AMW continuing his effort to end the monarchy part 4

[simpsonthecat]

New thread. This is not ending

I think that is a possibility. Wasn't he paid squillions to refurbish Royal Lodge
Also I think the Yorks are on VERY shaky ground with these grace and favour Royal estate apartment and house for daughters
Nothing would surprise me there

Good point and this is something else that I'd be happy to see looked at as a wider issue.

Far too many untendered contracts going to hangers-on.

Fwiw I am very heartened by the fact that Andrew Lownie is so dogged and continues battling on to get his story heard despite strenuous efforts by the Palace PR team which of course is incredibly well resourced, powerful and influential. AL really is up against it but long may he continue. We must remember that had it not been for the Epstein trial; the RF would still be covering up the alleged crimes and lies of AMW,

I think there is definitely something in this

Well said.

Yes Andrew Lownie deserves a medal. He certainly won’t get a knighthood!

Definitely not, as he's said his next book will be about Prince Philio!

I’m looking forward to his book on Philip

I think his book on Philip will be more along the lines of his book on the Mountbattens. More factual and not uncovering huge amounts of wrongdoing, unlike the Yorks when there was no getting away from their awful actions.

He was very fair on the Mountbattens because they were of a different time. And I think that will apply to Philip also. The Mountbattens were hugely significant but deeply flawed and the research into them was painstaking. It wasn't a hugely flattering or sycophantic portrait of them. Not at all.

Exactly so. His writing reflects the facts he finds. No more or no less. What people don’t understand about the enormously prolific and industrious Lownie is that writing about the royals is a side hustle for him. His main obsession is the preservation of objective, accurate, historical records. I think he writes to support this work. He is I believe president of the society for freedom of information as well as a literary agent and author.

More factual

More factual is always good.

He is I believe president of the society for freedom of information

Not quite: he is on the board of Campaign for Freedom of Information.

Fair enough. Thank you for the correction. That is why I included the words “I believe” to indicate that I hadn’t checked recently.

My main point is that other academics, not just Lownie, are worried that increasing numbers of documents are being censored now that would previously have been open to public scrutiny and one has to ask why this has come about so recently?

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2024/dec/28/dubious-use-of-the-freedom-of-information-act-stopping-access-to-files-on-prince-andrew-researchers-say

One also has to ask why it is necessary that so many documents relating to the royal family are censored? And why so much information relating to their financial dealings are removed from public scrutiny?

After all, none of us want our wills published after we are gone particularly, but we cannot escape the law.

One assumes that if the Royal Family were conducting themselves properly and in a way that is completely above board, there wouldn’t be a need for such secrecy in the first place?

One also has to ask why it is necessary that so many documents relating to the royal family are censored? And why so much information relating to their financial dealings are removed from public scrutiny?

Not only censored but sometimes destroyed too as in the case of Margaret making a bonfire of her late mother's papers.

C3 is in the process of overseeing the 'editing' of E2's diaries. I have no doubt that the final result will be heavily sanitised.

www.townandcountrymag.com/society/tradition/a44346208/queen-elizabeth-diaries-published/

As for the finances, I think the prevailing theory is that if the public were to see the true extent of the wealth stolen diverted from the public purse for decades if not centuries and squirrelled away the outcry would topple the entire house of cards.

Andrew Lownie said from the launch of Entitled, that it would be the financial dealings of the Windsors that would spell the ruin of the RF if the full extent of what goes on ever sees the light of day.

I, being the lowly cap-doffer that I am, have no firm info.

However, I do have opinions/suggestions based on being (now considered) elderly.

QE2 lived a long time.
She was revered (not by everybody).
She was a stick-in-the-mud, averse-to-change individual.
She came to the throne when young, and inherited a system run by people who got on by facilitating what RF members wanted and protecting them from bad press.

So probably (definitely, rather) lots of stuff went on back in the day that would now be frowned on.

And we now live in an era that tends to judge people by current moral standards, rather than the standards of the times in which they lived.

