The Yorks 2 !

[jeffgoldblum]

Sorry missed end of thread !
had a slight hiccup.
anyway thread 2 ready for tomorrows new article. 😁

It's an interesting question. However given the way Harry is clinging to his titles and privilege i doubt he would have agreed to drop all titles, and positions such a Counsellor of State, in return for being able to make money like his cousins. It's always important to remember that he didn't want to lose his HRH level royal status, he wanted to retain it and do what he wanted commercially abroad, half in half out.

Andrew, and Edward and Sophie when they were younger, were proof that isn't viable for the institution. It may even have been offered but we will never know.

Exactly. It’s a sad aspect of human nature everywhere. There are all kinds of elites across the political spectrum and the battle against corruption is endless. Self-interested people will always find ways to advantage themselves and find ways around restrictions.

I don’t agree that KC shows no appetite for change, but I do think that, for various reasons, his plans may have stalled and he might be kicking the can down the road for William to deal with.

The working RF has been greatly reduced in size and it’s been common knowledge for a while that Charles has been trying to move against Andrew but, in terms of evicting him, actual UK law has been an obstacle. Maybe this book will help.

KC’s reign has been a bit of a nightmare up to now, with the attacks of the Sussexes to deal with and then the serious illness of himself and Catherine.

It’s all Harry has.

Edited: quote function didn’t work, this is in reply to Weepixie‘s post below…

A totally, totally different situation! Incomparable in fact.

You don’t earn much comparatively speaking as a barrister, an MP and even as PM, and love him or loathe him, I think we can safely say that Blair worked hard as a lawyer and then serving for three terms as the UK’s youngest post-war PM and then earned a lot thereafter writing his autobiography and speaking and sitting on boards and creating a Foundation. He came from reasonably humble beginnings too. His father was a tax inspector who worked at night school to study law. His mother died in his final year at Oxbridge. He didn’t come from money and he made the very best of his education

And also his wife Cherie - again love her or loathe her - is an exceptionally bright woman who started buying property in London when she was a barrister because she wanted her children to have a proper home once the family left Downing Street. She was the main earner in the family. Daughter of a single parent family (absent father was an actor) in Crosby Liverpool, she went to grammar school and graduated with first class honours from LSE and not many achieve that. Was an exceptionally gifted barrister and Queen’s Counsel. Founded her own Chambers.

Somehow she managed to squeeze in a very successful academic career as well as having four dc alongside her high-flying legal career. All this time she bought up property in London for her dc and developed an impressive property portfolio and good for her I say.

She is now involved in Children in Need, women’s breast cancer care and women’s enterprise and promotion of women’s rights at home and abroad.

You can honestly say that the success of the Blairs came from their brains and their ability to apply themselves and work like demons to achieve their goals. Yes they have wealth and privilege now but they damn well earned it and Cherie suffered a lot in the press because of it and doggedly carried on working nonetheless.

Sorry to write an essay but their privilege is earned unlike the royals who achieve a lot less having been born with silver spoons in their mouths.

Yes, whistleblowers who speak out against the Establishment especially the Royal Family rarely prosper. Indeed, I can't think of a single one who has. I was just watching a video interview with Graham Smith and Professor Edzard Ernst, a respected academic and former adviser on complementary medicine who briefly worked with Prince Charles. When he raised concerns about the lack of scientific evidence behind some of the Prince’s health claims, he ended up losing his post and facing years of legal and professional pressure. His department was shut down, and he was essentially pushed into early retirement. All for standing up for science and patient safety. Absolutely shocking but sadly, not surprising.Meanwhile convicted paedophile Bishop Peter Ball continued to have the Prince's support after his conviction.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edzard_Ernst

We’ll just have to wait and see.

I’m a constitutional monarchist but I’m perfectly happy for the king to have just one ‘castle’ and one private home. I wouldn’t argue with you on that score. It makes no difference to the role, which I do think has an important function.

Yes - the Blair’s are famously brilliant at building up their wealth. How does that square with their processed socialism? I don’t think you can claim to be a socialist and do that kind of thing.

But they all do.

Autocorrect doesn’t understand apostrophes. Sorry!

Of course there are people everywhere who are on the make! But two wrongs don’t make a right!

Just because others do it doesn’t make the corrupt practices of Prince Andrew any better! Or the way in which he and his wife knowingly wasted tax payers money.

I don’t wish to sound rude but I genuinely don’t understand why you are making this point? To try and make what Andrew and Sarah did seem better? Because it really doesn’t!

I can’t see William and Catherine slimming down the number of properties and expense, unless they are made to feel it’s the only thing that will preserve them.

