On borrowed time - the royals

Well said Franbern

Lexisgranny

Mainly because you were referring collectively to many newspapers - and judging from your first reply you are still doing it.

I think we can lump the Mail, Express, Sun into the same bucket. As I’m sure you know, the Guardian is the only proper news paper which is left of centre

Mainly because you were referring collectively to many newspapers - and judging from your first reply you are still doing it.

And how come you didn’t call out Nells sweeping statement about the Guardian?

Lexisgranny

That is rather sweeping statement suziewoozie, disproved by the fact that many newspapers during the last week have printed evidence to impugn various points made by Meghan Markle. Whereas I do not intend this example to imply that what you say is not occasionally correct, such generalisation does weaken your argument,

The standard of reporting in our tabloid press is disgraceful .

That is rather sweeping statement suziewoozie, disproved by the fact that many newspapers during the last week have printed evidence to impugn various points made by Meghan Markle. Whereas I do not intend this example to imply that what you say is not occasionally correct, such generalisation does weaken your argument,

NellG

Don't worry Elegran our very own cut and paste artiste will no doubt furnish such a list. Probably from the Guardian, which wont list actual evidence because it's too "secret". SO secret we are all supposed to just accept it exists on the nod.

Unlike the rags who wouldn’t know evidence if it bit them on the nose?

Not ?

Elegran

Indeed. But using those prejudices to prove that the object of the calumnies has been swindling the country for decades and is unfit for their high office is taking bias a bit far.

It’s really nit - it’s just GN double standards

Don't worry Elegran our very own cut and paste artiste will no doubt furnish such a list. Probably from the Guardian, which wont list actual evidence because it's too "secret". SO secret we are all supposed to just accept it exists on the nod.

Indeed. But using those prejudices to prove that the object of the calumnies has been swindling the country for decades and is unfit for their high office is taking bias a bit far.

Well let’s think of some calumnies thrown at anyone who gainsays them, shall we? Because all this comes under the heading of “They can’t possibly be in the right unless they do exactly as we say”

He's a bit dim, just like his mother.

She's just an actress. She's been planning this for years.

She’s a lying b** who’s only out for what she can get and probably wasn’t even pregnant.

How could they do this to the poor old queen and her ill husband?

Look at her living room, what is she thinking? (That one’s Anne, BTW, just for some light relief…)

The ability to believe the worst about people whose behaviour you don’t approve of goes both ways.

So could we have chapter and verse of this "objective factual evidence of the way the way the Monarchy ensures it benefits and/ or is not disadvantaged by laws that apply to the rest of us is bad enough on its own." then? Not just which laws but how the Monarchy ensured that they are benefitted by them? Who did they bribe, threaten or blackmail into making sure that they were excluded? If there is objective factual evidence then it is avaible for all to see.

Well said Elegran.

No surprises there suziewoozie

I think the objective factual evidence of the way the way the Monarchy ensures it benefits and/ or is not disadvantaged by laws that apply to the rest of us is bad enough on its own. I don’t need other rumours/ gossip about them to despise the institution anymore than I do .

Elegran???

I think a lot of the things imputed to the RF at the moment come under the heading "If you don't like having these people as hereditary heads of state, you are prepared to believe they are capable of anything at all."

All suggestions welcomed, just post on social media and it will whiz around virally and become a meme.

Abandoning disabled relatives in sink institutions? (in a luxury nursing home, and a few generations ago, and not by a direct ancestor, but let's blame the current monarch just the same, and imply that they were thrown out of a palace and into the gutter)

Imprisoning a helpless bride in a palace and confiscating her passport? (so that she doesn't have the hassle of booking her own travel, and so that it isn't lying around her quarters where any nosy maid can have a good gander while she is making the bed)

Not imprisoning a randy (fully adult and answerable for himself) son and calling the police to come and get him?

Interfering clandestinely with legislation to divert state money to her own coffers?

Spending money on the purposes for which it is paid to her? (Money which was granted to the Sovereign for those purposes centuries ago in return for the surrender of he profits from land and property which were at that time privately owned by the then sovereign and gave them their income 85% of those profits now go into the state purse and 15% to the sovereign or the expenses of the job.)

Any further crimes anyone would like to add to the charge sheet?

Murder, anyone? Incest? Smuggling in sturdy peasant male heirs in a warming-pan to replace weak inbred aristocratic ones? Serving up roast peasant at state dinners? (No, that wasn't a mistype for pheasant. If you are going to throw all the wickedness you can think of at the Aunt Sally of the day, cannibalism is a good choice)

Alegrias1

I have no idea if trisher is talking about a specific part of any real bill, but of course the whole HoC and HoL don't need to be complicit.

Only a majority of the HoC would have to vote for it, and of course most MPs vote as their Whip tells them to so the Government of the day can push through any law it wants. And the HoL can only ultimately delay Bills, they can't stop them if the HoC really wants to push it through. (Reference: Prorogation....)

I doubt any person in power would include a clause in any Bill that says something like "Give me all the money" but they could certainly influence a government to include something that is to their advantage without being explicit. Of course a President could do that as well, but let's not pretend a Royal would never do it.

And sometimes what is not legislated for ie the status quo is allowed to continue, tells us even more about where real power lies.And then there’s implementation using legislation to allocate grants to particular constituencies or overriding a local planning decision for a mate. And finally the huge powerful Statutory Instruments which are neither debated nor voted on.

I have no idea if trisher is talking about a specific part of any real bill, but of course the whole HoC and HoL don't need to be complicit.

Only a majority of the HoC would have to vote for it, and of course most MPs vote as their Whip tells them to so the Government of the day can push through any law it wants. And the HoL can only ultimately delay Bills, they can't stop them if the HoC really wants to push it through. (Reference: Prorogation....)

I doubt any person in power would include a clause in any Bill that says something like "Give me all the money" but they could certainly influence a government to include something that is to their advantage without being explicit. Of course a President could do that as well, but let's not pretend a Royal would never do it.

Elegran

Surely legislation has to be voted on by the HoC. No-one can secretly insert something. The whole of the HoC and the HoL would have to be complicit.What is this "secret" law, and at what point in the legislation process was it inserted?

Conspiracy theories, Elegran?

Good question Elegran

Surely legislation has to be voted on by the HoC. No-one can secretly insert something. The whole of the HoC and the HoL would have to be complicit.What is this "secret" law, and at what point in the legislation process was it inserted?

If an elected official had inserted into legislation a clause which gave them some financial benefit there would be huge cries of "corruption". But apparently the RF can do it and no one says a word. I'm starting to understand exactly what Royal privilege means. What I don't understand is why on earth anyone supports it.

I am one poster who certainly didn’t condemn the Queen following the death of Diana .

Oh Fran I think I ❤️ you xxxxxxxxx