Royal Thread the Second- Tiaras Optional! ?

Has anyone read ‘…And what do you do?’ by Norman Baker?
That’s very critical of HM.
Apparently, she has shares in the horrible company Brighthouse!
Making money from folk who can’t afford a fridge freezer!

Fanny

And, of course, you won’t get anyone criticising the Queen on here (I hope)

Nobody's above criticism...

Alegrias
I must admit (this won’t come as a surprise to many) I do tend to skip over the serious grownups’ stuff

trisher oh, I misunderstood, I thought that Grany meant this thread, not GN as a whole (that’s how self centred I am!)

And, of course, you won’t get anyone criticising the Queen on here (I hope)

Without picking on anyone (but I'm looking at you Elegran ) there are some who think its OK that they don't adhere to all the same laws the rest of us have to. That's defending them, I think.

I think the dignified bit is just an act and rather shallow. Most people don't really buy into it. Always know they were corrupt. The only bit that really grates on me is lack of family morals.

Thought this thread was to criticise the royal family

Oh I think there have been some "but they do a wonderful job" posts on GN. And isn't saying an elected HofS wouldn't do any better defending them?
It really is time that the process of government was seperated from the pageantry and hospitality business. I wonder how long the RF would stay if it was? I bet they'd clear off, Charles probably to Balmoral and W&K to a nice Carribean retreat.

Grany
I’m not sure if any of us on this thread does much ‘defending’ of the RF.
We are all quite a critical lot.
Some are very critical! ?

At what point do those coming here to defend the royals accept this isn’t the institution they thought it was? It’s supposed to be dignified. In truth it’s grubby and corrupt.

@RepublicStaff

We have said before that Charles’s secret lobbying could easily be used to lobby on behalf of other rich and powerful people. Here is evidence that is what’s happening. Charles has unique access to ministers and cabinet papers. And all his communication with govt is kept secret. twitter.com/thesundaytimes…

Don’t worry Rosy!
To be honest, you had me fooled for a while - I thought that you had the original, fancy pants spelling. You could have easily got away with it!
I actually looked up Nell in Wikipedia just in case.
She was only 37 when she died. It amazes me when people achieve so much fame and notoriety in such a short amount of time.

I dont know to be honest must being going mad in me old age ?‍♂️

Gwyn surely Rosy?
Where are you getting the Q from?

Or Qwyn! even ?

Nell Quinne no K.

Nell Quinnek used to live in a house in Lincolns Inn. Her son by Charles, when he used to visit her, didnt have a title, she used to say come on little B'stard and Charles asked why she called him that and she told him because he didnt have a title. He quicky gave him one.
Dont know if thats true but its a good story.

It is fascinating isn't it Namsnanny I did wonder how many of the aristocracy came from Charles'offspring.

trisher

Oh the underhand dealings of the RF!!!

On a bit of a diversion I'm listening to "Mistresses" on BBC Sounds. It's the story of Charles 2nds mistresses. He had many, and 13 illegitimate children. His mistresses got titles, and allowances, so did the children. It's all fascinating but not at all what our RF supposedly stand for today. I do wonder though kings called Charles don't have a good record historically.

I've been listening to it too trisher love the quote from Nell when being heckled by the crowd.
I am the Kings whore, but I'm the Protestant one!

Grany

www.channel4.com/news/queen-should-not-be-able-to-seek-to-amend-legislation-in-her-personal-interests-says-campaigner

Andy Wightman is a very even handed person I think Grany. Good clip.

Oh the underhand dealings of the RF!!!

On a bit of a diversion I'm listening to "Mistresses" on BBC Sounds. It's the story of Charles 2nds mistresses. He had many, and 13 illegitimate children. His mistresses got titles, and allowances, so did the children. It's all fascinating but not at all what our RF supposedly stand for today. I do wonder though kings called Charles don't have a good record historically.

www.channel4.com/news/queen-should-not-be-able-to-seek-to-amend-legislation-in-her-personal-interests-says-campaigner

Well said Alegrias1

The Scottish government is refusing to publish details about the Queen’s secret lobbying of ministers because it would undermine “the appearance of political neutrality” that the monarch adopts in public.
Civil servants made the startling admission when they refused to release private letters from the Queen’s Scottish lawyer that are thought to detail why she wanted to amend a bill dealing with green energy earlier this year.

There won't be as much or any defence respect show to Charles as king as the queen has had.

It doesn't matter Elegran.

There is a law that all of us have to follow because we have to counter climate change together, not individually.

But the RF think they can be different, to not follow that law. Justice is blind, unless you have a crown, it seems. They think they are different to ordinary people, families and organisations, and I'm amazed that anybody thinks this is OK.

I assume Graham Smith refers to them being exempt from having a compulsory purchase order on their (privately owned) land in Scotland if a power company wants to use it to run hot air in underground pipes through it, to heat homes and buildings. He makes it sound as though it is about them having their own power station belching black smoke and CO2 into the atmosphere.

@JolyonMaugham

Unless we are all equal under the law, none of us are. This special privilege for the Queen to undermine public policy is unsustainable in a modern democracy.

Queen secretly lobbied Scottish ministers for climate law exemption
Monarch used secretive procedure to become only person in country not bound by a green energy rule.

Revelations earlier this year about how the Queen had vetted draft laws before they were approved by the UK’s elected representatives prompted more than 65,000 people to call for an inquiry into the “unfathomable” process.

"There is absolutely no justification for the Queen and Prince Charles to have this power to demand exemptions from the law."

"This represents a systematic abuse of power by the royals that goes back decades, using a little-known parliamentary rule to ensure that laws the rest of us must abide by don't apply to them."

"Because of this consent rule senior royals are exempt from race discrimination laws, environmental protection laws, planning laws and much, much more."

"In a democracy we must all be equal in law. Clearly that's not the case in the UK."