As one of the thread’s tame Republican, can I just point out that we are well aware that there is grift and entitlement everywhere-and I don’t think any of us are expecting a Republican utopia-nice though that sounds! The point of the RF is that they are unassailable, unquestionable and trade on the concept of being sans peur et sans reproche. They are the only ones where some (not all) people actually say the equivalent of “oh, they work so hard, they deserve it all”. And who expect and receive deference as a matter of course. And unlike the political self servers, we have absolutely no way of getting rid of them short of a revolution. You will not be surprised to hear me quoting Tony Benn-but his 3 questions are still a good starting point “What power do you have? Who gave you the power? How do we get rid of you?”

Also, no one but the RF have establishment wide collusion in covering up their misdeeds. No one on this thread unless they are very young will find out what Andrew was doing as a trade envoy for another 40 years because Parliament and the Royals pandered to him, implicated themselves in his wrongdoing and now need to use archaic rules that only apply to b the RF to cover it up. The Blair may be exceedingly wealthy but they worked for it. We elected him. If his son was corrupt and accused of abusing girls he'd be up in court.

When you quote Tony Benn’s maxims, I feel like we’re on the barricades together. I heard him speak many times and wept when he died. He was a truly remarkable man someone who gave up privilege for a life of service, and who raised wonderful children and grandchildren. A true sign of character.

That said it was 5 questions !

1. What power have you got?
2. Where did you get it from?
3. In whose interests do you exercise it?
4. To whom are you accountable?
5. And how can we get rid of you?

So you can only be a socialist if you’re poor? I really don’t understand why people say this as if it’s some sort of “gotcha”.

I find it strange that you say no one knew Fort Belvedere exists given its history especially the fact that Edward V111 made his abdication speech from there !

It's me saying that!
I've never heard of it, not seen it in the media before but perhaps others on here know all about it !

This is going to age me but I only know it from the dramatised tv series about the abdication which aired years ago.

Remember the theme tune?
”I danced with a man, who danced with a boy, who danced with the Prince of Wales”

I remember listening to that with my mother and asking, “why would anyone care about that?”

Of course building up wealth is not compatible with socialism!

It’s basic stuff.

From each according to their abilities, to each according to their needs. That’s the basic tenet of socialism.

No, you can’t be wealthy while others are poor AND virtue-signal that you’re a socialist.

Fair enough-IMHO there’s more to it than that. Maybe we’ll meet on another thread some day and thrash it out!

I feel strongly about this kind of thing because I’ve always worked in very left-leaning sectors. My family were Tories, but good-hearted, humane people who nevertheless disapproved of excessive wealth. I rebelled and considered myself a socialist when very young.

But I was disillusioned by the dogma, the nastiness, intolerance and the hypocrisy I encountered amongst many aggressively left-wing people. over a long career, I found that the nicest, kindest people were not the self-styled socialists but the mild Tories or those, like me, who were uncomfortable with political labels and being put in boxes.

One pompous colleague used to declare ‘I’m a socialist!’ In the staff room. She was mightily pissed off when it was pointed out that she was actually a social democrat, which is something entirely different. I’m probably that! Socialists don’t believe in private property at all,for example, so what this pompous, self-satisfied Guardian-reading pain in the arse was doing with 2 homes, God knows. Silly cow!

CoffeeCantata · Today 09:58
Of course building up wealth is not compatible with socialism!
It’s basic stuff.
From each according to their abilities, to each according to their needs. That’s the basic tenet of socialism.
No, you can’t be wealthy while others are poor AND virtue-signal that you’re a socialist.

Nonsense! I think you are confusing communism with socialism
aren’t you?

Take Clement Atlee, one of our arguably greatest PMs, who was born in to an upper middle class family, the son of a wealthy London solicitor. He went to Oxford, and practised as a barrister. The volunteer work he carried out in London's East End exposed him to poverty, and his political views shifted his political views to the left after that and he then created the NHS.

Imho the RF can more justifiably be accused of hypocrisy when they visit food banks and homeless shelters.

I’m a socialist, a feminist and a mild-mannered republican. Can’t stand the Blairs and their luxury beliefs. They’ve done what many former socialists in London have done - they rubbed shoulders with the super rich and wanted a bit of that. Just a bit, mind, so that they can rationalise it in their own minds as not too greedy.

A few of the heir-adjacent royals seem the same - the super rich move in their circles, and the royals get ideas of acquisition. Andrew and Harry, as spares and counsellors of state, seem to have felt it acutely and been encouraged by their spouses to pursue not just wealth but avarice itself, as a proxy for the power they don’t have.

Gosh the Mail going long on Lownie's book stating that PP had an affair with Sarah Ferguson's mother !

Next we will be reading PP is Andrew's father and hence the attraction between SF. and PA 😂😂😂