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

I wrote to my MP as well and he was able to tell me that he’s was one of the MPs that raised it using that special question that I can’t remember the name of!

The humble address? Unfortunately they only asked for the papers around AMW's appointment.

I was very glad they had done it, but disappointed at the limit of the request.

2. Opposition Day (18th Allotted Day)
Until 7.00pm (Standing Order No. 9(3))

• Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor

Lisa Smart
Ed Davey
Wendy Chamberlain

That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty, that he will be graciously pleased to give directions to require the Government to lay before this House all papers relating to the creation of the role of Special Representative for Trade and Investment and Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor's appointment to that role, including but not confined to any documents held by UK Trade and Investment, British Trade International (BTI) and its successors, the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, the Cabinet Office and the Prime Minister's Office containing or relating to advice from, or provided to, the Group Chief Executive of BTI, Peter Mandelson, the Cabinet Office and the Prime Minister regarding the suitability of Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor for the appointment, due diligence and vetting conducted in relation to the appointment, and minutes of meetings and electronic Communications regarding the due diligence and vetting.

At least it’s a start and a step in the right direction. Having said that how long will it take??

Yes I know it’s ’protocol’ blah blah but the obsequiousness of that first sentence !

THAT is a snapshot of what is wrong with this country . I don’t blame the MPs but do not tell me that the Windsors have no power .
I wonder if this question would even be allowed to happen if Andrew’s secrets were not all over the internet .

Why on earth is a MP dependent on this request being granted ( yes a royalist will say ‘oh it won’t be refused’- irrelevant it should not be a factor at all)

The House of Lords is being reformed - can this bullshit also be dealt with ?

Because he's been selling stories about her and blackmailing her publicly, probably at the behest of his vile older children. Why doesn't he wail about his estrangement from all his other grandchildren?

That first sentence sounds and is obscene. What is the point of us pretending we have a Constitutional Monarchy when we allow this nonsense?

That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty, that he will be graciously pleased to give directions to require the Government to lay before this House…

dear god, it sounds more like asking Charles the first than being in 2026 ffs.
No wonder KC3 thinks he’s above reproach and the law with ridiculous phrases like this.
I have lost any respect I may ever have had reading this.

Interesting comments.

A humble address is a parliamentary procedure that can be used by the opposition to compel the government to release departmental papers. If the motion is passed in parliament it is considered binding.

I'm more concerned that an elected government had to be forced twice in a short space of time to release papers using this method (for Mandelson and AMW), rather than bothered by wording that reflects a thousand years of history.

Parliamentary procedure: humble address

I’m more bothered that an elected government has to water down legislation if the Monarch doesn’t like it - particularly when it pertains to their own financial and land and property interests.

The thing is they don’t have to.

The monarch has no power to compel our elected representatives to do anything.

Anything that multiple elected governments of both parties choose to do, they choose to do.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/feb/08/royals-vetted-more-than-1000-laws-via-queens-consent

There was quite a bit of discussion around Queen's (now King's) consent when that article was posted on the last thread - on 16/02. I would copy my comments and reference across but suspect it wouldn't be helpful.

As @wordler says -

The monarch has no power to compel our elected representatives to do anything.
Anything that multiple elected governments of both parties choose to do, they choose to do.

It's great to hear that the RF has no legal authority to vet laws.

I look forward to them using their morals and integrity to never do it again.

Perhaps their great saviour William will end this practice once he's solved homelessness.

And I look forward to a government that makes decisions based on what is right for the country not themselves or their rich friends.

Of course this pandering needs to stop completely.

However, it doesn't say much for the amoral and immoral family that have been allowed to do this, and continue to do it with impunity, though, does it?

They've pushed for more, been given it, and then kept going to see how much they can get away with. How can anyone support a head of state with that mentality?

How can anyone support a monarchy with that mentality?

And just supposing the government suddenly grows a backbone...what then? The monarchy is still the same family that have low morals, accept dubious gifts from dubious regimes, who selfishly and purposefully push for legislation to be changed to suit themselves. Etc etc etc.

Just because the buck stops with the government doesn't change the type of family these people are. Why on earth would you want the patriarch or matriarch of that family to be our figurehead?

So use the tax payers money to pay the money they owe in tax and debts? Very unethical.

I'd rather see the money contentiously diverted into a greedy billionaire's pocket used to repay the government departments, government loans and tax-paying small businesses shafted than spent on yet another personal jolly for said greedy billionaire.

Hopefully he'll also end the practice whereby royal lobbying in respect of proposed legislation can mean changes / deletions are made before elected MP's ever have sight of it and are therefore unaware unwelcome clauses ever existed.

Yeah that would be nice.

Yes it would be just like the Royals to use taxpayers money if they did this. But what about his actual money? Had he used taxpayers money to buy the Middletons a house?

Any sightings of any of them this week yet? Probably packing for a three week holiday somewhere warm and sunny. Right, dock their pay instantly for non attendance at work and arrange a visit to HR when they are back.

Does anyone even miss them at all when they go AWOL.

Rubbing it in; apparently Charles was concerned the house would be turned into a wedding venue.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-15651859/EDEN-CONFIDENTIAL-King-paid-house-Camilla-wiltshire.html

Re Margaret, I think it's more complex than that. She wasn't banned from marrying him, she just would have had to stop being royal. She prioritised keeping her royal status.
Moreover I think he was frankly creepy. While they officially fell in love when she was 17, he knew her since she was 14 or 15 as he worked for her father.. Craig Brown's Ma'am Darling is satire,,but the Townsend writings he quotes do suggest Townsend may have been interested from when she was around 15. There's even some evidence they slept together when she was 17, though that seems pretty foolhardy of Townsend if so. It certainly seems the relationship began in some way while he was still married.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.dailymail.co.uk/lifestyle/article-5216399/amp/Did-Princess-Margarets-lover-sleep-17.html

Personally, I've always suspected that Margaret was maybe attached to him partly because of the loss of her beloved father, and he was a stabilising presence. Would she have been happy to marry a 16 years older man, when we know the kind of bohemian lifestyle she enjoyed as an adult? Letter to Eden suggests she maybe privately had second thoughts.. it's not as if she was forced to marry the awful Snowdon later, she could have chosen someone better

https://www.womanandhome.com/life/royal-news/princess-margaret-letter-marriage-peter-townsend-342624/

Anyway, we shall know more when in 4 years, her letters to him will be released.

I'm inclined to agree re Townsend being creepy. His second wife was about 25 years his junior and they met when she was a teenager too.

that is a strange looking house. seems to lack windows.