Former Prince Andrew has just been arrested in Norfolk

MartavTaurus

sixandahalf

Even Montbatten Windsor is a made up name.

Well, it is if you spell it wrong!
It's Mountbatten, not Montbatten.
It's a family name and comes from Battenberg. No, not the cake, but it's a town in the state of Hesse in Germany, where Berg means mountain.

All our surnames are "made up names" from various times in history, in fact not very long at all in some areas.

In Wales the patronymic system was used until right up to a couple of hundred years ago in some areas.
Some people's surnames derived from this jobs, their physical features, their location.

Today, some children have surnames made up from the surnames of both parents.

sixandahalf

Even Montbatten Windsor is a made up name.

Well, it is if you spell it wrong!
It's Mountbatten, not Montbatten.
It's a family name and comes from Battenberg. No, not the cake, but it's a town in the state of Hesse in Germany, where Berg means mountain.

Even Montbatten Windsor is a made up name.

Tuliptree 13.50.

I have made absolutely no assumptions about your experience of the NHS. If the nHS has in any way fallen short, including the actions and behaviours of senior managers, CEO s etc of expected standards there are avenues of recourse you can take. The local PALs ( Patient advice and Liaison ) service can help you. They should be held to account if they have fallen below expected standards just as AMW, as an INDIVIDUAL, previous RF family member is now being held to account by way of a police investigation.

I disagreed However with your assumption you detailed in your 11.22 post: "We know don’t we when an institution eg the Church, a hospital trust , the post office, the police have ‘problems’ then their survival becomes the most important thing to them. Not the truth, not public service, not ( heaven forbid) the public, but the institution".

vegansrock

Meanwhile, Sarah Ferguson has checked into a 13k A DAY Swiss wellness retreat…..I wonder who is paying for that? I thought she was skint.

What I'd like to know is what you get for that money?

vegansrock

Meanwhile, Sarah Ferguson has checked into a 13k A DAY Swiss wellness retreat…..I wonder who is paying for that? I thought she was skint.

It beggars belief!
Apparently it’s the most exclusive and expensive retreat in the world.

The RF is the "unit' of the monarch- whilst the "institution" often called "the firm" refers to the administrative and operational apparatus that supports them.

The 'Crown" represents the legal constitutional authority of the state. Thus the RF members act as the public face of the Crown but the institution/'firm" handles the business. The Crown holds the power.

The RF members are family members, exactly as other families have mother/brother/sister/father/cousin relationships and dynamics. They differ however in that they are the public face of the Crown/legal constitution. It is indeed a complicated balancing act- now is the spotlight more than ever in modern times. They have the support of the firm/institution but the King made proclamations at his coronation in relation to his duties. He has to balance those against his duties/emotions/etc towards AMW, his brother.

What the institution/firm knew or did not know, ie via IT systems, police protection officers etc does not necessarily mean individual RF had the same or full detail of what the firm possibly "knew" unless formally advised. They also had, in the same way every other family has- intercostal relationships and varied dynamics with AMW- who may or may not have been open about his actions and behaviour at all times.

It's complicated- but clearly there is a huge public appetite for the 'Firm", ie the institution to be open and transparent so that public confidence can be maintained in the Crown /legal constitution and King Charles etc as the public face of that. Does the public expect something more/a speech from King C at the moment- almost impossible due to ongoing police proceedings which he must not interfere with or jeopardise legally.

'The verdict's still out on the sweat'

Lemonjam you have made a huge and unwarranted assumption about my knowledge and experience of the NHS. The NHS complaints system is not fit for purpose and I can assure you that I have been involved in complaints from very many perspectives . One of the real obstacles in having a complaints system fit for purpose is having senior managers, including CEOs not being prepared to acknowledge the failings of their institutions and the appalling limitations of the complaints process in addressing these failings. Just like the senior royals really. The NHS needs a serious overhaul in dealing with its complaints , shortcomings and risks for starters. Its overall culture is not that of wishing to learn and improve but to minimise, excuse, ignore issues and gaslight complainants. Yes lots of protocols, policies, documents , senior managers with impressive sounding titles - a prettt impressive smokescreen. Again like the RF

Meanwhile, Sarah Ferguson has checked into a 13k A DAY Swiss wellness retreat…..I wonder who is paying for that? I thought she was skint.

Allira

^So really not like other families at all?^
Other families?

No two families are the same.

I’m not sure what this means. Other than a truism

So really not like other families at all?
Other families?

No two families are the same.

In my view the monarchy/Crown should be no exception.

Tuliptree 11.22: "So really not like other families at all? We know don’t we when an institution eg the Church, a hospital trust , the post office, the police have ‘problems’ then their survival becomes the most important thing to them. Not the truth, not public service, not ( heaven forbid) the public, but the institution. That’s why we hopefully are bringing in a duty of candour and it should apply to the RF.

No we don't know that Tuliptree. The monarchy/Crown is the institution and it's made up of royal family members. Just as for example, the NHS is an institution and its made up of employees e.g. doctors, nurses, porters etc.

Your personal experience of an NHS "problem" might have been that the NHS response was more importantly focused on "survival" rather than dealing with or responding to your "problem". That's not the norm, my personal experience as an NHS patient, previously working in the NHS at senior level or when latterly chairing cases in a civil court/tribunal setting for health professionals who have seriously failed in their professional duties when delivering patient care.

