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

Royal events are timed to the minute .
Remember there were police and military on duty . Photographers , catering staff etc all waiting ( and being paid) so any deviation can cause issues .
It’s not racist to point out the obvious which was that no matter how good the content , his sermon went on too long.

NoDrums · Today 00:07
MidWayThruJanuary · Yesterday 22:22
**
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.
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

Dear god. There’s really very little chance of any substantial changes whilst the Monarch can manipulate laws and legislation to their substantial benefit, in every possible way, is there?

Was he told that? Did the A oC say 'Sorry can you cut this down?' It was the job of one of all of those people organising Royal events to make it very clear that he had 20 minutes or whatever otherwise he would be politely cut off. Not for members of the RF to snigger and make faces.

My understanding ( and I am dashing out so no time to Google) is that each participant was advised how much time they had . I seem to recall reading at the time that timings were thrown because the sermon was too long .

I quite enjoyed his sermon at the beginning and thought it was a great idea to have him. However he started to ramble on and it became hard to follow him. I am sure I read that he hadn’t actually prepared ahead of time and was speaking off the cuff, which is just ridiculous considering the occasion.

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.

You misunderstand me.

The consent cannot be refused. It is a process of the House, and it would be a constitutional crisis were it ever to be refused.

If you look at the guidance I linked to, section 7 of the link is clear on that.

I think you're thinking of Royal assent to the Bill after it has been passed through Parliament. That is the thing that cannot be refused by the Monarch because it has gone through all the readings in the Houses of Commons and Lords. From that text it looks like Kings consent ( which is the King and Prince of Wales' right to be exempt from potential legislation that they don't like and is written in before the Bill is put to parliament) cannot be refused by Parliament. They are two different things but it seems (deliberately ?) confused and confusing.

No, I'm not thinking of Royal Assent, which is for a bill that has made its way through parliament.
King's (or Prince's) consent comes at third reading.
The definition you are using is not correct.

7.12 The granting of King’s or Prince’s consent for a bill is merely a consent for Parliament to debate the bill
7.13 The issue of consent is entirely a matter of House procedure

There is nowhere in the entire guidance that gives any option for the King to refuse consent.
The guidance sets out the premise, the practicalities, including the fact that the government requests it even for private members' bills it doesn't support, but it is clear throughout that it is the monarch consenting and that there is no option of refusal.

So The late Queen had no choice but to gain an opt out from the Race Relations Act? Its just automatically written into the bill at the 3rd reading? That cannot possibly be the way the Law works, otherwise our system is a complete sham, and that is another thing that needs to go.

And opting out of Environmental and Property Laws, and wildlife and planning laws on their estates, and the Transparency and Financial Disclosure laws, lobbying for being able to hide private shareholdings and wealth from the public.

If there are wildlife offences or pollution on their private estates, Police aren't allowed to inspect. That does not apply to any other private landowner in the UK.
And as for tax, give me a break... the Monarch is exempt from a heap of minor taxes we all have to pay, pays no duty on purchase of land and does not have to provide information to HMRC tax inspectors.

If anyone thinks this is fair, I'm staggered.

Wow, this is pretty serious if true, I agree.

Not quite, RainbowBagels; monarch's assent is what gets given when a bill's about to be passed, but monarch's consent involves them being consulted before the bill even goes before parliament - or not going to parliament at all if they can arrange for a measure to be dealt with by the Privy Council instead

bluegreygreen's quite right that, in theory at least, even consent is supposed to be subject to parliamentary advice, but yet again the problem lies in that they've too often been seen to roll over for what the monarch wants, fudging as they go, and that's the reason why i can't agree that the "constitutional crisis" would ever be allowed to happen

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/jun/02/buckingham-palace-banned-ethnic-minorities-from-office-roles-papers-reveal

Which book is it in where it's been revealed that the monarch gets to see stuff before it is even raised in parliament, and some potential laws don't even make it as far as the HoC because of their input?

We discussed this somewhere, but I can't remember exactly where!

I remember that too. I can't remember where I saw it, like you, but definitely did see that.

