The "Royals" Thread

[Tangled Metal]

For all his relationship mistakes and his out of kilter at the time views he's a lot better than the public perception of him is.

There's a few things he's done that's been good. Prince's trust was all his idea. He's led the duchy of Cornwall in a long period of growth I read somewhere. He's been outspoken about the environment. He's used his money to promote his ideas across a wide range of interests. I think he even had advanced n ideas on housing which hit into a few of his developments. I don't really know the details but a lot of his environmental views that I'm the past were completely out of step by in the day are now part of the mainstream. Not perfect by some margin but better than he's often portrayed.

[Mick F]

Have you met him?
I was at a cocktail party in Sydney in 1988 with him a Fergie.
Party animals, both of them!

It was a good party, and I'll never forget it.

We were on a deployment named Outback 88. HMS ArkRoyal, Edinburgh, and we in Sirius.
HMS Sirius escorted the First Fleet to OZ leaving in 1787 and arriving in Botany Bay in 1788.
We were guest of honour as the "modern" Sirius.
We'd hosted HMQ in Sirius in The Solent as the Replica First Fleet left for OZ in 1987, and we went out there for the Bicentennial Celebrations in '88.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Fleet

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Sirius_(F40)

......... and visited Australia for the 1988 bicentennial naval Salute, visiting a variety of ports in the process.

[Jdsk]

Out of curiosity, the words I responded to was monarchy n not office of the monarch, what OED give for the word monarchy?

The quotation and screen dump above are for monarchy and from the OED. As previously stated.

Jonathan

[Jdsk]

And if there's any doubt about the special privileges of the family in our system the President of the Family Division of the High Court quelled them yesterday:

In a ruling published today, Sir Andrew ordered that Philip's will is to remain sealed for 90 years from the grant of probate – the formal process which confirms the authority of an executor to administer a deceased person's estate – and may only be opened in private even after that date.

The judge said: 'I have held that, because of the constitutional position of the Sovereign, it is appropriate to have a special practice in relation to royal wills.

'There is a need to enhance the protection afforded to truly private aspects of the lives of this limited group of individuals in order to maintain the dignity of the Sovereign and close members of her family.'
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/articl ... rules.html
(My emboldening)

Special treatment under the law that isn't restricted to the monarch or the heir to the throne. All part of monarchy.

Jonathan

[thirdcrank]

Meanwhile, back at Prince Andrew

Prince Andrew may challenge High Court ruling in US sexual assault case

.... In a statement, (the Judicial Office of the High Court) said: "Lawyers for Prince Andrew have indicated that they may seek to challenge the decision of the High Court to recognise the validity of the Hague Convention request for service made by Ms Giuffre's lawyers. ....

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-58593836

For anybody wondering what's happening, in most court proceedings it's a fundamental point that the subject of those proceedings has to be aware of them. There can be complications in cases which somehow bridge national borders, but there are prescribed protocols for such situations.

In layman's terms, it seems HRH has instructed lawyers to tell the High Court on his behalf that he is, in effect, unaware of the proceedings. Perhaps his next step will be to escalate it and call in Nick Freeman AKA Mr Loophole.

[pete75]

The Oxford dictionary online doesn't mention family only say " a system of government by a king or a queen".

The OED does. As in my direct quote above, emboldening added. Screen dump below.

What version of "The Oxford dictionary online" are you using, please?

Thanks

Jonathan


Screenshot 2021-09-16 at 13.39.00.png

It was not OED but then that didn't come up anyway. Cambridge did, Wikipedia, politics dot co dot UK, etc all defined monarchy as system with a monarch with no mention of offspring or hangers on. I think OED is confusing Royal Family with monarchy. Monarchy is a system of governance with a monarch or single ruler. Prince Edward has no official and for some time no role at all in the monarchy, political / government/ambassadorial or other public function. It's not often one dictionary seems to define something at odds with other dictionaries and sources.

Out of curiosity, the words I responded to was monarchy n not office of the monarch, what OED give for the word monarchy?

I still maintain his reputation also damage does not affect the queen's standing around the world. IIRC she's got pretty high approval ratings and widely respected as a head of state with an unrivalled experience. I do think she'll end up being the last full term monarch, or perhaps not if she keeps on going and Charlie boy died early.

