Andrew - continuing his effort to end the Monarchy, part 2

[AnnunciataM]

I am not the OP of the previous thread but we are nearly at 1000 posts and there's been some very good discussion on there.

Previous thread https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/the_royal_family/5473274-andrew-continuing-his-effort-to-end-the-monarchy

The checks and balances in this country between monarchy, government, parliament (as separate to government), the legislature and the police are all intended to make huge issues like this simply not be able to happen. There must have been failure in all these areas.

Excellent argument for a transparent, accountable, easily deposed if necessary HoS right there.

Not exactly.

You clearly missed my added point that while some of us have different opinions on monarchy, monarchy is only part of the whole, and is the least powerful part when all are functioning correctly.

A 'transparent, accountable, easily deposed' head of state would have made no difference to the catalogue of failings that have clearly occurred across government, parliament, legislature and police.

The issue here is widespread wrong behaviour of powerful people, not whether or not there is a monarchy.

So the cover up by the monarchy has nothing to do with it. Rightio!

Im not sure. I suspect the existence of the Monarchy seems to lead to behaviour in those other arms of government that would not be evident in an elected HoS. Especially a Ceremonial one. The people covering up werent doing it for money. They were doing it out of deference and hopes of favour from the Monarch, or because the Monarch had control over their future careers. Can you imagine staff working for the Irish President following orders if he told them to breach security to allow his son to shag streams of women? It is the fault of MPs etc that they have been guilty of such a dereliction of duty but the RF need far stricter controls and curbs precisely because they take advantage as much as they do, and seem to surround themselves with people who will go to any lengths, to do their bidding without using their judgement at all.

I agree. The Monarch is all powerful. A HoS is on a short tenure of a few years and if something untoward, illegal or a big cover-up is found, he or she would be voted out
We can't vote out the Royals.
And yes successive governments have enabled this ridiculous situation

@bluegreygreen
The monarchy is ‘least powerful’?
This extract from The Guardian.
Queen Elizabeth II and her advisors used a procedure known as "Queen’s Consent" to influence, lobby for changes, or secure exemptions from over 1,000 UK laws. This process requires the government to alert the monarch to any legislation that might affect the "interests of the crown," including private property, assets, and sovereign immunity.

In March 2011, Cameron gave AMW his ‘full backing’ as Trade Envoy. Vince Cable (Lib Dem Business Secretary), however, wanted Andrew to consider his position. Cameron and AMW won. But by July 2011, AMW finally stepped down.

Vince Cable is now calling for a full investigation of AMW’s Trade Envoy role. Good on Vince - he’s 82 years old and putting other politicians to shame.

Unfortunately seeing the coverage on this side of the Pond it’s no better without a monarchy for having the elites and establishment supporters all in with Epstein for favours, power, abuse and greed.

The ones at the top across all the pillars - politics, finance, religion are seemingly more corrupt than not. You get a rare breath of fresh air like the Obamas but the rest…

I just don't think it is a very good excuse to say.. well our country is fucked up and we haven't got a monarch.

Broad sweeping changes are needed here in UK

Sounds like the only person to strongly object to AMW being given the role of Trade Envoy was KC! (then PC).

Oh it's absolutely not - just I don't think anyone should get their hopes up that changing the system from a constitutional monarchy will have any positive effect on reducing corruption at the top.

I was quite surprised at reading this in the Guardian some years ago. I didn’t really pay much attention to the RF but went along with the general idea that QE2 was harmless and duty-bound etc etc. However, the Andrew Lownie revelations notwithstanding, all her actions have been to enrich her family and get tax breaks and be exempt from most key laws citizens are subject to. That’s enormous power and hardly a ceremonial head of state / monarchy. That really has to change . The corruption is really coming from the top.

I didn't say that.

The monarchy is fully responsible for whatever it has done wrong.

That doesn't mean it's not highly illogical to suggest it's the fault of the monarchy that all the other important constituents of our society have major failings.

Maybe the queen and Philip had no real idea how much the lifestyle costs.

Maybe Philip wanted to punish SF. He apparently hated her. Very shortsighted if so. His own family were well known to be beggars.

It was racism - his delivery and content were very typically African American churchman style, which they would have known and understood if they had made any effort to acquaint themselves with a different culture beforehand. Little England racism at its most loathsome.

Mind you, I wouldn't expect any better from people related to prince Philip, who was a notoriously ignorant, racist boor. The apples didn't fall far from the tree.

Yes, the monarchy is the least powerful. We live in a constitutional monarchy.

