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

Nothing works to ameliorate Trump in his current belligerent administrative incarnation unfortunately, as demonstrated by his prominent and arrogant rude display with President Zelensky and his recent reckless actions in the ME, where he was told time and again by those few remaining around him whom still retain sense, that launching an invasion at this point would not go well or easily. Hence rising global energy and food prices, interest rates, inflation and mortgage payments for everyone.

Britain did the right thing to try and apply what leverage and influence they had at the time. We don't need or want higher tariffs slapped on us. All sides of the House are aware that Trump in his second term is the most volatile President to appear in a while, possibly ever.

An elected HoS might actually have had no greater ability to influence him. That the soft power did not work with Trump does not mean it doesn't work well with other, more diplomacy-like Presidents and ministers.

The question as to whether the term ‘household’ covered Andrew etc has not been tested in court .

You have been shown the passage concerned, and the fact that the individuals referred to in that passage also receive exemption under the Immigration Act. It clearly does not refer to our Head of State and household.
As my previous link showed, only the monarch has immunity from prosecution. There are references in the link which can be looked up.

No other head of state in a so called democracy has such protection- ie it doesn’t cover serious criminality and it ends when they leave office.
The Norwegian Prime minister has just had to have his immunity formally revoked by the Council of Europe to allow him to be charged. There will be other examples.
The monarch, of course, does not usually leave office.

@bluegreygreen

As I said previously the definition of household re the Windsors has not been tested . Yes the act refers to heads of state . Charles is head of state.
Charles’ immunity is beyond other more constitutional heads of state precisely because we do not have a codified constitution- there is no comparison .

The HRH does act as shield - the CPS must apply a further level of consideration ‘public interest’ when seeking to prosecute a HRH , never mind the security , lack of FOI and other legal grey areas protecting more than Charles .

We have decades of Andrew being protected - helped by HRH status .

@bluegreygreen

You refer to the Norwegian PM - that is irrelevant . Heads of state , diplomats etc do have immunity but it is functional . Tied to their job. It disappears once the their term ends - and it is not a blanket protection line Charles’ . Depending on the seriousness of the offence it can and is removed.

We live with a medieval total exemption. Charles could stab someone live on tv and not only would he not be charged , it would not even be classed a crime . Ludicrous.

No, I disagree that the king is Britain. He is an individual, I imagine no better or worse than anyone else.

He's just performing a job he got through an accident of birth, and many are questioning his performance and how valuable the job itself is.

I think the "what did you know" protests are to be expected?They paint British people in a good light IMO. It takes integrity, intelligence and courage to question authority, especially so publicly.

I agree re the protests . They are a hopeful sign .

The issues I have are

1. the medieval idea that all justice fonts from the king - this has never been revised for the21st century.We just limp along with an above the law family
2. I say family because we are sold the ‘ideal family’ lie . We know they are in fact very troubled and corrupt but the PR has pushed the family narrative / parasocial relationship for generations. “Who is your favourite ? Oh I think he / she is lovely ‘ blah blah. But what I’m trying to get at is the institution is unchecked, it is hidden power often - they ALL benefit from the shield of the institution and the grey areas / legal difficulties hindering investigation etc . Even financial facts that should be black and white - how much does Edward pay for his huge mansion ?

Yes the king has total immunity ( wrongly in my opinion) but HRH confers a degree of protection on all of them that should be acknowledged. This needs revised . Preferably by removing the lot of them.

Totally agree. I would be horrified if - on my travels - people I meet think that all we are is our King and royal family. I have a very strong connection with another european country and have done for decades. This country I connect to has a Monarchy, and it has never ever occurred to me that they are important to that country's identity. Not in the slightest. Everyone I know there has never mentioned them.
And we are so much more than our Monarchy, really we are.
The royals are on a downwards path and that can only be a good thing for oh so many reasons that I won't bang on about!

I applaud the brave people who shout out a decent question like "When did you know what Andrew was doing?" because they themselves are heckled by the ever sycophantic royalists stood there to catch a glimpse.

Sadly ( for me - different opinion about a Constitutional Monarchy ) I think you are right , or we get to George and he makes sweeping changes.

But I do think W needs to pull his socks up sharpish . You can only be bright young(ish) hope for so long .

I actually think William will be the straw that breaks the camel's back. As a family, William and co will keep to their exclusion zone forever home, just venturing out when they have to. (Wimbledon and Football is a given of course)
I cannot see them upping their engagements, I just don't think they have the work ethic that Charles has.
No one can force William to do anything he doesn't want to when he takes over, so I believe he won't!
I am not a fan of any of them but Charles has never gone on endless massively expensive holidays, which is what William and Kate seem to be so good at. And Charles solidly does three times as many engagements as his son, whilst being late 70s with health issues.
That tells me a lot.

I can see William doing bare minimum as King and using his kids to fill in all the gaps for him.

I'm not sure how he's going to be able to persuade his kids to do much either if he's not putting in the effort. I can't see what he expects there will be for him to do now he's decided all the handshaking Edward etc do is not worthwhile.

I can see W doing the bare minimum as HoS and encouraging his kids to do the same.

And a good thing that would be, too, IMHO.

