Active discussions

Please or to access all these features

Talk
The royal family
Thread gallery
15
jeffgoldblum · 05/10/2026 16:31

Kirschcherries · 05/10/2026 16:26

IANAL but I have over the years read about cases where evidence was disregarded because the warrant was incorrectly drafted.

It’s not in doubt KC gave permission.

What I am suggesting is that this will be really technical points about what was actually written on the warrant and was it 100% accurate. I don’t know enough to say what, but a good example could be who owns the properties being searched and on what basis AMW occupies them. If they get it wrong it might invalidate the warrant.

Many thanks 🙏

CathyorClaire · 05/10/2026 16:32

It's an interesting theory.

If it does turn out the warrants were invalid owing to a lack of clarity over the ownership of the property and MW gets them overturned on a technicality I think it could only bolster calls for a republic.

Lownie is right when he says the MW scandal could spell the end of the monarchy.

Kirschcherries · 05/10/2026 16:38

For example if they say crown estates but it’s the Duchy of Lancaster.

A good example is Highgrove is seen as being KCs home but it was bought by the Duchy of Cornwall. Prince William as PoW is the current custodian of the Duchy of Cornwall so KC has technically had to lease Highgrove from him. However, it maybe that the Secretary and Keeper of the Records for the Duchy is the person who granted the lease on behalf of the Duchy rather than PW. So a warrant may need to have permission from the Secretary and Keeper of the Records rather than PW or KC to search Highgrove.

As I say this is just my theory as to why AMW’s legal team may be challenging the warrant.

Kirschcherries · 05/10/2026 16:38

Duplicate post.

Kirschcherries · 05/10/2026 16:42

CathyorClaire · 05/10/2026 16:32

It's an interesting theory.

If it does turn out the warrants were invalid owing to a lack of clarity over the ownership of the property and MW gets them overturned on a technicality I think it could only bolster calls for a republic.

Lownie is right when he says the MW scandal could spell the end of the monarchy.

I agree it could be something completely different.

BasiliskStare · 05/10/2026 17:07

@CathyorClaire - I think you know that I support a constitutional monarchy ( I'd like more scrutiny) I believe you stand on the republican side. But I hope we can discuss reasonably and agree to disagree. So your post

" If it does turn out the warrants were invalid owing to a lack of clarity over the ownership of the property and MW gets them overturned on a technicality I think it could only bolster calls for a republic. "

I absolutely agree if AMW is using esoteric rulings re what is owned by the RF , the various Duchies to overturn his arrest then poor show and one of the MIGs should help clarify.
In truth he may get this turned over on a technicality , but this is small fry compared to his being asked to testify re Epstein , misconduct in public office . So what in the name of Betsy does he think he will achieve here ? He's tinkering at the edges.

BrandiedAromatics · 05/10/2026 17:21

@BasiliskStare In truth he may get this turned over on a technicality , but this is small fry

One would think so, but, this is what the rich and powerful always do? Prolong, obfuscate, hope that it will all take so long it will go away or no one will care anymore? It doesn't look good for the King as he is "putting him up" and has lent him a lot of money. If he wants to distance himself from this circus he should end his tenancy ...

bluegreygreen · 05/10/2026 17:23

In the UK, there are certain situations where the police can enter and search property without a warrant. One of those is where the owner has granted permission.

Below is a summary from a legal company which lays it out reasonably clearly:
MMA Law summary

The Police and Criminal Evidence Act is here
PACE 1984

MrsLeonFarrell · 05/10/2026 18:23

CathyorClaire · 05/10/2026 16:32

It's an interesting theory.

If it does turn out the warrants were invalid owing to a lack of clarity over the ownership of the property and MW gets them overturned on a technicality I think it could only bolster calls for a republic.

Lownie is right when he says the MW scandal could spell the end of the monarchy.

I don't think it will bolster calls for a Republic, but I do believe it could well put a bit of impetus behind calls for a financial overhaul including, but not limited to, more clarity around royal finances, who owns what and who runs what. All of which is long overdue.

Puzzledandpissedoff · 05/10/2026 18:43

This is what the rich and powerful always do? ... Prolong, obfuscate, hope that it will all take so long it will go away or no one will care anymore?

Precisely, @BrandiedAromatics - hence my suggestion that the palace's advisers will be working to get them all off the hook, while blaming any delay on "complexities" in an attempt to prevent any further dirt coming out during Charles's reign

As for the Mail's silly article about Charles's private money not being used to fund Andrew's legal battle, how would we know when even their public money's full of obscurities and "private" means exactly that?