The way she went along with Johnson's unlawful prorogation of parliament shows she is not a good head of state.

[Jdsk]

And if there's any doubt about the special privileges of the family in our system the President of the Family Division of the High Court quelled them yesterday:

In a ruling published today, Sir Andrew ordered that Philip's will is to remain sealed for 90 years from the grant of probate – the formal process which confirms the authority of an executor to administer a deceased person's estate – and may only be opened in private even after that date.

The judge said: 'I have held that, because of the constitutional position of the Sovereign, it is appropriate to have a special practice in relation to royal wills.

'There is a need to enhance the protection afforded to truly private aspects of the lives of this limited group of individuals in order to maintain the dignity of the Sovereign and close members of her family.'
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/articl ... rules.html
(My emboldening)

Special treatment under the law that isn't restricted to the monarch or the heir to the throne. All part of monarchy.

The Judgment has been published:
https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/upl ... nburgh.pdf

The Government argued that even the list of similar wills that are kept secret should be kept secret!

Jonathan

[Jdsk]

The way she went along with Johnson's unlawful prorogation of parliament shows she is not a good head of state.

This is important. The system was put to the test on a crucial issue and failed.

And everyone deferentially kept the monarch's rôle out of the legal picture.

We would have been much better served by a head of state with responsibility for the constitution who showed that responsibility when the constitution was threatened.

Jonathan

[Oldjohnw]

Constitution?

[Jdsk]

Constitution?

I think I know what you mean, but DAG insists that it not being written down in one place might be a distraction:
https://davidallengreen.com/2020/11/why ... -magazine/

This doesn't feel right to me but he knows more about it than I do...

Jonathan

[Psamathe]

Meanwhile, back at Prince Andrew

Prince Andrew may challenge High Court ruling in US sexual assault case

.... In a statement, (the Judicial Office of the High Court) said: "Lawyers for Prince Andrew have indicated that they may seek to challenge the decision of the High Court to recognise the validity of the Hague Convention request for service made by Ms Giuffre's lawyers. ....

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-58593836

For anybody wondering what's happening, in most court proceedings it's a fundamental point that the subject of those proceedings has to be aware of them. There can be complications in cases which somehow bridge national borders, but there are prescribed protocols for such situations.

In layman's terms, it seems HRH has instructed lawyers to tell the High Court on his behalf that he is, in effect, unaware of the proceedings. Perhaps his next step will be to escalate it and call in Nick Freeman AKA Mr Loophole.

Interesting to see what happens now after

Prince Andrew can request the unsealing of a 2009 settlement agreement that his lawyer claims protects him from a lawsuit alleging he sexually assaulted a girl two decades ago, a U.S. judge said Thursday.

as, seems to me that if he asks for the papers to be unsealed he is also formally admitting he is fully aware of the case.

Ian

[thirdcrank]

The current system is that the monarch acts on the advice of their ministers who gain their authority from their majority in the HoC. It's hard to see it as the fault of the current monarch that she followed the prime minister's advice. The Supreme Court eventually ruled that (my words) prime ministers gain their authority from the HoC so they cannot send Parliament home just to get their own way.

I'm no great shakes on international democracy, but I'd be surprised to hear of a democracy where a ceremonial head of state passes judgment on the actions of the country's government rather than some part of its judiciary.

If there's a fault in our carry-on it's that our prime ministers have dictatorial powers for as long as they command a majority in the HoC and most MPs are lobby fodder.

[Oldjohnw]

My view is that it was the system which fell short rather than the action (or lack of) by Mrs Windsor.

[thirdcrank]

Another point about our democracy is that the Supreme Court ruling helped trigger a general election where Boris Johnson was given a stonking Commons majority on a manifesto which proposed, among other things, to break the Brexit stalemate in parliament. And FWIW, when the pandemic meant that the executive was assuming powers normally only used in wartime, MPs were quick to slope off home. (As discussed on other threads.)

[Jdsk]

It's hard to see it as the fault of the current monarch that she followed the prime minister's advice.

My view is that it was the system which fell short rather than the action (or lack of) by Mrs Windsor.

In that case what's the point of asking?

Thanks

Jonathan