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

I'm getting confused now with all this, but yes, that's how I originally read it. @bluegreygreen said that consent has to be given by the Monarch ( which is the case for Royal assent- which would cause a Constitutional crisis if the Monarch refused, as the unelected element is refusing consent of something passed by the elected element) but yes, I think the difference is that the consent should only be given on Parliamentary advice, but they just give it in all cases.

I believe this is the distinction:

Consent = permission to debate/legislate on something that affects the Crown’s interests.

Royal Assent = the final step that turns a passed Bill into an Act of Parliament.

In a world where the country is not governed by the monarch, this all feels like performative nonsense.

This is how, as far as I understand its meant to go as a basic format:
First reading- Bill read out in one of the Houses to allow MPS/peers to prepare and debate at the second reading
Second Reading- Debate and discussion
Committee stage- In depth discussion of the minutiae of the Bill by a committee of MP's
Report Stage- Amendments by the Committees discussed
Third reading- The final draft is read out and voted on. It is then passed to the other House to go through the same stages.
Royal Assent- Rubber stamping by the Monarch- This cannot be refused by convention and is what would cause a Constitutional crisis if they did so.

What it looks like happens before the first reading, and at drafting stage is that the Monarch and the heir can just decide they don't want the law to apply to them. (@Puzzledandpissedoff am I right in saying you are saying exemptions should only happen on the advice of the government, but in practice, the government just rolls over?)
This is then written into the bill before the first reading (see above) By the time it gets to the third reading, of course it cant be changed, because nothing can. It is also not discussed at the second reading or presumably Committee stage because Parliament have decided that they don't discuss Royal matters. So we have a situation where King says 'Jump' Prime Minister says 'How high?' then it just gets drafted into the bill and goes through all the stages. The King then has 'no choice but to consent' to something they requested in the first place. I always thought those 'red boxes were just useless busywork, but turns out they are intended to make sure the Monarch isn't caught out having to do something they don't want to do, like adhere to environmental protection legislation.

Consent = permission to debate/legislate on something that affects the Crown’s interests.
Royal Assent = the final step that turns a passed Bill into an Act of Parliament.

Yes, that's correct.

In both cases given by the monarch, and in neither case can it be withheld.

Tbh I believe the Establishment will be far more protective of PM than AMW. PM has been around all long time and has had his finger in many pies. He’s also either charmed people or done them favours. Baroness Ayesha Hazarika said she got a ticking off from a fellow member of the H o L for publicly criticising him, being told ‘Don’t you know what Peter is going through.’

Then stop the bloody pantomime !

There is absolutely no reason why the Windsors should be given first look at laws - I don’t care what ridiculous reason is cooked up to explain it. It is medieval cosplay.
More so the ‘red boxes’ that - needs stopped immediately
The new statesman described William as functionally illiterate, i e he does not read.
Will a flunky be reading the red boxes and giving a verbal summary ?
The red boxes like the rest of the pr structure around the Windsors are there for show . To reinforce the idea that the Windsors are somehow essential to the running of the country .
They aren’t
And even I , life long republican that I am , who thought my opinion of the Windsors could not be lower, am deeply shocked by what has been revealed in the files .

I am shocked by the cover up that they have all been part of , by the attempted rehabilitation of Andrew that they all participated in and by the sort of people they consort with.

Functionally illiterate? How does that match to a degree from a Scottish University? What actual knowledge do you have of functional illiteracy? Do you think many people leave Eton unable to read?

@SixSevenShutUp
This was how William was described in an article in the new statesman last year .The implication being he won’t read rather than can’t read
Ie can he function in his role while refusing to read ?

OK, so the term was used wrongly as an insult. I am not sure how helpful that is.

It doesn't matter. They should have been able to maintain basic manners

I read about it on Norman Baker's And What Do You Do?

Thoroughly recommend it

The police are nvestigating him though, and have searched his house. They havent, so far, gone anywhere near any Royal property. He has suspiciously and suddenly been turfed out of Royal Lodge. Is all his stuff being kept in case it is evidence for a criminal investigation?

He was rambling on and they were getting restless and fed up. A very similar thing happened at my dm’s funeral. We thought it was a good idea to ask a baptist minister who grew up with my dm to conduct the service. He ended up rambling on in a similar manner and we were looking at each other, saying ‘wtf?’ That is what the RF were doing.

I don't want to further derail this thread but the royal family literally grow up learning how to smile politely through even the most mundane events. I don't think it was asking too much to expect them to maintain a neutral expression and not smirk at each other like Beatrice did. Rewatching that footage, she actually looks quite spiteful.

Heavens, imagine the consternation if Meghan had smirked during a sermon given by the Archbishop of Canterbury!

... am I right in saying you are saying exemptions should only happen on the advice of the government, but in practice, the government just rolls over?

Yes, that's exactly what I'm suggesting, @RainbowBagels

The key point for me is their opportunity to comment on legislation before it gets anywhere near parliament, and while it's true that in theory consent can't be refused, how would we ever know if certain parts had been taken out beforehand?

Thanks. Yes thats how I understood it. We are supposed to be a Constitutional Monarchy. One of the apparently ' British Values' is respect for the rule of Law, yet things like this happen. Its disgraceful.

That’s a fair point. Plus, unlike my family, they knew they had tv cameras on them. However, I can sympathise with them. Our rambling minister did spoil a carefully planned service.

With respect to what we were talking about earlier, and my fear around nothing happening, is shared by a fair number of denizens (37%)

https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/survey-results/daily/2026/02/16/34801/1?utmsource=dailyquestion&utmmedium=twitter&utmcampaign=daily%2F2026%2F02%2F16question1

In case the link doesn’t work, here’s a picture of that particular question: 62% in the unlikely category

I used the Republic template to write to my MP about AMW. Just received a reply

Oh, the MP who objected to the upskirting bill and the FGM bill doesn't strike me as a protector of women's rights. Are you going to challenge him further?

He says the government is not responsible for AMW’s conduct. Remarkable, given that Andrew was a government employee. He should also answer the next logical question, which is then who IS responsible. The Pope perhaps. This MP appears to have not heard of insider trading. Maybe he’s afraid his OBE (the empire has been done since post WW2) and his “Sir” will be removed 🤗

The template may have been detected and resulted in being discounted as a republican campaign? It may have been more effective writing in your own words.

One thing I’ve learned from this thread is that, in the event of requiring a guest priest, I should make sure that a timer clock with an alarm set on it is placed upon the lecture, and the guest priest told repeatedly beforehand about the exact length of time they have. Also I’d need to make sure that a congregant is positioned in front, primed to hold up a sign saying ‘Your Time Is Up!’

Yes, if it’s being televised live, that would be a good idea.