BasiliskStare · 05/10/2026 18:48

Is there a thread which actually discusses the pros and cons of a constitutional monarchy vs a republic , with opinions rather than "lazy wastrel" ( my words I am not attributing to them to anyone else ) type comments ? I think with reasoned arguments that would be interesting.

Sorry if I've missed it.

bluegreygreen · 05/10/2026 20:09

No, @BasiliskStare.

There was a thread which purported to be that, but it quickly became apparent that it was not, with the OP making derogatory comments about individuals almost immediately.

I suspect such a thread would need to be elsewhere on the boards, perhaps somewhere like politics.

ETA Thanks for the DM story - archive link is here https://archive.is/w7yBy

jeffgoldblum · 05/10/2026 20:11

bluegreygreen · 05/10/2026 20:09

No, @BasiliskStare.

There was a thread which purported to be that, but it quickly became apparent that it was not, with the OP making derogatory comments about individuals almost immediately.

I suspect such a thread would need to be elsewhere on the boards, perhaps somewhere like politics.

ETA Thanks for the DM story - archive link is here https://archive.is/w7yBy

Edited

Ive heard the politics board is a tad dicey!! , perhaps gardening is the way to go?

BasiliskStare · 05/10/2026 20:14

jeffgoldblum · 05/10/2026 20:11

Ive heard the politics board is a tad dicey!! , perhaps gardening is the way to go?

Show quote history

And yet again we need the laugh emoji back

CathyorClaire · 05/10/2026 20:22

MrsLeonFarrell · 05/10/2026 18:23

I don't think it will bolster calls for a Republic, but I do believe it could well put a bit of impetus behind calls for a financial overhaul including, but not limited to, more clarity around royal finances, who owns what and who runs what. All of which is long overdue.

Show quote history

I like your confidence 😁 but given the swift reaction from Palace 'sources' distancing C3 from the funding of MW's action, I don't think he's so sure.

BrandiedAromatics · 05/10/2026 20:23

jeffgoldblum · 05/10/2026 20:11

Ive heard the politics board is a tad dicey!! , perhaps gardening is the way to go?

Show quote history

Along the lines of there are too many stinking dandelions in the wildflower meadow at Highgrove? Perhaps?

CathyorClaire · 05/10/2026 20:25

So what in the name of Betsy does he think he will achieve here ?

I think he thinks it's a stepping stone to getting the whole lot overturned.

CathyorClaire · 05/10/2026 20:38

BrandiedAromatics · 05/10/2026 18:41

I was just thinking that the 'slimmed down monarchy' has dangers for the main players - and saw this

Ex-Lib Dem MP launches scathing attack on 'slimmed-down' monarchy: 'What does that mean?'

Thank you for posting.

It's a good article and Norman Baker is a top man but there's little there that hasn't been said previously here to no discernible end.

Horses to water and all that...

CathyorClaire · 05/10/2026 20:43

Along the lines of there are too many stinking dandelions in the wildflower meadow at Highgrove? Perhaps?

Or Ragwort round the private swimming pool that doesn't (on paper) form part of the outsourcing?

wordler · 05/10/2026 20:46

BasiliskStare · 05/10/2026 18:48

Is there a thread which actually discusses the pros and cons of a constitutional monarchy vs a republic , with opinions rather than "lazy wastrel" ( my words I am not attributing to them to anyone else ) type comments ? I think with reasoned arguments that would be interesting.

Sorry if I've missed it.

I tried one once

www.mumsnet.com/talk/the_royal_family/4787223-what-do-you-want-as-head-of-state-for-the-uk?page=11&reply=142405247

CormorantIsland · 05/10/2026 21:11

I think if I was fussing someone, who suddenly had money to go through lengthy covert system I would cease my funding, if they suddenly had money to bring the RF into the news negatively I would ensure they used their own money. And if have none, then no court scrutiny, I might also find it necessary to remove title from the rest of his family.

MrsLeonFarrell · 05/10/2026 21:17

CathyorClaire · 05/10/2026 20:22

I like your confidence 😁 but given the swift reaction from Palace 'sources' distancing C3 from the funding of MW's action, I don't think he's so sure.

Show quote history

I think Charles has to respond quickly because it would be extremely unconstitutional for the person in whose name justice is administered to be funding a legal case against the system. It's the same reason he gave for not meeting Harry whilst he had an ongoing case against the government.

It's Andrew's sources of income that i believe will lead to a root and branch overhaul of the royal finances. I could be being optimistic though!