Royal Family abusing their power

[Ban-jani]

But it's interesting that your question is what the monarchy should do to rectify it, rather than what the government should do to rectify it. I'm of the opinion that if members of the royal family have been interfering in the democratic process for personal gain, then they should be told what's going to happen in the future by the democratically elected government, not asked awfully if they wouldn't mind us changing the rules.

Well yeah, that’s also a good point and one we should be discussing.

The fact is though, so far, it’s only the Guardian and the Mirror, both known for their left leaning views, at least socially, and plenty of journalists who would be anti monarchist, who are picking this up.

Unless I have missed it, I can’t seem to find it in papers that all sides can respect.

There isn’t a proper report out yet and it hasn’t been proven. Yet, within hours, the usual suspects pile in with their hatred and bile and the country is called a “regressive little shit hole”.

Id prefer to debate what’s actually happened and the next steps, reasonable next steps, not ripping up the constitution to start again.

 

[Hart of the Matter]

The protection that Andrew is getting from his status is vile. The accusations are substantial and concerning. The buck stops with his mother. The royals had close freinships with Saville, Harris and Stuart Hall. I am sure they would all have been vetted. Something stinks. They are far from benign as some would have us believe. They lack real scrutiny as an arm of the constitution.
As Trump has shown, an awful lot of people can be fooled for a lot of the time.

 

[urban genie]

The protection that Andrew is getting from his status is vile. The accusations are substantial and concerning. The buck stops with his mother. The royals had close freinships with Saville, Harris and Stuart Hall. I am sure they would all have been vetted. Something stinks. They are far from benign as some would have us believe. They lack real scrutiny as an arm of the constitution.
As Trump has shown, an awful lot of people can be fooled for a lot of the time.

Well although probably embelished in the series the crown (have never watched it btw.)
The story of the Queens 2 cousins is a true one.

Where both were both born with learning dificulties and as such considered an embarresment to royal properness and etiquet, being classed as imbiciles by the family.

While they were teens they were sent off to an asylum, and then registered as deceased while they were left abandoned to live out their lives as non people, never talked about or visited

Not Lizzie this time bit the Queen mother, who was so scared that this hereditary condition passed down because of the marriages of the royal with a small group of other families and the inbreeding would not sit well with the public,

And it was the times that revelad that story, hardly left leaning.

 

[Mr Kobayashi]

Well although probably embelished in the series the crown (have never watched it btw.)
The story of the Queens 2 cousins is a true one.

Where both were both born with learning dificulties and as such considered an embarresment to royal properness and etiquet, being classed as imbiciles by the family.

While they were teens they were sent off to an asylum, and then registered as deceased while they were left abandoned to live out their lives as non people, never talked about or visited

Not Lizzie this time bit the Queen mother, who was so scared that this hereditary condition passed down because of the marriages of the royal with a small group of other families and the inbreeding would not sit well with the public,

And it was the times that revelad that story, hardly left leaning.

Before that there was prince John.

Prince John of the United Kingdom - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

Hardly surprising that your offspring might be born with medical or developmental abnormalities when you practice inbreeding. Not much to ask that you treat them with humanity.

 

[journolud]

Well yeah, that’s also a good point and one we should be discussing.

The fact is though, so far, it’s only the Guardian and the Mirror, both known for their left leaning views, at least socially, and plenty of journalists who would be anti monarchist, who are picking this up.

Unless I have missed it, I can’t seem to find it in papers that all sides can respect.

There isn’t a proper report out yet and it hasn’t been proven. Yet, within hours, the usual suspects pile in with their hatred and bile and the country is called a “regressive little shit hole”.

Id prefer to debate what’s actually happened and the next steps, reasonable next steps, not ripping up the constitution to start again.

Can you name a paper that everyone can respect? I’ve not particularly followed the detail of this story but if it’s something that reflects poorly on the royal family then it is maybe no surprise that there is a clear divide in the reporting. I wouldn’t expect the likes of the Express or Mail to take the same line as the Guardian or Mirror

 

[Rascal]

Well an elected head of state would only have ceremonial duties so why have both imo.

You have a choice elect the head of state or allow them to be given it by birth right as we do now.

If you keep the queen you limit the monarchy titles to her and the heir(s) the rest are commoners and make there way like any other citizen not some extended priverlidge.

Funny fact for the forum, The queen of Denmark Magarethe 2nd is the Colonel in Chief of the royal Hampshire regiment, she automatically was given this title when she became Danish queen.

Yeah a good point. The Queen could open village fetes and jumble sales in Harpurhey, the President could do the more serious stuff

I would remove all privilige enjoyed the monarchy, they can sign on just like everyone else.

 

[Kazzydeyna]

It is impossible to believe that Jimmy Saville’s crimes were not known to members of the royal family. Impossible.

Anybody who gains access to the future king would be vetted to within an inch of their life.

And yet, Charles was not only allowed to be in the same room as Saville, he allowed him carte Blanche access to the royal family.

Given what we know about Andrew, I wonder what the attraction of Saville was to our royal family?

 

[Rascal]

Mate, fuck off. You're just an argumentative little troll who seems to spend his entire time on here trying to get into arguments. You have nothing to offer the conversations, just being a knob.

He lacks the intellectual capacity to work out that you can love your country and want to leave your country at the same time. Look at how many Expats have a deep love of the UK but would rather live elsewhere. The people who don't love our country are those who squirrel away their money in tax havens and those who threaten to leave if the democratic will of the people goes against their wishes.

People like him usually idolise historical figures like Richard the Lionheart, a King who was hardly ever in this country and loved Aquitaine more.

 

[Rascal]

I'm not particularly anti or pro royal, I can see both sides. It's a complicated and emotive subject.
I have been critical of the queens lack of presence during the pandemic, I want to see more of her, if only because she's a great orator, and she could have a great effect on the nations morale, particularly the elder ones.
At the end of the day, she's been a great queen, dedicated her life to her country, she commands respect all over the world, no one can deny she's been good at her job.
Them wanting rid should be careful what they wish for.

She has been a good Queen and she does hold the nations respect, i am fond of her myself.

She doesn't need all the power and associated privilige to do that though.

If she truly loved her country she could do that from a flat in Harpurhey just as well as she could from Buckingham Palace.

 

[urban genie]

He lacks the intellectual capacity to work out that you can love your country and want to leave your country at the same time. Look at how many Expats have a deep love of the UK but would rather live elsewhere. The people who don't love our country are those who squirrel away their money in tax havens and those who threaten to leave if the democratic will of the people goes against their wishes.

People like him usually idolise historical figures like Richard the Lionheart, a King who was hardly ever in this country and loved Aquitaine more.

Yup 'Bad king John' and his useless brother dickie.

Firstly John was no more a twat than any medieval king so his shenanigans in England are no suprise and lost the french lands because he came up against probably the most hardest Pope in Innocent 3rd and a great strategist in Philip 2nd of france.

All the while Richards was poncing aroum dthe holly land, not because ofhis religious conviction, but because he liked fame and glory, any time a fight looked lost he would jack it in and fuck off somewhere else, the lad had no honour or conviction to his faith or Kingdom.

That's waht happens when you put the french in charge ;-)