So The late Queen had no choice but to gain an opt out from the Race Relations Act? Its just automatically written into the bill at the 3rd reading? That cannot possibly be the way the Law works, otherwise our system is a complete sham, and that is another thing that needs to go.

I absolutely did not say that @RainbowBagels

What I did say was that there is no option for the monarch (King or Queen) not to give consent, and that it is clear throughout the guidance that it is the monarch giving consent (not the opposite way round, as your definition suggests).
The guidance includes the fact that the counsellors of state stand in if the monarch is abroad, and that the privy councillor nods in the House during the debate to signify that consent is given.

7.12 The granting of King’s or Prince’s consent for a bill is merely a consent for Parliament to debate the bill
7.13 The issue of consent is entirely a matter of House procedure

The definition in no way includes writing something into the bill at third reading.

Having said that, I'm becoming quite shaken about all our civil processes at the minute - but that doesn't mean that we can just change definitions.

The guidance above gives their office 2 weeks' notice.

What if he isn’t? What if it all just ends up being a storm in a teacup and Andrew jets off to spend the rest of his days in a palace in the UAE? Andrew Lownie says that there was one reserved for him.

And that Andrew’s children continue his work, grifting away for personal gain, having high tea in Riyadh or wherever (Beatrice did this recently) every month. Earthshot and William
continue, holidaying on the yachts belonging to god-knows-who billionaires?

What if it’s just Mandelson that gets a jail sentence. The utter deference shown in this country by lawmakers, successive midwrn
day PMs and the general public makes me think that this will be the outcome. Rotten business as usual, with the walk to Church from some palace (Sandringham?) by all of them by the end of the year.

In the meantime, the rest of us? We’ll keep getting squeezed for more and more taxes, in part, to pay for RF jaunts across the world where they get richer, our standard of living drops materially every year and we become a poorer and poorer country. I really think that is what will happen. I will be pleasantly surprised if major positive change can happen but not with this entrenched generational bowing and scraping to people that have pulled the biggest con of all time - getting an entire population to believe that their blood was different and that they were “Royal” and needed to be worshipped forever.

Interesting that Charles's pal Jonathon Dimbleby says that Charles is of the view that Andrew should testify before US congress

How true this is, I do not know, but I would pay good money to see him testifying.

@NoDrums I could not agree with your post more. I am as jaded as you, if not more...
😬

You can watch via the link below the last part of Michael Curry’s sermon at the point where he’s now going off-piste, so to speak.

Harry does his self-soothing nose-touching thing;
Meghan sits completely still, like a statue, with a fixed Mona Lisa smile;
Doria is inscrutable and composed;
Beatrice and Eugenie are not subtle with their amusement and their animated movements and glances to try and draw others in;
Zara look stunned but she is still, and she and Mike Tindall stare straight ahead;
David Beckham from his pew does a very broad smile, looking straight ahead.

I think that B&E started any restlessness and should have done what the others were doing: face forward, eyes straight ahead, and be composed fgs.

Anyway, it’s here:

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/may/20/royal-wedding-confirmed-as-years-biggest-uk-tv-event

@NoDrums I think this will happen too. Although I think they wont have the barefaced cheek to prosecute Mandleson. He will get off because to prosecute him will mean they have to prosecute AMW.

@RainbowBagelsI am afraid your are right about Mandelson as well.

@simpsonthecat it’s exhausting

I keep thinking “at least this time it’ll be different” but maybe I’m the fool.

However the only glimmer of hope is the change in public opinion towards the RF and the slow awakening to its terrible excesses.

😮😮 That’s a really nasty post.

We can only hope and pray that the entrenched bowing and scraping rapidly diminishes with each passing generation now. I think whilst QE2 was alive there was residual respect for the Monarchy and what she represented but I can't believe many people under the age of 60 or so actually revere the dysfunctional family she left behind. I mean surely anyone who remembers Camilla-gate and the tampon business has a hard job taking C&C seriously as King and Queen?!

The whole thing is ludicrous.