The Yorks 2 !

[jeffgoldblum]

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

I don't think that Andrew will bring down the monarchy

Neither do I. I do believe something will at long last be done among him (and SF) but that’s as far as it will go. And quite rightly so.

Likely the Official Secrets Act played a role, along with the convenient fig leaf of business activity often closely aligned with his own interests, admittedly. I suspect quite a few people would come forward if a serious investigative team started digging through it all.

I've just remembered this as well from the midsts of time.

https://www.upi.com/Archives/1984/04/24/Crown-may-pay-for-cameras-clothes-sprayed-by-prince/1107451630800/

LOS ANGELES -- The British consulate may pay $1,200 to a photographer whose cameras were sprayed with white paint by Prince Andrew.

Consulate spokesman Angus McKay told UPI Monday that payment is still 'under consideration' and is being discussed with royal family representatives in London.

The prince picked up a paint sprayer during his four-day Southern California visit last week and squirted paint onto American and British journalists and photographers covering the royal tour.

He then wiped his hands on a newspaper and told county Supervisor Kenneth Hahn, 'I enjoyed that.'

Chris Gulker, a photographer with the Los Angeles Herald Examiner, said Monday he was most upset not by the spraying but by the prince's response.

'He didn't say, 'Oh my God, I'm sorry,'' Gulker explained. 'He had such a grin of delight.'

The Herald Examiner presented the consulate with a $1,200 bill the same day, saying that would cover costs of replacing equipment owned by the newspaper and the photographer.

Thank you so much for that. It was fascinating.

I love that Paul Flynn. He really did his best, but he was thwarted at every turn. His hands were tied. He was basically saying how much it cost to run this TA job and was it worth it, but he was not allowed to criticise the man (PA) holding the job.

I hope those who basically shouted him down saying Andrew is doing a wonderful job are very embarrassed now. Of course they won't be.

From Paul Flynn
I am not in a position to give further details, because if I did so, I would transgress the rules of the House, as I did in a previous debate. That debate was interrupted. The Speaker would quite rightly abide by the rules of the House and tell me that I was not allowed to make any derogatory statements that might affect the envoy, his personality or his name. It is an illustration of how demeaned we are as politicians and Members of Parliament that I am allowed to make any points about the damage that is done only in an oblique way, by discussing the effects of the holder of the office, his role and the comments that are being made.

And therein lies our problems. Erskine May. No one can criticise the RF whatever they do. It's barking mad. They are totally untouchable.

Maybe parliamentary debate being allowed would be a start.

How wrong is it that they cannot be even discussed?

No doubt there will be some reason! , perhaps rooted in history that we are unaware of ?
unfortunately the knowledgeable posters who know about this particular branch of history are not on the thread .

Bang on - he did try but I can’t see Starmer taking it on. That’s where the dead hand of the establishment, patronage, deference, and the accumulated detritus of history all muddy the waters. In the scheme of things, it’s small beer monetarily but constitutionally, it would be a giant leap.

I’ve noted that and felt sorry for Lord Linley! I think it shows that they’re deriving their looks from the Hanoverian genes, and as someone pointed out yesterday, Beatrice in particular resembles the young Queen Victoria around the eyes (like her father). But Beatrice is much prettier !

On a frivolous (but I think, revealing) note and talking of Hanoverian genes, I’ve been racking my brains over the past couple of days to think of who in royal history Andrew reminds me of, physically and psychologically. I remembered yesterday! Don’t laugh, but it’s Kaiser Bill. I’ve read a lot about him (he was frightful- thick, unpleasant, aggressive, crude, arrogant) and my God, if you look at some pictures of him - and can get past the moustache, there’s a definite resemblance. The Kaiser was QV’s grandson and she died in his arms apparently.

Im genuinely not making this up!😳😀

I have some knowledge, sorry if it's not enough! 🤣

No, not at all.
It is not law. It is a procedure written in a book back in 1844 and updated from time to time.
'No question can be asked which reflects upon the Sovereign or any members of the Royal Family.'
But to emphasise, it is not law, it is guidance.

Taken from an article.
All of this raises a much larger question for British democracy. Since we are a constitutional monarchy – and proud of it, in the majority of cases – how can it be that our parliament is gagged – and is gagging itself – from talking about how that constitutional monarchy is actually working? The effect is self-important self-censorship.

I have had a look and this is all I could find .
reading between the lines , it appears that there is no binding law but ( I’m no expert so could be wrong!) it seems parliament makes no adverse comments about the monarchy and in turn the monarchy stays impartial towards the political parties. I’m assuming the last thing the government wants is the king ( or queen) wading in with criticism of the government.

