The Yorks 2 !

[jeffgoldblum]

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

On a slightly unrelated or related ( depending on your perspective!) note !
apparently the charity commission has finished investigating sentable and discovered no wrongdoing on either side !
they did however express disappointment in the public spat.
harry is not happy because he wanted the dr to be punished.
and she’s unhappy with the negative pr of Harry and his followers on the charities reputation and abilities.

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

Sounds good doesn't it, @jeffgoldblum?

Until, that it, we remember the push (since successful) to seal all of Charles's letters to ministers, and the Attorney General Dominic Grieve's remark when the Guardian fought for their publication that "There was a risk that following the disclosure of the letters, the prince could forfeit his position of political neutrality and would be unable to easily recover it when he is King"

The obvious answer to that would be to actually act impartially rather than attempt to cover up the reverse, but I've always been interested in the fact that the disclosed letters turned out to be quite anodyne, and what else may or may not have been done to continue hiding any that weren't

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2013/may/08/government-wrongly-blocked-prine-charles

Edited to add link

True puzzled but honestly I think the heir making political comments is probably not on the same level as the monarch.
I appreciate I may be softer on this than yourself but I imagine if the queen had actually publicly stated that she was unhappy with the behaviour of the government it would have had quite a big reaction from the people!
charles often made political ( small p ) comments but most people either ignored it or waved it off .

edited to add , ive read the link now thanks puzzled , I agree in principle but if I’m honest I trust Charles judgment more than the numpties we’ve had leading the government!
I know you probably won’t agree and I understand why .

What about TLQ’s Brexit hat? 🤣🤣

Honestly I think the heir making political comments is probably not on the same level as the monarch

I actually agree with this @jeffgoldblum, but for me the whole point is that we've no way of knowing whether Charles is still doing the same because his letters to ministers are yet another thing that's been sealed

It's one thing for supporters to have insisted "Oooo he'll know he can't do the same once Head of State" and quite another when the rules turn out to have been changed to suit - but then they're changed constantly, and rarely in a way that brings any extra accountability at all

Yes, I did tell the poster that

Of course comments alluding to sex work is different to mocking someone's feet and toes, who would think otherwise? I just found it bizarre that posters, including you, found it relevant to the conversation and not idle gossip!

100% this.

And resisted review and revision of protocols at so many levels that the RF are dragging behind social norms, rather than setting the trends.

She was a model.of devotion to duty, but has left her successors with decades of catching up to.implement.

I don't think he will travel abroad, not while Epstein is still a topic of discussion. He would be too afraid of being arrested and taken to the US.

Andrew has been abroad since Epstein happened. He went ski-ing and I believe Portugal or somewhere. But he won't set foot in the US ever again that's for sure!

@jeffgoldblum were those posts actual exerts from the book? it reads like a cheap novel. really doesn't paint either of them in a good light.
sad as I remember liking Sarah back in the day.

@jumpingthehighjump as far as I can see and I am late to the thread(naught RL for interrupting me) the op is happy to have H&M mentioned as long as it is negative.

Maybe it’s not Andrew they are protecting, I’m pretty sure Andrew isn’t the only abhorrent person with power and influence, look at the vile things that are coming to light from the elites pretty much every day, they are either rapists or racists or have their fingers in dodgy financial dealings, no one in power will want any light shone on them in case it puts them in the headlines, they are probably happy that at the minute Andrew is taking one for the team.

Here's my tuppence ' worth on the things I consider less to the point. I'm a similar age to PA and never heard rumours that he wasn't PP's. So I have my doubts that affected him.

On why PA seems to be a self entitled boorish oaf ( my words - could have said worse ) when his siblings are less so . I just don't know. Sometimes environment and personality coincide.

I think the lesson here for the RF is , if you behave properly there won't be anything - much - to come out. Covering up behaviour will ( in this day and age of internet / less deference ) be worse if it comes out. I think re Watergate it was said the cover up was worse than the crime.

So if I had one word of advice for the RF - if you see a member is behaving badly - deal with it don't cover it up. Now , I know they have been used to years of deference and being protected but I think they could take this on at source. I'd like to see discussions being allowed in Parliament but I don't know enough to know what would be helpful and what would undermine our (unwritten) constitution . But PA's shennanigans ( to put it mildly ) I think should make for the RF and the men in grey suits trying to do a root and branch investigation and come up with a better way to deal with wayward members.

Colour me naive 😊

Again I don’t disagree puzzled , we cannot know for sure and I would not like to think Charles was leveraging his new position as king !
please don’t quote me but I’m sure I read that he had made comments about how he knew that as the king he was not able to comment on politics like he did previously, I’m hoping he sticks to this.

Mine highlighted in black Brian ?
unfortunately yes they were just copied and pasted to save other viewers time!
you can see why I gave up in the end.

@jeffgoldblum it seems poorly written, almost like a tv drama.

I suppose the Speakers would have to declare in the Commons and Lords that Erskine May is a tradition & protocol and does not have the force of Law.

OTOH, there is a legal view that the monarch can remove any titles and styles that he or she wants without parliamentary involvement.

Both are possible.

This last one seems totally different to the previous two !
no idea why and a complete disappointment, nothing but a rehash of their relationship ( which I’m not interested in!)

She was by now deeply involved with Wyatt, and he was one of 800 guests invited to Buckingham Palace to mark the Queen Mother's 90th birthday, Princess Margaret's 60th, Princess Anne's 40th and Prince Andrew's 30th. The Queen asked her whether Wyatt was 'quite the sort of person you should be encouraging, dear'.

This doesn't quite ring true does it?

She was by now deeply involved with Wyatt, and he was one of 800 guests invited to Buckingham Palace to mark the Queen Mother's 90th birthday, Princess Margaret's 60th, Princess Anne's 40th and Prince Andrew's 30th. The Queen asked her whether Wyatt was 'quite the sort of person you should be encouraging, dear'.
This doesn't quite ring true does it?

it’s the way non posh people think posh people talk.

I despise Sarah but a few things don’t ring true. The business with the meat/Kettle chips seems like a cheap dig at her weight and food issues from a scorned employee. I dunno 🤷‍♀️ I know she’s grasping and foul, but ….

I think that it’s best to stick to Andrew’s alleged sex crimes and his Trade Envoy dodginess, and possible financial impropriety from him or his wife, but I suppose I understand that these things alone won’t sell books and newspapers.

I also agree with whoever wrote that just pushing him aside and quietly keeping him away from church walks etc won’t cut the mustard. Something needs to be done now. No idea what. And Charles shouldn’t put his head in the sand and effectively hand the mess over to W as his mother did to him.

Was it the RF as a whole or just the Yorks?

Some sources say 'the royals', some 'the royal family'

Who knows. At least it's out there.

it’s the way non posh people think posh people talk.

Maybe😀

I would also wonder at TLQ getting involved & would have thought unsuitable names would just have been struck off!

I very much doubt Charles or William exerted any pressure to suppress the book. Surely it can only help in their dealings with Andrew?

I'm pretty sure both Charles and William are very aware that the age of automatic, unquestioning deference is gone (and good riddance). Maybe that was part of the pressure they exerted to get Andrew removed from public life in the first place.

The News of the World was still going at the time of Sarah and Andrew’s marriage. I don’t think they would have held back on Andrew. I’m taking the revelations with a pinch of salt.