Are the Royal Family losing their touch?

At least it will make the public more aware of the extraordinary privileges which the royal family are granted.

I don’t think the appeal will be successful though, sadly. Of course it doesn’t matter to me, or probably to you, what the contents of Philip’s will are, but it is not healthy in a democracy to have such secrecy attached to one family. It is not a state secret which cannot be divulged because of security risks, it is merely to suppress the knowledge of the true wealth of the royal family.

nadateturbe

Have been googling and royal family are given special treatment regarding disclosing wills.

Eg Duke of Edinburgh’s Will is to remain secret for at least 90 years in order to protect the “dignity and standing” of the Queen.

Guardian challenge to decision on Philip’s will hearing reaches Court of Appeal

Have been googling and royal family are given special treatment regarding disclosing wills.

Eg Duke of Edinburgh’s Will is to remain secret for at least 90 years in order to protect the “dignity and standing” of the Queen.

Given that the public fund the royal family to such a great amount, I think that their wills should be made public. Unfortunately I don’t think The Guardian will be successful. The establishment will always side with the establishment.

Thanks for info Grany. Wednesday will be interesting.

The Guardian is challenging in court on Wednesday RF wills being kept secret.

Prince Andrew ‘stopped BBC publishing embarrassing picture of him’

The sealing of the wills has enabled the Windsors to avoid the public seeing what kinds of assets – such as property, jewels and cash – have been accumulated by members of the royal family and how these were then distributed to, for example, relatives, friends or staff.

A BBC photographer claims he has an unpublished picture of Prince Andrew that would ’embarrass’ the Royal Family.

Mark Harrison worked for the broadcaster during the Duke of York’s catastrophic Newsnight interview about his connection to Jeffrey Epstein.

But the photographer hinted it may feature in a forthcoming film about how the BBC secured the infamous interview.

The movie called Scoop will reportedly delve into his friendship with the convicted sex offender, who was found dead in his cell three months before the interview came out.

But what do you think of the article easybee? Should these exemptions be permitted?

eazybee

^A president would not behave like this he/she would have limited power and no political power, to change leggislation, as the queen and Charles do^.

Ceausescu?
Al-Assad?
Putin?
Trump?

You misunderstand eazybee

Not presidents like in USA or France

A few well respected good presidents

Mary McAleese, Irish president from 1997 to 2011. She was the second woman to serve as president and the first president from the north of Ireland. She was hugely popular before and since.

Joachim Gauck, German president from 2012 to 2017. He was a leading pro-democracy campaigner in East Germany, before serving as the first Federal Commissioner for the Stasi Records.

Tarja Halonen, the first woman to be elected president of Finland, serving from 2000-2012. She was hugely popular while in office and since.

Mary Robinson, the first woman to be elected president of Ireland, serving from 1990 to 1997, before going on to be the UN's High Commissioner for Refugees

Vigdís Finnbogadóttir, the first woman head of state ever elected to the post. She was Iceland's president from 1980 to 1996. She was hugely popular while in office and since

And our president would be similar to the Irish model

A president would not behave like this he/she would have limited power and no political power, to change leggislation, as the queen and Charles do.

Ceausescu?
Al-Assad?
Putin?
Trump?

Legislation

I think that It is hard for monarchists to argue against the report.The extent of the sweeping exemptions and protections from the law given to the Queen

An outrage, yet still MPs are silent.
I guess that as monarchy gives all power to government PM with no checks and balances from HoS The government lets the HoS get away with breaking laws others have to abide by, being unacounable, or are they scared to say anything challenge how this is allowed to continue? A good question.
These latest revelations are on the back of so many other scandals, including the bags-of-cash story that broke last month.
A president would not behave like this he/she would have limited power and no political power, to change leggislation, as the queen and Charles do.

I think the silence says a lot.

I know nadateturbe, it’s puzzling in the extreme. How anyone can defend it is beyond me, but defend it they do, if they are monarchists.

