New interview with William

[elprup]

Some interesting snippets here. He comes across as very sensible, grounded and decent. I was slightly surprised to hear him mention Harry’s name!

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/royals/article-15156825/Prince-William-agenda-reform-monarchy-King.html

Read the European press.

Although it’s rarely acknowledged publically, the reporting on the monarch themselves, the incumbent of the top job, is not as free and open as you might imagine.

There is still very much a privacy bubble surrounding the Queen or King. Despite impressions to the contrary, the British press only go so far and are quite deferential in the face of the Crown itself.

We can all laugh about North Korea but we need to be asking if this degree of privacy serves the British people well? Especially when there are archaic traditions such as Erskine May built in to our systems which prevent questions being asked about the RF in Parliament, or the fact that the RF are exempt from legislation governing the publication of wills, when it is their huge wealth which shores up their status and influence.

The RF are also very practiced at protecting themselves through sophisticated PR. A well established strategy is to bring “the opposition” on to the home team, so for example, Tobyn Andreae, former co–deputy editor of the Daily Mail and, before that, the Mail on Sunday, is now the King and Queen Consort’s communications secretary, with all of the right contacts and strategies at his fingertips to negotiate which stories appear in the press, and which don’t.

Andrew Lownie, in many of his interviews, said he found it more difficult to access material about Prince Andrew than he did about British spies! And he came up against more general resistance too! And often found that potential sources had been warned not to speak to him. Think about it, it was only the Epstein case that revealed the full extent of Andrew’s involvement. Without that, the British public would still be pretty much in the dark about Andrew’s dubious and potentially illegal activities.

If someone as determined as Lownie is denied freedom of information requests pertaining to documents which covered the period when Andrew was trade envoy to the UK, how do you think he would get on investigating any potential misdeeds perpetrated by a King or Queen?

@Teeteringpiles555good point. And I’m pretty sure the recent PW interview questions were pre approved and the resulting programme well vetted!

I’m in mainland Europe, can you mention the publications or media you are referring to, even the language, I am interested, as I have not read anything different either.

We know exactly what would happen if the Head of State was too ill to do their duties because it literally occurred a couple of years ago with the late Queen.

I was thinking this - such an odd post. The Queen was old, frail and suffering from cancer for some years before she died and other members of the family stood in for her a lot. Charles did the state opening of parliament and delivered the Queen’s speech for her ffs.

Also - apparently they have no idea what would happen if an elected head of state became ill. Maybe they haven’t heard of the role of Vice President or Deputy Prime Minister.

Plus that was the point of all the fuss about Harry and Andrew being Counsellors of State and the government moving to add more royals to the list.

Apparently an ill monarch is super problematic unless they abdicate. Such a weird assertion when we have had an ill monarch, almost without interruption, for years if not decades, and no abdication in sight 🤷‍♀️

Do we need to be listening to more of the Spanish media - cos that went swimmingly with induced coma story?!

Exactly. The European press print lots of stories about the monarchy, it doesn't mean they are accurate.

I was actually thinking of Ireland. They don’t have a deputy president.

I gather they have to elect a new president within sixty days if the incumbent is incapable of doing the job.

I stand by my point that it’s much less transparent what happens when the monarch is ill.

It may have been announced that Charles was standing in for the state opening of Parliament for example, but I don’t remember any official announcement saying who was making decisions, or dealing with red boxes, towards the end of the late Queen’s reign. It is just left to trust that these things are handled. There is little transparency or consultation with the British public.

An ill monarch is not super problematic, they have someone who is more than capable of deputising who'll also take the job the second they take their last breath.

Now what could potentially be an issue is if both Monarch and 1st in line are ill 🤒.
The next two adults in line are a tad disgraced, taking it to Edward?

Or would Camilla and Catherine host dinner themselves?

That’s rather the point isn’t it?

We don’t have any say in how this is handled?

At one point Prince Andrew might have been in a position to stand in!

When was Andrew in a position to stand in? He is the disgraced 8th in line (9th in line when QE2 was still alive) who has retired from public life and is no longer a working royal.

You said that whatever happens when an elected HoS becomes ill, it’s less problematic than a monarch, unless the monarch abdicated. My point was that we have had two ill monarchs over several years, neither has abdicated and there has been no problem.

Ireland have a Presidential Commission to take over from the President should they be unable to fulfil their duties btw. So no worries there either.

On the contrary, it was made extremely clear that the late Queen was still doing the red boxes. Charles and William were her representatives as Counsellors of State (2 have to be present) but not her replacements. If she had been too ill to do the red boxes, sign Acts, meet with the Prime Minister (remember she did this a few days before she died), or the Privy Council (again we know that she attended up to the day before she died) etc there would have been a Regent appointed. There wasn't because one wasn't needed.

The point is we wouldn’t know if there had been a problem would we, because it’s all left to the monarch’s discretion when to seek help and Buckingham Palace is in charge of how much the public know?

