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

And yet in reality it IS stopping them because any time Norman Baker or other MPs apply to present a question about the RF to Parliament, they are rejected on the grounds of the Erskine May guideline.

I meant to say JSMill that your examples are much better!

I'm struggling to see your point because we weren't kept guessing about matters of State. The only guesswork involved what the late Queen actually had and when she would die. Everything else was clear.

If they have put it as a substantive motion, in proper terms, I assume there are regulations for how to take it forwards if they are refused?

I'm no expert in these matters, bluegreygreen, but according to this "The Speaker can’t give reasons and the decision can’t be challenged":

https://guidetoprocedure.parliament.uk/collections/13ar8CSW/substantive-motions

What makes you think there’s such a difference between a situation involving a monarch and one involving an elected HoS. You seem to think that the RF cannot be trusted to be transparent and honest, that although we were told what was happening with QE2, it might not have been “the whole truth”. But that an elected HoS could be trusted, would share the whole truth with the public and be completely transparent? What do you base that on? Have you no experience of watching elected politicians going about their business?!

So what would be the practical consequences of the King or Queen being able incapacitated?

If imagine William would be appointed Regent.

In the same way Charles would have been.

@NormaMajors1992coat
Elected Heads of State have a defined term of office. Monarchs don't.
So elected officials can be removed at the end of their term. Monarchs can't - no matter what they do or how much money they waste.

If that makes a difference to how much they can be trusted to share illness and incapacity, surely those seeking election and with more to lose by disclosing ‘weakness’ should be viewed with more suspicion.

Of course I have watched elected politicians and the point is that (a) we have elected them so would bear some responsibility for that choice and (b) there would be official mechanisms in place to investigate any wrong-doing. Questions about them could certainly be asked about them in Parliament. (c) Their financial accounts would be transparent and they would not be above the law in any way.

Btw I am referring to a largely ceremonial Presidency like that in Ireland, not like the model in the USA who wields enormous power, as Head of State and Head of Government, and commander in chief of the US forces.

You seem to think that the RF cannot be trusted to be transparent and honest

Too right!

Say we had a Presidency model along the lines of Ireland. The power that the Head of State has would be given to someone, it doesn't just evaporate. Someone will have final say, either technically as is the case here for the monarch or actually as its the case in the US, or the final decision will go to another elected official.

My point is that whilst there are valid questions about the system we have now I don't believe changing the system removes the questions it simply moves them to a different place in the system. The problem is power and how power can corrupt. The US founders believed they had created an impregnable system of checks and balances. Trump has shown they did not. I believe that the reason Andrew hasn't been called to account to his trade envoy grift is because it would expose the politicians who signed off on what he did. Accountability is hard and I don't have any answers only questions.

I believe that the reason Andrew hasn't been called to account to his trade envoy grift is because it would expose the politicians who signed off on what he did.

I agree with you. It would be reasonably straightforward otherwise. Has there ever been a Speaker who has consistently refused government and opposition motions? I don't think one would last long.

I understand that. But if nobody was doing the king/queen job at all-what difference would it make?

You seem to think that the RF cannot be trusted to be transparent and honest

They can't.

Exemption from FOI requests, sealed wills, other sealed documents of current public interest, lax record keeping, blurred lines over what's private property and what isn't and the heir's secrecy over his tax affairs.

That's off the top of my head.

The point I was making was not about whether the RF can or can’t be trusted (in the context of who is in charge / what happens when the monarch is ill rather than anything financial). But that it’s naive to say the least to expect anything different from elected politicians. If anything their desire to be reelected would likely make them more evasive and duplicitous.

If anything their desire to be reelected would likely make them more evasive and duplicitous

I disagree.

An elected official would quite correctly be subjected to the rigorous scrutiny the royals routinely evade.

.lI believe that the reason Andrew hasn't been called to account to his trade envoy grift is because it would expose the politicians who signed off on what he did.

So do I. The question is why they signed off on what he was doing in the first place. Would they have been so keen to hand a job to, and then turn a blind eye to the boorish, unqualified intellectually challenged rude and offensive son of a President? The culture of deference surrounding the Royals is a large part of the problem with them.

QE2 turned a blind eye too. What hope had any politician or civil servant got when she was going to suppress any criticism of Andrew.

I doubt there will ever be an investigation into Andrew’s trade envoy years as that will possibly expose government ministers who may also have been feeding at the trough. Power corrupts.

When was he in position to stand in , he's probably never needed to step up. Mainly because HMQ kept such good health, as did Phillip, Charles and Anne.

The issue is potentially now, or in the next few years we know Charles has cancer.

It wouldn't take much for Charles to be too poorly to carry out engagement and for William to get hit with flu or a tummy bug, something realitively minor, at the same time, beyond William its the 3 kids, then technically its Harry and Andrew, Before Edward and Anne.

Its really not beyond possible that both Charles and William could end up ill at the same time.