Strange that no one has an opinion to offer on this truly shocking article.

www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2022/jul/14/queen-immunity-british-laws-private-property?CMP=share_btn_tw

And there is a new book Charles the alternative prince written by Professor Edzard Ernst, an internationally renowned expert on complementary medicine has detailed Charles' attempts to push alternative therapies on the health service — including coffee enemas for cancer patients. As you can imagine people on hearing about the 160 laws queen is exempted from the crimes to wildlife on her estates were not impressed. And many more were tweeting Abolish the monarchy And people saying it's the end game for the monarchy when queen goes, because Charles has been involved in cash of honours and accepting bags of cash. William is the same as his dad very entitled and work shy as they all are. Give back the many castles and palaces and no more money from the tax payer.

Just one section, unbelievable. Why is the Queen exempt?

I have read the first article published just two days ago
A shocking read, and as you say, how could anyone read and defend the royals?

My old iPad is playing up so could not type a neater post
But the points raised in the two Guardian articles raises some important questions about HoS immunity from British laws and whether how easily police can investigate wildlife crimes on their estates or not.

And there is to be a film about Andrew and the interview there should be one too of Charles and his bags of cash and cash for honours

Royals and government are above the law
Two Guardian articles Andy
Because the guys at the guardian are investigating the whole business of royal exemption from the law, digging into the archives and researching the full scope and impact.
It should be perfectly plain from the handling by the police of a succession of criminal complaints against both Charles and Andrew that the Windsor royals have immunity from police investigation. And get-out-of-jail-free cards.
Revealed: Queen’s sweeping immunity from more than 160 laws

Monarch enjoys extraordinary exemptions under law – which extend to her private estates and even a royal fishing business

www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2022/jul/14/queen-immunity-british-laws-private-property?CMP=share_btn_tw

The claim that “all are equal under the law” is a lie and a farce.
Officials warned of ‘serious wildlife incidents’ at Queen’s Sandringham estate

A Guardian investigation has revealed that dozens of UK laws stipulate that police are barred from entering any of the Queen’s private estates to investigate crimes.
www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2022/jul/15/sandringham-estate-police-barred-investigating-wildlife-crime?CMP=share_btn_tw

A deafening silence from the rest of the media as the guardian illustrates, again, how the royals are above the law. They can commit a criminal offence and the police must ask permission to see the scene of the alleged crime.

Literally North Korea levels. How can anyone read this and defend the royals?

"UK law does not generally apply to the government and the monarchy."

Royals can commit crimes punishable by jail and the police must ask permission to enter their estates to investigate. This is a f**king disgrace

Sounds interesting!

Grany

About to start the first @CommPolPower event, discussing the future of the monarchy, with @pollytoynbee and @alexhallhall

@alexhallhall
Walloped by
@pollytoynbee
in this debate. I tried to make case for prioritizing reform elsewhere (FPTP, written constit’n, binding minist’l code, abolish HOL etc), and keep pared down, transparent, ceremonial monarchy, but ultimately didn’t buy my own arguments! Hers were better!

Hopefully this interesting debate will be on YouTube soon!

None of the above reforms, tho also necessary, are sufficient to provide strong check against overreaching executive and abusive PM. Ultimately, we need an independent, elected, authoritative arbiter to guard our constitution.

nanna8

I think the whole lot of them are entitled, greedy people. They are not alone in that ,of course, they share the honour with many rich and titled people. They are a world apart and they don’t even get it.

Yes. Quite right.

About to start the first @CommPolPower event, discussing the future of the monarchy, with @pollytoynbee and @alexhallhall

@alexhallhall
Walloped by
@pollytoynbee
in this debate. I tried to make case for prioritizing reform elsewhere (FPTP, written constit’n, binding minist’l code, abolish HOL etc), and keep pared down, transparent, ceremonial monarchy, but ultimately didn’t buy my own arguments! Hers were better!

Hopefully this interesting debate will be on YouTube soon!

Thanks for your comment nanna8. I don't think anyone could argue with that.