• Dear Guest, and welcome to RailUK Forums. Our non-railway discussion forums are currently restricted until members have five or more posts, and you will not be able to make a new thread or reply to an existing one in this section until you have made five or more posts elsewhere on the forum.

Prince Andrew and the secret sealed document

AlterEgo

Veteran Member
Joined
30 Dec 2008
Messages
13,954
Location
No longer here
Was that not a policy enacted by Canada's domestic Government ?
Makes no difference, Her Majesty is the head of state of Canada, and is inextricably linked to Canadian domestic matters - especially racist, colonial policies.

A royal visit would be unwise for some time.
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

yorksrob

Veteran Member
Joined
6 Aug 2009
Messages
30,350
Location
Yorks
Makes no difference, Her Majesty is the head of state of Canada, and is inextricably linked to Canadian domestic matters - especially racist, colonial policies.
As, presumably is the head of Government in Canada.
 

61653 HTAFC

Veteran Member
Joined
18 Dec 2012
Messages
13,523
Location
Another planet...
That might seem to follow logically, but that's certainly not how the legal process sees it in this country. Police forces, for instance, regularly pay out sums large and small while admitting no liability. Personally, I think justice is not achieved, but any idea I used to have that we had a justice system in this country is long gone. On the rare occasions when it might happen it just seems to be luck.
I'm not sure about that... the criminal justice system certainly isn't perfect, but the (mostly tabloid) media has a lot to answer for when it comes to the difference between perceived crime rates and actual recorded crime rates.
 

gg1

Member
Joined
2 Jun 2011
Messages
1,004
Location
Birmingham
Of course, although he is an elected representative with a mandate, and it’s different for him.
Also different in the sense that his predecessors in that post (and going back further back in time, past British PMs) bore a far greater degree of responsibility for historic atrocities committed against the indigenous population than former monarchs.
 

AlterEgo

Veteran Member
Joined
30 Dec 2008
Messages
13,954
Location
No longer here
Also different in the sense that his predecessors in that post (and going back further back in time, past British PMs) bore a far greater degree of responsibility for historic atrocities committed against the indigenous population than former monarchs.
But each time a new elected representative comes it that brings change, whereas the British monarchy is about continuity when the monarch changes.
 

najaB

Veteran Member
Joined
28 Aug 2011
Messages
25,147
Location
Scotland
Also different in the sense that his predecessors in that post (and going back further back in time, past British PMs) bore a far greater degree of responsibility for historic atrocities committed against the indigenous population than former monarchs.
I think it's highly likely that the monarchs had no idea at all what was going on, given their distance from the decisions (both in terms of layers of government and geographic separation).
 

Bevan Price

Established Member
Joined
22 Apr 2010
Messages
5,853
There is nothing new about royalty having "an eye for the girls". Henry VIII was always attracted to them and "Prinny" who built his Brighton extravaganza (Georgie, porgy, pudding and pie) and Edward VII in his days as the Prince of Wales (much to the despair of Queen Victoria) was well known for womanising.

As Prince Andrew is now eighth in succession in line to the throne, it will not matter a jot whether he comes or goes.
And Henry VIII had his wives murdered when he got tired of them. At least that won't happen now.
Prince Charles should make an OK King, but only for a short time -- he could be over 80 before he inherits the throne.

And as for those who wish there was no monarchy - have you seriously considered the alternative ? Would anyone here have wanted us to have had a President Thatcher, or now to have a President Boris ? Because those were/are likely situations in absence of our monarchy.
 

Bevan Price

Established Member
Joined
22 Apr 2010
Messages
5,853
Thousands, if not tens of thousands, of conspiracy theorist don’t agree with you, even twenty-four years later.
That was due to other facts.
1. Prince C married the wrong woman, and shared his "manhood" with someone who was not his wife.
2. The gutter press, and their malignant agents, the papparazzi.
 

johnnychips

Established Member
Joined
19 Nov 2011
Messages
3,031
Location
Sheffield
I seriously have nothing but admiration for the Queen, but I fail to see what constitutional crisis would happen if her role was abolished. Surely all she does is rubber-stamp laws that have already been passed?
 

popeter45

Member
Joined
7 Dec 2019
Messages
551
Location
london
I seriously have nothing but admiration for the Queen, but I fail to see what constitutional crisis would happen if her role was abolished. Surely all she does is rubber-stamp laws that have already been passed?
in reality the bigger issue if the monarcy was abolished would be the backlash from people who dont expect how little would change
no confiscation of palaces or land as they are private property of the royal family nor would it lead to a reduction of goverment costs as the vast majority of what they do is from private wealth from said private land holdings
and the replacement would have the same lack of power but with a loss of reverence that the queen has now
you would just end up with the royals becomeing just another super rich family but without the public obligations they have now
 

johnnychips

Established Member
Joined
19 Nov 2011
Messages
3,031
Location
Sheffield
I know this will sound really daft, but what if we had a monarch who got a lizard to kill his ex-wife, imagined he was a sanitary product up his mistress’s wotsit, crashed a plane on an island and blamed someone else, drove an Aston-Martin and said he was Green!

