Does the Lownie book cast doubt on the financial integrity of other more senior members of the royal family past and present?

[Calderasway444]

I’m beginning to think that the words “cover up” should be woven in to the new carpets at Buckingham Palace!

Prince Andrew allegedly breaking the law, allegedly doing personal deals while acting as a trade envoy for the uk, and the late Queen E2 being allegedly fully aware, and it being allegedly hushed up, if true, is serious stuff!

Which begs the questions, do the RF believe themselves to be above the law? Are they allegedly using their wealth, power, and influence to allegedly cover up illegal activities? Is this the way the monarchy allegedly operates?

I think these are legitimate questions in the light of Lownie’s alleged disclosures. Lownie’s book has certainly made me think of the series of questionable incidents involving Prince Charles’s office, as he was then, in a slightly different way.

One of these alleged incidents allegedly involved his former valet Michael Fawcett who allegedly “sold on” gifts given to the Prince, leading to the tabloids calling him “Fawcett the Fence”.

There was an internal enquiry, the Peat Enquiry, carried out by a senior grey suit, and Fawcett was totally exonerated , but apparently it was found that there weren’t sufficient records taken of gifts coming and going. Some press articles subsequently mentioned a whitewash.

Then there was the more serious cash for honours debacle, also involving Fawcett, in which the Saudi billionaire, Mahfouz, allegedly paid tens of thousands of pounds to fixers with links to the then Prince of Wales, who had allegedly told him they could secure him a knighthood and UK citizenship. It was investigated for eighteen months by the Met, two men were interviewed under caution for contravening the Honours (Prevention of Abuses Act) 1925 and the Bribery Act 2010. A file was passed to the Crown Prosecution Services and no further action was taken.

Norman Baker, among others, expressed surprise at this outcome given the available evidence.

Following this was the cash in carrier bags furore when Prince Charles was said to have allegedly been given a total of €3m (£2.6m) during meetings with Sheikh Hamad bin Jassim bin Jaber al-Thani, the former prime minister of Qatar.

There is no suggestion that the money was meant for any other purpose than the King’s charities where it eventually was deposited, but let’s just say it didn’t look good! Especially when us ordinary citizens are required to account for every penny of cash earned when filing tax returns!

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2023/aug/21/met-police-no-further-action-cash-for-honours-claims-king-charity-princes-foundation#:~:text=2%20years%20old-,Met%20police%20criticised%20for%20ending%20cash%2Dfor,honours%20inquiry%20into%20king's%20charity&text=The%20Metropolitan%20police%20has%20come,king's%20charity%2C%20the%20Prince's%20Foundation

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2022/jun/26/prince-charles-calls-for-investigations-into-cash-in-bags-controversy

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2023/aug/21/met-police-no-further-action-cash-for-honours-claims-king-charity-princes-foundation

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11244503/amp/Charles-ex-right-hand-man-Michael-Fawcett-exile-cash-honours-scandal.html

https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2003/mar/13/monarchy2

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/a-right-royal-whitewash-catalogue-of-impropriety-concludes-no-one-behaved-improperly-122722.html#

I mean… is it just me?

Does the Lownie book cast the above incidents in a bit of a different light than previously?

Does all of this explain why Prince Andrew is allegedly still being protected by his brother KC3 to a degree? I have nothing against Charles personally but it does make me question whether this is the way the institution has allegedly operated for centuries, and it’s Lownie’s book that is allowing us to see a more complete picture?

Just the fact that there have been so many investigations which ended up with the result “nothing to see here, move on” is highly suspicious surely?

And it leads me to believe that perhaps the story we have always been sold, that the senior figures of the RF are solid and above reproach, and it’s just the bit players who are allegedly slightly wayward, is a highly suspicious narrative?

I must admit that one of the richest people I know, who has lived off a trust fund from birth, is also one of the stingiest!

Totally agree. It’s frustrating that so few MPs seem interested in taking this issue on and asking the right questions. They can’t all be holding out for an honour surely?

There are questions asked but all questions tabled are thrown out by the Speaker. (Erskine May)

Thank you for linking that really interesting article by Martin Kettle.