I can assure you that the institution of the NHS takes patient safety and the pubic interest seriously and the NHS routinely:
1) conducts investigations locally as it is legally required, for patient problems under local complaints procedures or Serious Incident frameworks etc.
2) refers individual employees to their professional bodies, e.g General Medical Council, Nursing and Midwifery Council etc to be professionally investigated and held to account under their professional code of conduct
3) Reports Serious Incidents and the outcomes of associated patient safety investigations upwards ie to NHSE and/or Care Quality Commission, Health and Safety Executive etc
4) Reports to Police routinely if they believe a crime has been committed
etc etc

The job descriptions of health service employees and/or induction training often contains reference to "duty of candour' which is a guiding NHS principle.

If a member of the public experiences any breaches of complaints procedures, patient invesdtigasptions, poor quality care, breaches of the NHS duty of candour- they complain and escalate appropriately and/or take legal advice with potential to bring a legal claim.

I do not agree that all institutions predominantly prioritise "survival" above "sorting out problems" with. notable exceptions on occasion- e.g. The Post Office in relation to post masters and postmistresses? Horizon failures yes- came to light- living with legal and financial consequences.

The public, rightly, in this modern age, now expects institutions to be transparent and operate with duty of candour.

Queen Elizabeth did not realize the extent of the involvement with Epstein, with hindsight it would have been better to let Andrew settle his own problems, he had several £ million to do it, as often confidentiality is not respected and it all gets exposed.

Comment by The Observer

It’s been a tempus horribile for the royal family but our sympathy is draining away. We’re impatient for change. The former Duke of York was arrested on Tuesday on suspicion of misconduct in public office during his time as a trade envoy. He was released “under investigation” and has denied wrongdoing but, as we say in The Observer view in an argument for a slimmed-down monarchy, “he cannot deny he is disgraced”.

Elsewhere we report that the investigation is likely to expand its reach, extending to the late Queen’s activities and a search of Buckingham Palace. No diary, email, file or phone record will be considered too private. As royal reporter Richard Palmer writes, the spotlight is expected to land on Sarah Ferguson, the former Duchess of York, and their children Eugenie and Beatrice.

The wider royal family’s potential culpability in the Mountbatten-Windsor affair is examined by political editor Rachel Sylvester, who reports that he was removed as a trade envoy after concerns grew in Whitehall about his relationship with Jeffrey Epstein. Fresh questions have been raised about the family’s failure to challenge Andrew’s behaviour and associations. Vince Cable, who was business secretary in 2011, told our political editor that the coalition government decided to sever links with the former Duke of York following publication of a photograph of the then-prince with his arm around Virginia Giuffre, the young woman who claimed she was trafficked to London for sex. “It was seen as a very tricky thing to handle,” he said.

How the King and his brood handle the next months will define the future of the monarchy, Will Hutton writes. Andrew Rawnsley considers how our former republican prime minister will play it.

There’s sure to be blood and tears, but the verdict’s still out on the sweat.

Casdon

I rest my case.

You and me both

I rest my case.

Casdon

People say things with such conviction when they know no more than anybody else does. Repeating your convictions when they are not founded on evidence just makes you look prejudiced in my opinion. There is evidence against Andrew, so he is the accused, that is as much as any of us know for sure.

I know the two camps of who knew what when will never agree but it’s not prejudice to make certain inferences given the £12m, his sacking as envoy, briefings the Q would have had. So reasonably in the frame are the late Q, Philip, Charles, William at the least. And quite frankly the test of known or should have known is fair to apply. The tabloid press decades ago was full of ‘Randy Andy’ ‘Air miles Andy’ headlines plus stories of his rude boorish behaviour

AGAA4

They are like other families in protecting their own but also have to protect the institution.

Exactly. None of us were there (I assume) so who can say what they knew, did not know, chose not to know?
They may or may not be like other families (whatever that means)
Their circumstances are certainly not like other families.

Apart from all the medieval gobblydgook of who can be called what, which is nonsense enough, there’s the added nonsense of women not counting for this nonsense. We only recently changed the rules so that line of succession to monarchy reflected birth order. When George was born I had so wanted him to have been a girl so she’d have been first in line ( of the children)

Ordinary families will protect their own members if they can so that is a similarity.
Obviously most aren't members of the "firm" which the Royal family are.

People say things with such conviction when they know no more than anybody else does. Repeating your convictions when they are not founded on evidence just makes you look prejudiced in my opinion. There is evidence against Andrew, so he is the accused, that is as much as any of us know for sure.

AGAA4

They are like other families in protecting their own but also have to protect the institution.

So really not like other families at all? We know don’t we when an institution eg the Church, a hospital trust , the post office, the police have ‘problems’ then their survival becomes the most important thing to them. Not the truth, not public service, not ( heaven forbid) the public, but the institution. That’s why we hopefully are bringing in a duty of candour and it should apply to the RF.

Elegran

I think only the children of the monarch or of the next in line of succession are automatically princes or princesses.

Princess Anne’s children were not entitled to be Prince and Princess as royal titles are traditionally passed down through the male line only.

They could have been given other titles, but Anne (wisely) chose not to.

Mark Phillips never took an Earldom either, though he could have done.

Edward and Sophie decided against P&P titles for their children also, although they qualified, as GC of the monarch.