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

It doesn’t erode my trust in them. It does however highlight the fact that when it comes to the likes of Andrew and Harry there can be no half measures when it comes to dealing with them once and for all.

And republican malcontents? There’s a lot to be said for the old saying, ‘you catch more flies with cider than vinegar’ and if anything was to make me more of a constitutional monarchist than I already am it would be the posts I read here that have been written by cabbage throwing republicans.

well quite! , I think we can all agree that Andrew and Sarah need to be properly dealt with and it’s good to see transparency on their behaviour.

but it would be nice if posters acknowledged that not all of us are republicans and although that doesn’t automatically make us monarchists it doesn’t mean we believe or wish to constantly hear about the dissolution of the entire institution!
originally I started this thread to discuss the book about the York’s and hopefully see him finally held to account, it now feels like it’s turned into a republican, royal bashing thread !
I cannot and would not tell people what they are allowed to discuss but I did ask posters not to bring unrelated gossip to the thread, how can I ask that of posters and then ignore subjects that they find uninteresting?

I haven’t thrown any cabbages-but equally I’m not recruiting! I do think however that you have to be a very loyal monarchist not to have your faith shaken at least a little bit by TLQ and now KC’s responses to Andrew….

and it’s good to see transparency on their behaviour.

The RF tried to ban this book.
No transparency from them.

This has been an interesting thread. And I thank you for it. I don't understand. Where is the unrelated gossip?

Yesterday we had pictures of Meghan's feet and a post all about her on a swing or something and I was told by a couple of posters that that was relevant as we were discussing her!

Exactly.

They must be a tad worried (understatement)

I think it is quite possible to discuss the Monarchy and its future in light of the revelations in this book. What we have learnt will quite obviously colour people's views on what they think of the whole Institution, I don't know how we can avoid discussion on that...

Before the thread police start crying foul it really does cast Meghan and Harry’s supposed foibles into deep, deep shade, doesn’t it? And if the Palace’s response is to do nothing, then perhaps some of that limited public outrage should be redirected accordingly. They won’t, of course the hope will be that this quietly dies down, gets swept under the carpet, and business returns to the usual charade.

I was quite clear that no gossip about Meghan involving “ yacht “ style comments were acceptable and any discussion of Harry or Andrew having different fathers.
however I don’t find pictures of feet as particularly offensive!

I agree. The times they are ALWAYS a-changin’, and while I hope and trust that this book will help and accelerate KC in moving against Andrew, and be a lesson for future arrangements, I think the monarchy was/is changing anyway. This will speed things up and I hope lead to only the core members and innocent occasional helpers like the Duchess of Gloucester getting anywhere near big funding and important events.

There are serious questions and lessons to be learned for sure.

I didn't realise a picture of her feet mocking them followed by a long post about them was relevant to the thread and I would have called that 'unrelated gossip'!

Be careful! It was not me who said discussion of Harry and Meghans behaviour was off the table!
however I did listen to the posters who did complain and keep it to what was mentioned in the article.
however comments like these are inviting posters to make their opinions known !
my personal opinion on your particular comment could not be more opposite.

Did you tell the poster that?
because I only saw the picture before I had other things to do!
however yes I do differentiate between rather nasty comments alluding to sex work as a lot worse than “ mocking “ someone’s feet!
however you may feel differently as is your right.

I was replying to Vera99 whilst trying to be polite and not single her/him out even though I was feeling dizzy trying to get through their posts which were coming so thick and fast they seemed like a bombardment, and were why I mentioned catching more flies with honey than vinegar.

Have I had my faith shaken in the RF? No. I’m disappointed they’ve scored such an own goal when it comes to the gruesome twosome but I’d rather have the RF (minus the gruesome twosome and a couple of others) than the alternative.

I don’t want a performative internal exile of Prince Andrew by the King something that would inevitably be all smoke and mirrors. What’s needed is an exhaustive, independent investigation into all the issues raised, with the possibility of criminal sanctions at the end of that process just as would apply to anyone else facing such serious allegations of sexual misconduct and corrupt abuse of office. If that doesn’t happen, then the responsibility lies squarely with the Royal Family as a whole. And if you are complicit in that cover-up, then you are an accessory after the fact.

Apologies for the blizzard I'm putting off housework as a result and that is not good. But you have to make hay whilst the sun shines and am currently going down a Cromwell wormhole when I should be weeding. Plus I need to get those cabbages grown.....

The problem is that although Andrews sexual exploits are shocking, they do not pass into criminal behaviour in the eyes of U.K. law.
his financial dealings however need to be investigated thoroughly and may pass into criminal conduct but I have the feeling that the government are not entirely innocent here and the appetite to investigate and what it may reveal about their own involvement may lead to a rather disappointing outcome.