I read that Guardian article some time ago. I also saw a legal opinion on it.

Some clarification:

Yes, the Queen may well have lobbied for changes. Many businesses organisations and other interested groups do.

Queen's (now King's) Consent (and Prince's, where relevant) applies to bills affecting the royal prerogative, and the hereditary revenues, personal property or personal interests of the Crown. This consent is not something that can be refused; it is part of the procedure for a relevant bill passing through the Houses of Parliament, and now happens at the third reading in each house.
If there was ever a threat to withhold consent, that would be a constitutional crisis.
King's Consent

Securing exemptions: I would need to reread the whole article to refresh myself on exactly what the Guardian was saying - from memory it was inaccurate.
It's important to remember that the longstanding principle in the UK is that the Crown is exempt from statute ('the Crown is not bound by statute save by express words or necessary implication'), so exemptions would not be necessary.
Of note, since 2010 this has not been the case for Acts of the Scottish Parliament, and since 2020 for Acts of the Senedd.

Yes but even Trump has to sit there in front of journalists and answer to them, even though, when he does, he makes himself look like the raving, rambling fool that he is. His staff are exposed as the self serving idiots that they are on a regular basis. There are prevous members of his administration who have turned on him. The press as a whole are unafraid to challenge him and report on him. The ' No Kings' demo had it right. He behaves like a King. Its not a good thing but we already have one. He admires the RF because they have the kind of power to enrich themselves that he wants.

This article 😮😮

Norman Baker has written this article. As he says, Andrew has been protected by the exemption of FOI for the Monarchy

Thanks to the millions of files just released by the US Department of Justice, we know that the disgraced former prince passed critical financial information to his paedophile friend Jeffrey Epstein – information that could, for example, have fatally undermined the British government’s desperate £45 billion rescue of the Royal Bank of Scotland amid the biggest financial crisis for more than half a century.

And that's not even half of it, Andrew was leaking sensitive information left right and centre and asking for briefings he was not entitled to so that he could pass it on to Epstein
What he has done is worse than Mandelson, he must be held held to account

www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-15562681/Andrew-sold-country-treason-NORMAN-BAKER.html

There has to be a police investigation into Andrew. If I was advising KCIII, I would be telling him to get the ball rolling.

Queen's (now King's) Consent (and Prince's, where relevant) applies to bills affecting the royal prerogative, and the hereditary revenues, personal property or personal interests of the Crown. This consent is not something that can be refused;
Im not sure how this means the Monarch is the least powerful. I wish I could demand exemptions to legislation that was against my 'personal interests'. The fact that it cannot be refused IMO breaches the sovereignty of Parliament. This has been used to exempt the Crown from environmental legislation ( Do as I say but not as I do, clearly) and Equality legislation amongst many, many others. It allows the Palaces to say ' they fully comply with the Law' when of course they do. They have written exemptions into the legislation! Im sure there are reasons why they should be allowed exemptions but then they should have to justify their reasons openly. Not force anyone who wants to know about them to endlessly fight to get information out. Why are they exempt from the FoI Act? It was only 2010. These arent age old rules. They have been extended and extended to cover the Windsors dealings, aided and abetted by self-serving politicians. Its led to this situation, which is apparently now everyone elses fault but theirs, and absolutely none of them saw or authorised a thing. Despite their staff being eagle eyed and on top of any potential legislation that may mean they have to spend some of their huge piles of cash maintaining their own property or anything that may affect them in any way.

I read that Norman Baker article in the DM earlier this morning, I'm at the point where nothing surprises me anymore regards AMW.

For sure he will face a full police investigation.

Baker mentions treason, its been 80 years since the last treason case (Lord Haw-Haw) and the legal procedures for bringing such a case to trial make for interesting reading.

On the radio yesterday, a lawyer was saying misconduct in a public office would be the most appropriate charge. The police need to pull their finger out.

Norman Baker's new book is titled 'Royal Mint, National Debt'. Brilliant!
I presume he delves into the RF wealth in general and not just AMW?

I do hope he will face an investigation. But to be honest, I'm jaded with the Palace, the Royals, and all their actions. So I just don't know if it will happen.

The only thing I would say is, there is more public outcry at the moment, and cute kids, a lovely Kate outfit, a visit to a foodbank, or some nonsense about harry or meghan just won't cut it. The royals rely on the public. And very many are cross.
Which is why I am pleased to see that the normally pro-Royal media is not sucking up to them totally.

Yes, I'm halfway through, it's 😮😲