Of course that’s so ridiculous and unimaginable, we can fully trust a monarch to be a sound head of state!
 

yorksrob

Veteran Member
Joined
6 Aug 2009
Messages
30,350
Location
Yorks
in reality the bigger issue if the monarcy was abolished would be the backlash from people who dont expect how little would change
no confiscation of palaces or land as they are private property of the royal family nor would it lead to a reduction of goverment costs as the vast majority of what they do is from private wealth from said private land holdings
and the replacement would have the same lack of power but with a loss of reverence that the queen has now
you would just end up with the royals becomeing just another super rich family but without the public obligations they have now

True, although strictly speaking most of the Royal residences are public property and would still belong to the state. Sandringham by contrast, is the Queen's private property.
 

Sm5

Member
Joined
21 Oct 2016
Messages
415
And as for those who wish there was no monarchy - have you seriously considered the alternative ? Would anyone here have wanted us to have had a President Thatcher, or now to have a President Boris ? Because those were/are likely situations in absence of our monarchy.
the way things are going in this country we will have war lords before we have presidents.
 

Busaholic

Established Member
Joined
7 Jun 2014
Messages
10,741
in reality the bigger issue if the monarcy was abolished would be the backlash from people who dont expect how little would change
no confiscation of palaces or land as they are private property of the royal family nor would it lead to a reduction of goverment costs as the vast majority of what they do is from private wealth from said private land holdings
and the replacement would have the same lack of power but with a loss of reverence that the queen has now
you would just end up with the royals becomeing just another super rich family but without the public obligations they have now
From the 1960s the monarchy was fading away in the public consciousness, just receiving a little jolt like when some Welsh nationalists showed their objections to Charles becoming Prince of Wales, and really just being reeled out for the ceremonial things. Then a decision was made (by whom exactly?) to create a FIRM with all the trappings, publicity and, crucially, more staff to help spread the propaganda of the whole FAMILY, which meant even obscure cousins whose activities up to then had escaped public scrutiny were brought more into the limelight, which may have displeased some who had things to hide. The death of Diana (and events preceding it) certainly put a powerful brake on the rise and rise of the Firm, with half the population thinking Camilla should not be allowed official recognition if/when Charles became King. This thinking seemed particularly prevalent among some arch-monarchists!

I'd love the monarchy to be pared back, to save public money as much as anything, but with the 'media' and their Royal Correspondents, etc, I can't see it happening in my lifetime. Too much is invested in it, and them.
 

AlterEgo

Veteran Member
Joined
30 Dec 2008
Messages
13,954
Location
No longer here
I'd love the monarchy to be pared back, to save public money as much as anything, but with the 'media' and their Royal Correspondents, etc, I can't see it happening in my lifetime. Too much is invested in it, and them.
I think by the time Charles (and William) become king the monarchy will be very much slimmed down with only a few "main characters". I expect we won't hear much of William's children except for George.
 

najaB

Veteran Member
Joined
28 Aug 2011
Messages
25,147
Location
Scotland
I'd love the monarchy to be pared back, to save public money as much as anything...
I would love to see an unbiased study into the net impact that the monarchy has on the public purse, especially as compared to an elected president.

I strongly suspect that the difference will be small, though I'd not like to hazard a guess as to the direction.
 

Busaholic

Established Member
Joined
7 Jun 2014
Messages
10,741
I would love to see an unbiased study into the net impact that the monarchy has on the public purse, especially as compared to an elected president.

I strongly suspect that the difference will be small, though I'd not like to hazard a guess as to the direction.
How do you get an unbiased study? So much of it would be guesswork anyway (e.g. inbound tourism centred around the monarchy, Buckingham Palace, etc, the value of which I suspect is vastly over-rated.) The cost of a president and all the trappings could be within a huge range, with almost no limits i'd suggest. Even the cost of a presidential election could be shown to be eyewateringly expensive, if you factored in things like police and local government pro rata, whereas all the bods who protect Prince Andrew (but not from himself <D ) and co are just disguised within the general police budget.
 

Sm5

Member
Joined
21 Oct 2016
Messages
415
When you live in a farm, you dont notice the farmer, the stench or what is sold at the market.

The monarchy means more overseas, than it does to us, and the money raised isnt seen by the farm animals either… only when its gone and theres not offal to eat do the pigs starve… then they eat each other.
 

yorksrob

Veteran Member
Joined
6 Aug 2009
Messages
30,350
Location
Yorks
When you live in a farm, you dont notice the farmer, the stench or what is sold at the market.

The monarchy means more overseas, than it does to us, and the money raised isnt seen by the farm animals either… only when its gone and theres not offal to eat do the pigs starve… then they eat each other.

We're all getting very dystopian here.

I'd prefer not to go down the republican route, but I doubt the sky would fall in of we did.
 

Sm5

Member
Joined
21 Oct 2016
Messages
415
We're all getting very dystopian here.

I'd prefer not to go down the republican route, but I doubt the sky would fall in of we did.
Brexit voters said the exact same, and we have a shortage of just about everything, apart from another convienient excuse to blame it on.

Now we cant blame it on Europe any more, I suppose the Monarchy is the next one in the frame.
If you keep taking big fish out of the sea, the size of the catch keeps getting smaller, eventually people will have to face up to solving their own problems On the surface instead of fishing in the sea for an excuse to blame something else.
 

Top