I agree and I would add, that the Palace is largely run by courtiers and men in grey suits and those who want it to stay exactly the same as it has always been. And these people are not open to change. And they I'm not capable of looking forward and realizing that the antiquated system that worked decades ago does not work now

Queen Camilla is said to have distanced herself from the York family

https://www.dailymail.com/news/royals/article-15818119/Camillas-ruthless-streak-carefully-hidden-says-Queens-biographer-CHRISTOPHER-WILSON-shes-not-afraid-cut-people-Beatrice-Eugenie-Fergie.html

Even as someone whose cap stays firmly in place and whose knees do not bend, I agree with a lot of this Rhaidimiddim! 😉😄.

Fwiw I agree that it is very likely that procedures became fossilised during QE2’s reign and that KC3 is doing things pretty much the same way, being only a couple of decades younger, and having grown up with his mother’s staff pretty much.

I also think there is a distinct possibility that some of the people who work for the RF are more concerned about tradition than the royals themselves who are probably quite distant from the minutiae of proceedings.

However, it doesn’t entirely explain why William, for example, has become less, not more, transparent about the percentage of tax that he pays on the profits from the Duchy of C, given that he has declared himself an agent of change. It is not a good sign imho.

https://www.newsweek.com/entertainment/celebrity-news/prince-william-pay-tax-duchy-cornwall-republic-11913963

As the above article points out,William probably is one of the UK’s highest tax payers but he is entitled to deduct expenses from his earnings before applying the 45 percent income tax rate! And he is paying this voluntarily; he is not obliged to pay and he doesn’t have HMRC potentially inspecting his books like the rest of us!

Graham Smith of Republic UK says that “changing the system to make William's tax bill compulsory would require greater oversight over what William was allowed to deduct as a reasonable expense” which again, begs the question, what is he hiding?

Spot on as usual, Cathy

As I've said before, even the little which creeps into public view can be desperate, which answers the "why" about so much being hidden

Put quite simply, they want it to be, and unfortunately there are many who'll indulge them

Reactive not proactive.

https://archive.ph/wN1Hx

William will sell a fifth of Duchy land for homes and nature.

Times article so archived

Good to hear. I am not always anti royalist! But I do think this is as a result of public opinion on their mahoosive wealth and general opacity so he has to do something in preparation for when he takes over. And it shows we should always keep the pressure up for accountability and transparency

As the law currently stands, the Prince of Wales does not have to pay tax; he does so voluntarily.
If the government of the day wishes to change that, it can of course do so through parliament.

Quite a number of people, including higher rate taxpayers, deduct business expenses before paying tax. In William's case, he pays for the Kensington Palace office staff, etc. out of the Duchy income, so those expenses would be deducted first.

Personal tax is currently private in the UK between the individual and HMRC (unlike USA). Some politicians have recently decided to make theirs public, but it is not yet required even for public figures paid by the taxpayer.

No-one has the right to read any other person's private diary.

We know all that. It's just that his father declared the tax he paid for years. William chooses not to.
Not good optics compared to what Charles did. It would have been encouraging if he had carried on the precedent set by his father. Yes, we all know he doesn't have to.

I thought his tax bill has been revealed recently?!

And we now live in an era that tends to judge people by current moral standards, rather than the standards of the times in which they lived.

I half agree with this, @Rhaidimiddim, and I half don't. I started to change my relativist mind when I followed the IICSA inquiry segment and the Scottish child abuse inquiry into historic child labour and forced migration to the British colonies (for personal reasons).

Lady Smith said, 'I reject without hesitation any notion that any conclusion that the policy was deeply flawed is the product of a view that distorts the past by viewing it through the lens of today. It is obvious that it was deeply flawed at the time.' And I agree with her.

If it was obvious that something was wrong at the time, if it was unlawful at the time, if it needed covering up or hushing up at the time - well then, it's not unfair to apply a modern lens to it. The royal household are and always were very aware of the power imbalances. The power's the whole point of monarchy and representing the crown. Each one of them, especially QEII, knew that exploiting this was wrong.

(Apologies if I've misunderstood you btw. This is entirely likely.)