Andrew - continuing his effort to end the Monarchy Part 3

[simpsonthecat]

Here we are

Previous thread
https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/the_royal_family/5487636-andrew-continuing-his-effort-to-end-the-monarchy-part-2?page=20&reply=150676336

Agree with the last posts 100%.

It beggars belief that any of them, particularly Charles, can profess not to know anything. Andrew was shipping in Russian girls to Buckingham Palace, his daughters were arranging tea parties there for god knows who, and how easy it is for royalists to blame Protection officers and security people. You can bet your bottom dollar the PPOs will have passed their concerns upwards, and it went nowhere or they were reassigned to less pleasant duties.

I agree about their financial gain and schmoozing billionaires. Dumfries House and Harrods bags of cash is a case in point. And W&K going off on a luxury superyacht with kids and her parents, yacht owned by Abu Dhabi royals and worth £450M. There is some dispute whether this is the yacht or not, William pulled a blinder keeping all this under wraps. IF it is this yacht, and everywhere I've read leads me to believe it is (even yachting weekly says so!) .. it has 80 staff and costs £700,000 to fill with fuel. Why did the Abu Dhabi royal family let them have it? Another donation for Dumfries House maybe

Do the royals have to behave in such an ostentatious way? It's obscene. It really is.

I agree with damsello, they are all at it. I don't want to see their stupid faces again... so we have to have a Monarchy, hide away and sign your papers or whatever it is you have to do. I think the soft diplomacy excuses have run out.

That second visit for Trump here with Kate schmoozing him, worked well didn't it? Trump is just insulting us. It didn't do a thing, waste of money, and Charles should not go to US.

No - you are incorrect

The state immunity act 1978 section 20 covers ‘household members’.
And no , Anne being fined after her dog attacked children does not negate this .

I read a commentary that said part of the side show ‘removal of titles’ re Andrew was to indicate that Andrew’s immunity was being removed - how medieval. ‘Justice’ decided by Charles. No doubt to avoid further ‘embarrassment’ rather than anything to do with victims. Then the attempts to distance the rest of them from Andrew began. And are failing thankfully.
This household immunity is also linked to the fact that the police cannot enter ANY royal estate whether Charles is there or not .

We do not live in a full democracy.

And ‘household’ was never tightly defined when it came to the Windsors - how convenient.
And this loose definition means there was a de facto protection around Andrew . Until Charles removed it in order to try to save the rest of them or once he saw they had lost control of the situation

The state immunity act 1978 section 20 covers ‘household members’

Though not a lawyer I just looked that up, @Ukisgaslit, and it seems to be referring to the Diplomatic Privileges Act of 1964 which applies to the family and household?

That looks to be different to actual sovereign immunity, but separate to that you're not wrong about the many laws they're exempt from:

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2022/jul/14/queen-immunity-british-laws-private-property

After catching up with all these posts/threads I can't see any mention of the current Duke of Edinburgh, Prince Edward. It would be good to learn he's totally innocent in this horrendous scandal.

Many years ago, AMW came to visit our place (MOD, army regiment he was chief of staff for) My boss told me to practice my curtesying and I said no. I was BANNED from seeing him, told to stay in the library when he arrived and never saw him. I've dined out on the story of refusing to curtesy!

The comments in that YouTube interview with Lownie are FULL of accounts from people who've had to put up with insufferable behaviour in the past. You wonder if this had not come out about Virginia Guiffre and Epstein whether people would have still put up with him

Good for you!!! I would never bow or curtsey to anyone, ever!!

I think you saved yourself here. I have friend whose workplace was visited by him and my friend's comment - at the time, before all of this blew up - was "afterwards all the women felt they needed a good shower"

High five to you!

yes it is related to sovereign immunity but has never been tested on the royal family but the household immunity does apply to them. I think the term ‘ embarrassment ‘ was used - same term as used to hide Philip’s will for 50 years .

The question of whether the loose term household applies to Andrew would have to be tested in court. The Windsors would avoid this at all costs .

I’d add that the defence ‘ well Anne was prosecuted when her dog bit children’ isno defence at all as it happened in a public place .

The point is however the HRH acts as a brake on law enforcement does it not? Andrew has been de facto shielded by the vague ‘household’ term and physically shielded by living , until recently , on land where law enforcement needs permission to set foot ( and those trying to serve papers were turned away- when the judge said he’d accept virtual papers , suddenly the financial settlement happened )

He and Sophie are currently attending the Paralympics.

So if Sophie and Edward are there supporting the athletes, what business did Harry have FaceTiming and offering support? ( apart from trying to keep his name in the papers as ever).

Who cares. No one does.

One of the most cringey sights I've ever seen was Theresa May curtsying to Prince William. Regardless of what you thought of her, she was the PM and a woman who had achieved things in her life. The sight of her curtsying to a man decades her junior who hadn't achieved nearly as much was unedifying, to say the least

On a level playing field he'd be a middle manager at best.

You are correct, @Puzzledandpissedoff.

If you also look up the Diplomatic Privileges Act 1964, the note on 'Modifications' makes clear that the State Immunity Act 1978* *is an extension of that act.

If there were any further doubt, the full text of section 20 is attached. You will note that the individuals who receive privileges in subsection (1) also receive exemptions under section 8(3) of the Immigration Act 1971.

He was offering support to his friend who also happened to be an invictus team captain and made Team GB...if you nust googled it yourself then you would have found out quite easily but then you would not have had the opportunity to stick the boot in...except now it looks a bit silly of you

if it was a message between friends why is it all over the internet? Someone wanted to milk it…

Maybe stick to discussing Harry's failings on the myriad of other Mumsnet threads about him? I really can't get worked up about a text when there are far more disturbing stories coming out, almost daily, about Andrew's activities.

I wonder what’s happening in relation to unsealing the records of his years as Trade Envoy. A lot of information is coming into the public domain now.

Who cares? Up to him. Ignore it if it upsets you. I haven't seen it because I don't go looking

@AnnunciataM
Nor me. Bigger fish to fry than Harry wishing someone he knows good luck in Paralympics

Couldn't he just have send him a WhatsApp message? Instead he made it about himself and not his mate, as ever.

Who cares

Phoning a friend to wish them well, what an utter bastard!

Anyway, not sure if this has been posted upthread already, but it looks like there was a bit of a protest outside at the Commonwealth Day service by Republic.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c5yqzvjzgg4o