The Yorks 2 !

[jeffgoldblum]

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

And was a nice little meal ticket for her!

Utterly obscene though that situation is, it's unconnected with Andrew and Fergie's behaviour.

I think this article gives a more nuanced, balanced view of how some of the British population, and the world in general, regard the British RF, as opposed to the prevailing views on the RF Mumsnet board.

I’m not a Monarchist, but I believe that the family’s only hope now is William and Catherine. And that is a lot of serious pressure on them.

KC has his good points but he is known to live an extravagant lifestyle.
We all remember the scandal over the bags of cash and cash for honours:

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2022/jun/25/prince-charles-is-said-to-have-been-given-3m-in-qatari-cash

Personally, I think Andrew is too crass and dense to be an innovator. IMHO, when he was accepting holidays and money from corrupt Libyan and Afghani businessmen, I think it is highly likely that he was copying a model that he has seen implemented by other family members. Shoot me if I am
wrong, but I think it’s likely he didn’t have full awareness of how wrong it was, because it is possibly the way some of the RF have operated for years.

The murkiness between private and public funding, private and public property, and private and working holidays sounds all too familiar.

Both TLQ and KC seem to have abdicated responsibility for taking the hard decisions. To be fair, KC has been seriously ill, but William has been dealing with his wife’s illness too.

We know now why William brazened criticism to be absent at the Easter service. That could prove to be a very wise decision given everything that is being revealed now.

Exactly.

One way for this to come to a head now, suggests Wilson, would be if MPs raise questions about Prince Andrew’s time as a trade ambassador, in the context of examining potential misuse of public funds. Any serious findings would mean “Charles could act in the best interests of preserving the monarchy”

How are they supposed to do that, @vera99, when tthey adhere to the convention of not discussing the RF in Parliament?

I can't see anyone wanting to claim Andrew's DNA!!! 😖

I would agree previously and it still may be true but I have now read the entire article, if it can be taken at face value, then it appears that Andrew was and still is madly in love with her ! 🤷♀️
apparently he didn’t want to divorce her and was told to do it .
they were going to remarry but were told it wasn’t possible, so he moved her into his house instead.
sarah apparently still loves him but not in a physical way anymore but apparently doesn’t want to lose her place in his affections so dispatches any girlfriend he becomes too serious with!
it’s a romantic mess !

As a complete unrelated comment, has anyone else noticed that their little people these ! 🤷♀️ keep being changed from girls to boys after posting??
very odd.
it’s happened again!!! That was a girl !!

I didn’t want to say!

That’s a really good point. The convention that MPs don’t discuss the Royal Family in Parliament makes it difficult to raise questions about sensitive issues like Prince Andrew’s role as a trade ambassador or possible misuse of public funds. Unless that convention is formally reconsidered or set aside, meaningful scrutiny is almost impossible.

There are ways around it - MPs could push for committee inquiries into government spending or appointments that indirectly cover royal roles, or call for a formal review of the convention if public pressure grows. Media investigations and whistleblowers can also increase the spotlight, forcing Parliament’s hand.

But the real problem is that without sustained and substantial public clamour, the political class simply doesn’t have the bandwidth to tackle this. Add to that the deep-rooted patronage woven into our political system, and it’s a very steep hill to climb. It will take significant and ongoing public pressure to drive any real change, especially to ensure transparency and maintain trust in the monarchy.

Of course, Charles could direct the Prime Minister to do something about this - but the chance of that happening is less than nil.

But that aside, this further erodes public trust in the Royal Family as a national bedrock institution and hands easy ammunition to republican malcontents such as myself to throw cabbages over the palace walls.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/jan/25/parliament-monarchy-keir-starmer-queen

We should be clear. What the Speaker told Starmer last week was not some idiosyncratic assertion. His intervention was institutional, not personal. He was restating established practice as set out in the Commons procedural bible, Erskine May. Hoyle was also saying exactly what three former Westminster clerks had told me a few days earlier that he would say if an MP ever tried to ask a question about either the monarch or the royal family – or specifically challenged the behaviour and official standing of Prince Andrew, the Duke of York.

Erskine May is an accumulation of procedural evolution and convention – not a law book. It states that to use the Queen’s name to influence a decision is “unconstitutional in principle and inconsistent with the independence of parliament”. The rule extends to mention of other members of the royal family too. If a royal has expressed an opinion – as Prince Charles has often done – then comment “in appropriate terms” is permitted, but as the Speaker showed last week, the boundaries are carefully policed.

The ostensible justification for what the Speaker said was that questions to ministers can deal only with matters of ministerial responsibility. Since no minister answers to parliament for the royal family, the subject is off-limits. And yet it wasn’t always like this. In 1809 – before Erskine May was codified – the Commons held an inquiry into the conduct of another Duke of York, who resigned as commander in chief of the army as a result.

Hansard 1809 Conduct of the Duke of York ! I wasn't aware before of this.

https://api.parliament.uk/historic-hansard/commons/1809/mar/17/conduct-of-the-duke-of-york

www.historyofparliamentonline.org/periods/hanoverians/duke-york-scandal-1809

If he was on a so-called curated overseas visit, these were typically initiated by his office rather than being part of a structured trade mission aligned with ministers, trade fairs, or other strategically relevant events. If he wanted to visit a particular country Thailand, for instance justifications would have to be fabricated around it. These trips more than often lacked any meaningful strategic value and were essentially elaborate holidays dressed up as official business.