I don't need to see these people turning up to church, visiting soup kitchens, selling The Big Issue, and all the other virtue-signalling stuff. I don't need them trotting into my workplace so my bosses can get their pic in the local rag. I don't need them showing up to witness the peasants doing their annual rural fetes, and all the wild bushes get butchered to make the village common look tidier.

Turn up when you need to do HoS stuff, keep away from dodgy blokes ( as much as any HoS or Head of C of E realistically can) and sort your bloody finances out.

What you do with the rest of your time - I don't care and shouldn't have to care, and should mind my own business.

You don’t mind that they’re living lives of luxury whilst doing nothing useful and the tax payer is funding it?

I would agree with what @Rhaidimiddim said but would say also that they need a severe culling of their costs and their privileges/ tax avoidance, which I don't doubt William will resist as much as possible. The ribbon cutting is little more than busywork anyway to justify having so many of them and so many resources. So less work, fewer of them, but much more transparency. From all that has been going on it makes the whole Royal operation look ridiculously bloated, where no one knows what anyone is doing. They don't need an office for each person, doing their own thing, when there are 12 of them doing not that many engagements. The whole thing needs a massive streamlining and you can do that while retaining a ceremonial head of state.

As much as I mind the fact that the Duke of Westminister does. As a family, they have inherited money, like all the aristocrats.

ETA: one of them is HoS, so does perform a function. And I did stipulate in the post you are replying to - sort the finances out.

Thank you @CathyorClaire ive watched the first lip reading program.

While I feel uncomfortable watching private conversations being dissected, my love of gossip overrides my discomfort. I admit I’m a hypocrite!

I find myself agreeing with W that the whole handshaking, ribbon cutting, being patronising at soup kitchens etc is a waste of everybody's time. However, he does need to find something to replace it with, or the RF needs stop pretending that they needs reimbursement for their pointless services. @Rhaidimiddim I know you compared their money to the Duke of Westminster's inherited wealth, but as far as I am aware the taxpayer is not flinging money at him.

Except DoW didn't pay any inheritance tax on a massive fortune.

Sorting the finances out, for me ( and I haven't fully thought it through) would involve:

Returning asetts to the control of the Mountbatten Windsor family, so that they can structure the disbursement of wealth to members other than the Heir and Spare.

Agreeing which assetts the MW family own ( e.g. Sandringham) and stipulating that, from now on, the family money needs to pay for their running and upkeep.

Agreeing which assetts ( e.g. Buckingham Palace, Windsor Castle) are state-owned and maintained, and the capacities in which the HoS can access them.

Agreeing a salary for the HoS (and the HoS-in-training), and the perks that come with it.

Cutting all public funding for the rest of the RF.

So the taxpayer ends up paying a salary and work-related expenses for the Monarch and Heir only; the rest of them get their family-wealth trust fund, and can get a job if they want.

Typo edits

Except DoW didn't pay any inheritance tax on a massive fortune.

None of the aristos do. They start a trust, so the money belongs to the trust not them. Bingo, no inheritance tax.

They're all at it.

Should have said "Monarch and Heir", not "Heir and Spare"

That set up is available to anyone in order to avoid IT. Income Tax is charged on the income generated by the trust and there are exit charges when an appointment is made etc. Obviously most of us mere mortals won't have enough assets to warrant setting up a Discretionary Trust, but if we did we could do the same.

True, apple doesn't fall far from the tree so like father like son...

Whay do they dp then? Can't even do soft power very well either, didnt last long with Trump did it.

Yes, I know this. And also, yes, obviously us mere mortals with much less money can't really do it, can we?

Therefore, although open to everyone, it's not really.

As I said previously the definition of household re the Windsors has not been tested . Yes the act refers to heads of state .

20 Heads of State.
(1)Subject to the provisions of this section and to any necessary modifications, the Diplomatic Privileges Act 1964 shall apply to—
(a)a sovereign or other head of State;
(b)members of his family forming part of his household; and
(c)his private servants,
as it applies to the head of a diplomatic mission, to members of his family forming part of his household and to his private servants.
(2)The immunities and privileges conferred by virtue of subsection (1)(a) and (b) above shall not be subject to the restrictions by reference to nationality or residence mentioned in Article 37(1) or 38 in Schedule 1 to the said Act of 1964.
(3)Subject to any direction to the contrary by the Secretary of State, a person on whom immunities and privileges are conferred by virtue of subsection (1) above shall be entitled to the exemption conferred by section 8(3) of the Immigration Act 1971.
(4)Except as respects value added tax and duties of customs or excise, this section does not affect any question whether a person is exempt from, or immune as respects proceedings relating to, taxation.
(5)This section applies to the sovereign or other head of any State on which immunities and privileges are conferred by Part I of this Act and is without prejudice to the application of that Part to any such sovereign or head of State in his public capacity.

The section clearly refers to individuals who have diplomatic immunity and to whom exemptions apply under the Immigration Act in the UK. Therefore it does not apply to the British Royal Family.

You refer to the Norwegian PM - that is irrelevant . Heads of state , diplomats etc do have immunity but it is functional . Tied to their job. It disappears once the their term ends

Apologies for lack of clarity. I was referring to the former Prime Minister of Norway, Thorbjørn Jagland, who has recently been charged with gross corruption due to Epstein links.
Despite not currently being in office, it required the agreement of the Council of Europe for his immunity to be lifted before he could be charged.
https://archive.is/Og2nO