchy. But if Thatcher got treated badly by the Royals as they were snobby to her, Angela Raynor will get much worse.
And Margaret Thatchers Private Secretary confirmed how the Royals treated her in The Crown was pretty accurate. Obviously not all the exact details, but the general impression was accurate.

Oh do give over!!

Why are you bringing Margaret Thatcher and the Crown TV Series into it and then putting 2+2 together and getting 6 in assuming Angela Raynor will get even worse treatment?

You don’t know that at all.

No offence but I find your posts quite random and disjointed so I’ll probably bow out of this thread now and leave you to it.

IdaGlossop · 16/02/2025 18:05

JoyousGreyOrca · 15/02/2025 23:14

@IdaGlossop Andrew will never be convicted no matter how many documents are released providing evidence against him. As a Royal he is totally protected.

Indeed. Another reason why the Royal family needs reform.

Tomatotater · 16/02/2025 18:24

Found it. It was actually in the same article linked to earlier but quite far down. It's not clear why she was excluded but it was after the counsellors of State issue before Case called her into the meeting that's the subject of this thread.

Once the King had formally acceded to the throne at St James’s Palace, he returned to Buckingham Palace. MPs returned to Westminster, where Starmer and a select group of party grandees retook their parliamentary oaths to a new sovereign...Absent from the list, prepared by Campbell, was Rayner. She was furious to learn of her exclusion, and told colleagues: ‘I must have been missed.’ Thérèse Coffey, Truss’s deputy, was there to swear her oath. Yet Labour’s order of precedence was not a matter of constitutional rules. Rayner’s exclusion was intentional.

JoyousGreyOrca · 16/02/2025 18:33

Thank you for that extract. Terrible of the Royal family to do this.

OP posts:
Tomatotater · 16/02/2025 18:39

I wonder if it was Case, if he's now left and Charles and AR are now besties!

JoyousGreyOrca · 16/02/2025 18:48

@Tomatotater You think Charles just does what his staff tell him? He does not seem that kind of man. He has been very controversial over the years and seems very much his own man.

OP posts:
myrtleWilson · 16/02/2025 18:49

So the Chief Whip apparently drew up a list (Labour source told newspapers there wasn’t a list) of MPs to retake their parliamentary oaths in Westminster whilst the King returned to Buckingham Palace and this is somehow the RF snubbing AR? How? The King wasn’t present, he didn’t draw up the list/non list, but even if he was aware of the list, you think he should have overruled Labour Party process to insist AR take her oath with Starmer?

JoyousGreyOrca · 16/02/2025 18:53

@myrtleWilson can you provide a link to this new information that Labour say is not true? And presumably you mean both parties Chief Whips as it was not just Labour MPs involved? Thanks.

OP posts:
myrtleWilson · 16/02/2025 19:06

Sure, no it was only a labour source because presumably each party took its own approach to oath re-swearing and the story was about AR’s apparent exclusion (still not involving the King) so why would the Conservatives be asked to comment?

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-14350429/amp/Angela-Rayner-launched-astonishing-tirade-against-nonce-Prince-Andrew-removed-official-list-deputies-Charles-authors-claim-new-book.html

myrtleWilson · 16/02/2025 19:08

Oh did you mean did all CWs draw up lists? It’s not mentioned, presumably because this is a book about the machinations of Starmer’s labour?

JoyousGreyOrca · 16/02/2025 19:49

@myrtleWilson yes I did mean that

OP posts:
myrtleWilson · 16/02/2025 19:53

Oh in that case, I can't help - but why would the Tory CW be approached? In terms of the re-taking, the Speaker went first, then the Father of the House, am not sure of the line up after that but the main point is, it was an oath taking in Parliament and the King was not involved - despite several frothy posts on this thread!

Edited to remove a nicely rhyming but pointless 'my' before my why

New posts on this thread. Refresh page