That's shocking, Vera. But how could the high-ups in the FCO and the government trade departments have allowed this to continue? If they tried to highlight it or stop it and were over-ruled, that's awful. But I hope at least they tried to put a stop to Andrew's jollies.

But how could the high-ups in the FCO and the government trade departments have allowed this to continue

I would imagine they were told to put up and shut up.

I can't see the government ordering an enquiry. Regardless of which party is in power they will each have signed off on Andrew as a trade envoy and I simply don't believe they didn't know what he was like. Turkeys don't vote for Christmas and trust in politicians is already low.

The best we can hope for is that the situation will not be repeated.

Whilst I think this harms the family I'm not sure it harms the institution. People are simply too focused on paying bills at the moment and most of the fringe politicians, who could make a fuss, are focused on immigrants. Plus I think there is a general lack of faith in the probity of those in power that makes Andrew one of many.

Papers relating to his time as Trade Envoy have vanished according to Andrew Lownie. That raises the spectre of Buckingham Palace being involved in a cover up.

From what I remember and I wasn’t particularly senior at the time — there was a fair bit of internal unease. The general consensus was that Prince Andrew wasn’t appointed trade envoy because he was particularly qualified, but rather to give him something constructive to do and maybe help him feel useful. He was, after all, the Queen’s favourite son and apparently quite effective in the Gulf States, where BAe defence contracts were crucial, and navigating tricky royal personalities was par for the course.

Back then, UKTI (UK Trade & Investment) was a strange hybrid organisation split between the Foreign Office and what was then the DTI. It handled both trade promotion and inward investment. Its top brass were usually knighted, and only the CEO would’ve had the authority (assuming they were even properly in the loop) to deal with someone operating at Andrew’s level.

He was officially appointed in 2001 and remained in post for ten years, until July 2011, when mounting pressure over his questionable associations and growing media scrutiny finally brought things to a head. Technically it was a resignation but let’s be honest, he was pushed. And rightly so.

It would have taken a brave senior civil servant on the escalator to gongdom to push that decision forward. That sort of action wouldn’t have gone directly to Andrew it would’ve been routed through the Prime Minister, via either the Foreign Secretary or the Secretary of State for Business, as UKTI didn’t sit at Cabinet level.

From those extracts from the book - his anger and rage were well known and given his title it would be a very difficult call to make which is why it wasn't for so long. His mum no dount thought he was doing an amazing job as he updated her as to what he was up to.

All the talk on the previous thread about Andrew’s parentage ( which I found very distasteful) I spotted this photo of Andrew and thought how like Lord Linley he looks .

Thank you for this.

I agree.

Why aren't they coming forward now with their stories. I don't imagine civil servants or retired high ups in the FCO exactly signed NDAs pertaining to Andrew? I hope the floodgates open

OF COURSE he fancied going to a particular golf course, a particular country, seeing a particular woman or whatever and will have instructed the FCO to manufacture a visit to enable this.
It was obvious back then when he was Airmiles Andy.

I’m grateful for these threads, and the links, but I think these comments above are far from pointless.

For some of us, they are the point.

It’s disrespectful to dismiss them so perfunctorily.

A hereditary monarchy leaves the British public without choice or agency. A cursory glance at the history books will tell you all about British kings both good and bad; but many were violent, sexually incontinent, money-hoarding, indulged, playboys. Imho, it’s not that much different today but the PR is more sophisticated! And we the public are more clued up and less deferential.

Given the current standard of our politicians and those in public roles, it can be argued that an elected head of state might not be much better! But no system is perfect and at least we have a degree of choice in electing them in, and most importantly, getting rid of them if they are not up to the job.

Also, the legislative pathway for electing and de-selecting would be created alongside the establishment of the office of Head of State who is accountable for their actions and every penny spent.

A monarch with vast wealth, lands, extensive influence, is much harder to oppose.

We can still have all the pomp and ceremony and celebrate our unique traditions, without all of this ridiculous charade, excess cost and inter-family rivalry worthy of a day-time soap.

We could attempt to become a serious, forward-thinking, respected country again where rewards are gained through merit and hard work, regardless of class or culture.

Our Head of State should set an example, not turn a blind eye to the corruption carried out by their family members. And that applies to to KC as much as it did to TLQ.

I do disagree actually.

I think it has done irreparable damage to the Institution. To be honest I don't believe a word they say anymore and I used to be quite the Royalist.
Everywhere I look... on right wing media, left wing, middle of the road... on comments pages there is one pro-Royal family comment to 50-100 saying get rid of them.

Bingo have found a Parliammetay debate where the MP gingerly brings up the issue of Andrew's disgraceful behaviour as Trade Envoy seemingly without the Speaker shutting it down. Time for a repeat.

https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2011-05-04/debates/11050479000001/SpecialRepresentativeForInternationalTradeAndInvestment?utm_source=chatgpt.com

So you think posts that say “ just imagine the queen had two children and not Charles “ are helpful?
we can imagine many imaginary scenarios but they are not factual so I don’t see the point in speculation on what might happen in some parallel universe.