I didn’t know that the ostensible justification for the Erskine May convention was that questions to ministers can deal only with matters of ministerial responsibility and there is, in theory, no one responsible for the RF.

And yet, as Kettle points out, the PM meets weekly with the monarch and advises them regularly eg Diana’s death, Princess Margaret’s marriage, Edward the VIII’s abdication. So the justification doesn’t really have legs!

Agree that the figures are not there yet Bontonbonbon, from a Republican perspective.

But again, without proper transparency how can the public really know what they are in favour of, or not?

Lownie’s book imho. is another small important step towards clarity

I don’t know whether this is significant or not, but the university students of my acquaintance in their late teens and early twenties, are not remotely interested in the royals. And when I say uninterested, I mean that they don’t even register on their consciousness, whereas I could at least name the family at their age and knew who was related to whom.

Whether the reform of the monarchy is at the top of anyone’s to do list or not, the Royals carrying on the way they are going, eg no significant financial change, no changes in laws relating to land ownership, tax, or improved transparency of accounts, or financial accountability, sooner or later, I believe, change will be thrust upon them. It will only take a couple more scandals of the murky kind listed above to hopefully kick start that process.

Completely agree with you that the RF are a useful distraction away from the many issues that we should be focusing on, but we in the UK knowingly gave up our best chance of properly taxing Bezos and the like when we voted to leave the EU, which, until encountering recent legal obstacles, was doing pretty well in its efforts to bring global conglomerates under some form of regulation. The UK, acting alone, has next to no chance of bringing that about.

@Calderasway444 I agree. I don't know any younger people with an interest in the Royals, and when you watch quiz programmes the lack of knowledge and compete disinterest from younger people is fairly stark. However I suspect this is what will keep them going. If they are just ' there' they can limp on at least for a couple of generations. Change will have to be forced on them. I doubt they will do it themselves no matter what William says about what he wants to do. He could work with his father to modernise now. Instead he's gone backwards and doesn't even publish his tax returns like Charles does. I doubt that's because he pays so much more so it must be the opposite.

Lownie mentioned Bea, Eug, Zara & Peter Phillips as having personally benefited from their royalty status, Andrew’s daughters especially having benefited from his own connections in the Middle East. IIRC, he also hinted on a recent Heretics podcast that most of the RF supplemented their incomes through connections they were able to make because of who they were.

In Andrew’s case, the most troubling aspect was his connection with JE because there is lots of evidence that JE was able to blackmail A and had already passed files on to Israel & Moscow. Which could enable those countries to have hold over us/our government.

Then again, there’s the ‘perfectly legal’ billing by the Duchy of Cornwall of the ambulance service for providing parking/storage of their (our) ambulances. I find that harder to forgive than some of the other royals’ cashing in activities.

Yes, I am never sure about that either!

One can argue that technically it’s just an ordinary commercial deal like any other I suppose, but it doesn’t sit right quite right with me that a commercial organisation like the Duchy, which has I believe considerable tax advantages, profits from renting out land to the NHS!

I think some of the Duchies’ profits are ploughed back in to state coffers but I’m not quite sure how this works.

I am sure one of the monarchists on this board could fill us in but funnily enough there are not the usual quotient on this thread 😀

Referendum to abolish monarchy

https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/735302

No it’s definitely not just you. Too many cover ups.

Wow only 229 signatures so far…

There have been a while series of programmes or books on the RF which really blow the lid off what is going on in plain sight. I read a book about Charles a few years ago which completely opened my eyes to just how ridiculously spoilt and self indulgent he is. It’s a whole other world that none of us can possibly imagine I less it’s spelt out.

Then we have this book about Andrew. The TV programme about the Duchy and the way Charles and William take rent on public services and land that they ‘own’.

Why on earth we are not demanding a referendum on the monarchy is beyond me. There is just no good reason for their existence any longer.

🤣

It is not just financial cover ups, what about the cover up of Kincora boys care home:

https://www.irishacademicpress.ie/product/kincora/

@FluentOP
Totally agree with you.
Mountbatten was a child abuser.