As a constitutional expert in this article states, the rules are quite loose and everything is left for the monarch to decide.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/king-charles-cancer-what-happens-if-king-cannot-perform-duties-1.7105402

Boris Johnson PM was ill from Covid when the Queen was suffering from an undisclosed illness. So a serious situation is not out of the bounds of reality!

Wasn’t there an issue depicted in The Crown in the early sixties when the Queen was on holiday and Macmillan the PM resigned because of ill health, the government was shaken by the Profumo affair and she returned to a constitutional crisis? How much of the behind the scenes unrest was the public aware of at the time?

And although the role of Counsel of State is no longer open to Andrew since he is no longer a working role, he did have the potential to inhabit the role at one point, and technically speaking, he still holds the title, as does Harry!

Surely, if anyone bothers to respond to anything revealed in the Lownie book, it is that Andrew should have that title removed?

In theory, it’s all very well leaving these aspects of rule to the discretion of the incumbent monarchy without much transparency or consultation, when we can trust them to act in the interests of the people.

But what if that was no longer the case? Would we know? How would we know? They haven’t done a very good job of regulating the proprietary of their own finances if you ask me! And neither the late Queen or Charles seem remotely bothered that Prince Andrew has potentially broken laws against fraud and corruption while acting in an official role. It begs the question, what else can’t we trust them about?

If we had an elected head of state none of this would be left to the discretion of a monarch already incumbent with wealth and influence and a ring of privacy around them.

Of course it was made clear that the Queen was still carrying out her duties and doing the red boxes.

It was left to trust that all was well.

And I am prepared to accept that that was true and a Regent wasn’t necessary.

But that’s missing the point entirely! We could potentially not have been aware of the whole truth about it. We simply don’t know! And that’s not good enough in this day and age, in 2025, in a modern democracy!

Wasn’t there an issue depicted in The Crown

You do know that The Crown is a fictionalised drama series and not a history programme?

From its historical consultant 'when history gets departed from, it's not done casually. It's done on the basis of wanting to convey a particular message that can only be conveyed by invention'

@Teeteringpiles555 I believe the storyline in the Crown was that Churchill and Anthony Eden were poorly and it was kept from the Queen. Also, the full extent of George VI’s illness was kept hushed up, even from the government.

I've never watched The Crown, bluegreygreen, and wasn't aware of that quote, but how depressing in light of it that folk still regard the thing as some sort of history programme

Thank you. I think those were further examples weren’t they but happy to be corrected?

we need to be asking if this degree of privacy serves the British people well? Especially when there are archaic traditions such as Erskine May built in to our systems

What Erskine May (not Mayne) actually says

'As indicated at para 20.10, unless the discussion is based upon a substantive motion, drawn in proper terms, reflections must not be cast in debate upon the conduct of the Sovereign, the heir to the throne, or other members of the royal family.1 The same principle applies to the Lord Chancellor,2 the Governor-General of an independent territory,3 and judges of the superior courts of the United Kingdom4 (including persons holding the position of a judge, such as circuit judges and their deputies, as well as recorders).'

The following paragraph explains whose conduct is limited by the rule.

You will see that the limitation is simply that if you want to criticise these people you should do it properly, in a substantive motion, which can be fully debated. I don't see any difficulty with that. It stops parliamentary time being wasted with unsubstantiated rumours and gossip, and allows MPs to table motions for debate if they wish.
If MPs don't wish to table motions, that's another matter, but there's nothing in Erskine May to stop them.

If you are talking about potentialities then lots of things could happen. We can all think up worst case scenarios. There is no evidence that the public were kept in the dark about anything except the late Queen's diagnosis and how close she was to death. The government knew as it should, the public didn't, which is as it should be.

Thanks, yes. I am aware that The Crown is a drama and as such is a blend of truth and fiction.

It’s interesting btw how you pick up on that single paragraph of my post and conveniently ignore the rest!

If you read Ben Pimlott’s biography of the Queen and others, they all say that she could be frank and impatient with ministers behind the scenes.

And getting off the point but that scene was meant to demonstrate that the Queen recognised that her role was for life, and she can’t “like men of ambition” not stay the course. It is meant to imply that Macmillan made a bit more of a meal of his ill health than was strictly necessary.

The monarch’s role providing longevity and continuity in this context is of course depicted as a strength, and there is no doubt that there are many positive aspects to it. The UK benefits in many ways from tradition and stability.

However, my point is that, those very same characteristics, could potentially, in the wrong hands, have the opposite and negative effect, when the choice of head of state is left to the vagaries of a genetic throw of the dice that is a hereditary monarchy! And in 2025, I believe that the British people should have more of a say in the choice! In other words, these very important aspects of our constitution, should no longer be left to chance.

And when constitutional crises occur, the people should also be made aware of the true facts.

Edited: apologies Bluegreygreen crossed posts just then. I see you have addressed other aspects of my post.

I’m sorry but again, whether we were or weren’t kept in the dark is not really the point!

The point is we shouldn’t be guessing about this in 2025!

Important matters of state should be transparent in a modern democracy.