Andrew, Sarah & a Royal Lodge question

[MoondustandFairies]

Following some of the news stories about Andrew relinquishing Titles & a more local news story saying that he & his ex wife will continue to live in the Royal Lodge makes me wonder how that can be funded. Can they be made to leave if they can't pay?

It has 7 - or 12? - bedrooms so I expect it requires a bit of mopping & dusting each week - so do A & S also employ staff to maintain the property.

Not sure how old they both are either, maybe close to retirement?? but how do they fund a lifestyle without being propped up by the RF. Which prob won't please William too.
Just my tuppence worth question wondering how non working ex Royals with no marketable skills will pay staff wages & buy groceries.

Images are still used for propoganda purposes all over the world. I don't think it something that can be held against Charles unless there is evidence the government wanted to cancel the tradition and Charles said no.

Or Charles could just say no

Parliament is Sovereign.
Not the Monarch.

The Monarch can influence laws by Royal Assent, I am sure he could make a stand if he wanted to.

His word is not final though.
The Royal Assent, really? Could you imagine the repercussions if he withheld that?!

https://www.theartnewspaper.com/2024/01/17/shameful-waste-of-money-new-king-charles-portrait-causes-controversy

The portraits/ £8 million was the government.

I have no problem with new work being commissioned now and again. Didn't Joe Biden commission 'The Hill we Climb' for his inauguration?

Edited to add, I think a better use of money than Trump's new ballroom!

Good points, @Baital !

The portraits/ £8 million was the government.

Portrait take-up appears to have been embarrassingly low with more than 46000 eligible institutions failing to show an interest.

The current government is being shifty about where the extras have ended up.

https://www.theroyalobserver.com/p/free-portrait-of-king-charles-distributed-across-the-uk-but-46-000-institutions-reject-the-offer

www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2025/aug/13/over-46000-public-bodies-spurned-offer-of-free-king-charles-portrait

Huge waste of resources and I hope W takes note.

TLQ managed to get 100s of bills changed before they were passed in Parliament- all to advantage the RF.

Blame Parliament. They pass the Bills, there is a process. They make the laws.
The monarch has not had a say in law making since 1688.

It seems to be a Godian Knot @MrsEmmelineLucas. TLQ asks for an amendment and it’s granted. Utterly bewildering.

Mmm. Parliament is Sovereign. The Monarch cannot make or amend the laws.
I think it's probably a case of a weak Prime Minister or Ministers. If they said "no", there's not a thing that the Late Queen could have done about it.
Not really a Gordian knot!

Could you give some specific examples please?

In 2006 she was granted an exemption from an animal welfare bill which meant that inspectors were not permitted to inspect animals on the royal estates.
The Guardian had a report which estimated that there were over 1000 bills looked at in her reign.

Right. That's the responsibility of the government then.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2022/jun/28/prince-charles-pressured-ministers-change-law-queen-consent

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/feb/09/queens-consent-and-a-royal-abuse-of-power

The Ministers are spineless for giving in, if this is true.

It’s been going on since her Coronation @MrsEmmelineLucas. So all of her Prime Ministers from Churchill onwards and all of her governments are responsible. Bit mind blowing really. What’s the point of them..

Yes, if it's true, it's certainly extraordinary. Unconstitutional and illegal.

There are some very helpful posts by @prh47bridge (a respected Mumsnet lawyer) recently on the 'New allegations against Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor' thread, dealing specifically with the Guardian articles and the allegations that the Queen had laws changed.

I don't want to copy them over here without her permission, but they are on this thread from 07/11 1433 onwards (there are also comments on other legal issues, but several posts on the Guardian articles).

https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/am_i_being_unreasonable/5437828-new-allegations-against-andrew-mountbatten-windsor?page=15&reply=148368166

In summary, she has the same understanding as @MrsEmmelineLucas and I would have of the constitutional roles of the government and monarch, and has clearly looked at the laws mentioned in the Guardian articles. She is comfortable in saying that the Guardian has not identified any case where the Queen had either excluded herself from a law or had a law altered in her favour.

Thank you very much for that, @bluegreygreen
It's most informative and interesting
I'd started to do some digging myself with contacts, but this helps significantly.
Thanks 🙏

documents from the National Archives reveal that Queen Elizabeth II's representatives secretly lobbied the government to amend proposed legislation, including a draft transparency law, to conceal her private wealth and benefit her private interests.

A separate investigation revealed that the Queen was also granted immunity from over 160 laws that applied to the general public, covering areas such as environmental protections, planning laws, and workplace regulations, particularly concerning her private estates like Balmoral and Sandringham.

So, bluegreygreen I have no idea why you think QE2 did not alter laws in favour of the Monarchy.
As far as a poster who you claim to be a 'respected Mumsnet lawyer' ... are you saying this is someone on the Mumsnet payroll? Or just another poster. I ask this because anyone can be anything on a forum.

I have never seen a portrait of Charles hanging anywhere in my day to day outings. You must have a very posh doctor 🤭

Can you provide actual sources for these allegations, please?

I am not the “respected Mumsnet lawyer” being referred to here, but I completely agree with their observations in the thread linked to that many “investigations” on these topics are completely off base. But it’s always best to look at the primary sources before jumping to conclusions.

Well, yes, it's a bit out dated.

The fact remains it was a government initiative, not KC3