It’s an option now at least; it’s no longer compulsory.
2 Likes
I didn’t expect the queen to be so shag positive.
Did anyone wonder about the word ‘abborrant’ in that vid?
‘Abhorrent’ pronounced like ‘aberrant’.
Weird. That is neither British nor American English.
1 Like
I’m not saying it never happens, but the royals are specifically not permitted to.
I’d say otherwise - they’re even more likely to twist facts (and simply invent them) on this topic, and their readers will lap them up without question.
There is no reason to cite the Mail, on anything, ever.
2 Likes
Royals are guaranteed influence by law.
It’s not as much as in older times, and they have guidelines they must follow to not rock the boat, but the hereditary privilege system is guaranteed influence in its very essence, in law and practice.
Whenever something like this comes up, there’s always people who want us to picture them as constitutionally ordinary citizens, when that’s absurd on the face of it.
Absolute truth.
1 Like
Ministry of Misinformation?
wtf. The British public are obsessed with the idiot “Royal” Family, they read about them all the time, they watch news and titillating shite every day. Looking at the Great Needle of what is permissible or not to the average Joe, you think it’s OK that a Royal in the UK possibly rapes underage girls?
In a generalised environment of awareness of senior public figures, Andrew has featured large in the media. It is not OK for him to be anywhere near Epstein.
Furthermore, it is a clear demonstration of high society people acting with impunity, openly.
What result do you think that might have on the minds of the average Brit? I’ll tell you - in the current environment, more and more extreme-viewed people are openly threatening others in public videos on Twitter and the like. There is a toxic stew emerging that threatens basic freedom and peace.
How? Because idiots read into the impunity and say to themselves “why not me?”
The Royals, like the Child Raping Catholic Priests, should not be above the law. The law should be done, and be seen to be done. That is currently a signal failure in both the USA and the UK, as the weakened judiciaries try to navigate the next few years.
Anything, anything at all, that supports or nourishes the current movement away from sensible democracy sensibly enforced needs to be crushed quickly and in bright full view.
Edit: and PS: Anything that shades, obscures, obfuscates, blurs or dissimilates: That’s the fucking enemy.
1 Like
In addition to any ceremonial roles, he was at one time ‘employed’ by the Government, and wielded significant influence on international trade: " From 2001 until July 2011, the Duke of York worked with UK Trade & Investment, part of the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, as the United Kingdom’s Special Representative for International Trade and Investment.[58] The post, previously held by Prince Edward, Duke of Kent, involved representing and promoting the UK at various trade fairs and conferences around the world.[5] His suitability for the role was challenged in the House of Commons by Shadow Justice Minister Chris Bryant in February 2011, at the time of the 2011 Libyan civil war, on the grounds that he was “not only a very close friend of Saif al-Islam Gaddafi, but also … a close friend of the convicted Libyan gun smuggler Tarek Kaituni”.
Did I give you some reason to think I disagree?
I said “He has absolutely no involvement in running the UK”, meaning precisely that. The royals have no say whatsoever in Government, nor Brexit.
I’m not naive enough to suggest they don’t “have a quiet word”, but so do business leaders, trade unionists, etc.
I said or even thought nothing to suggest that the ****er shouldn’t be investigated and, if justified, charged.
I disagree that the mere fact that someone is royal guarantees that they’ll be listened to by Government, or at least more so than any other wealthy landowners.
I interpret the statement that “Royals are guaranteed influence by law” as saying they have to be included in Government decision making. The Queen, and only the Queen, has to be informed of major decisions, and can offer private advice to the Prime Minister, but that advice doen’t have to be followed.
Okay about the first part, but is there any hard evidence of him significantly influencing international trade? Wheeling out the Queen’s second son (eighth in line to the throne.Wahey.) might be intended to impress foreigners, but who knows whether it works?
You directly contradict yourself here.
Saying they only have as much influence as industry leaders, or people who have non-constitutionally guaranteed wealth and access?
They have access, assets and cultural prominence, by law. They’re not private citizens. Do they have limits? Sure, but less limits overall than you.
No, I don’t contradict myself by saying they only have as much influence as industry leaders, etc.
They are rich people, and have as much influence as other rich people. The ‘god-annointed royal’ part doesn’t convey additional influence; they’re not an official, decision-making branch of government.
That’s the essential point I’m trying to make: they have behind-the-scenes influence - as do others - but not an official/legal/formal role.
Of course they have more influence than private citizens - so do multinational CEOs.
Could you clarify the last bit, please?
I can understand the assets and cultural prominence part (though by law that’s through the monarch alone, not direct to the family members in their own right), but what legal access are you saying they have?
The Queen signs off all legislation for the UK. She is the final signatory.
The UK is a Constitutional Monarchy, whatever that’s supposed to mean.
1 Like
At this point, I can’t tell if you’re joking.
Your argument is basically that the royals don’t have that much influence, compared to actual branches of government… (Also for the purposes of being kind, setting aside any other mention of the House of Lords)
You’re saying they only have as much influence as the most influential people in our society. Of course, their influence is guaranteed and underwritten by the state, because of DNA alone. They don’t run an industry, and they weren’t voted in to run a trade union.
You jump from saying they have zero influence on the running of government, then give your own examples of how they have influence, then you rationalise that unearned influence as normal.
1 Like
Whoa! No I didn’t - I don’t doubt that they have undeclared and unaccountable influence. I said involvement, and by that I mean formal, declared roles in Government, as I clarified.
And no, I’m not joking at all.
That’s the Queen. Solely the Queen. Not royals in general, nor the initial topic here, Andrew Windsor.
ETA: And she doesn’t seriously determine what she signs; that’s the Prime Minister’s job.
As everybody knows, royals don’t have formal, declared roles in the government of the UK. What a bunch of nobodies!
Glad we cleared that up.
1 Like
Nah, I’ve studied UK constitutional law. She never does, but if the monarch chooses, they do not ratify the legislation into law. It’s a kind of divine power to remind the PM they don’t have ultimate power. It’s not an arguable thing, it’s the UK constituion, as shite as that is.
I was thinking earlier about Prince Philip, and his racist comments, nationally televised and published. Would those be considered enabling to racists? I think so.
I took particular offence to “slanty eyed chinks” and “that looks like it’s been put in by an Indian”.
1 Like
This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.
