[News] Prince Andrew interviewed about allegations

[Tom Hark Preston Park]

I don't think [MENTION=205]Tom Hark, Preston Park[/MENTION] will want to get too involved. He's probably still worrying about my ability to give a "passing description" of his "meat 'n' two veg" (see post #267) and the legal implications that might raise.

Scaring me now!

 

[jackanada]

I've not really followed the story but upon seeing a picture of Andrew I did find it remarkable just how much he currently looks like someone you really wouldn't let babysit.
I'm sure he looked relatively harmless when marrying Fergie which is the last time I had cause to notice him.

 

[marlowe]

Maybe I'm being too idealistic but I'd like to think most people would vote to have a much smaller monarchy at the very least.

The Queen's only 5 ft 3". How much smaller would you like?

 

[Easy 10]

Exactly. That Maitlis interview illustrated perfectly how he had no idea just how bad a liar he is. Why did he not realise how badly he would come across? Because he has never, in his entire life been asked to give an account of himself. He had no idea how pathetic he would appear.

Indeed. A perfect illustration of his flagrant arrogance and sense of entitlement. I have no doubt he went in believing he was going to "set the record straight", but instead he ended up being absolutely humiliated and shredded in that car crash of an interview - hence the wall of silence he has retreated behind ever since (no doubt fully enforced by the horrified advisors at the palace, and his old dear).

What a loathsome toad he is.

 

[Pierre the Painter]

I've had a quick look but is it possible or legal for the British public to vote whether there should be a monarchy? I suspect the majority would vote to either abolish it or substantially reduce it after the Queens death.

You couldn't be more wrong, the Monarchy is hugely popular, and is excellent value for money.

https://www.ipsos.com/ipsos-mori/en-uk/poll-finds-popularity-monarchy-remains-stable-among-britons

 

[highflyer]

You've not searched to hard then!

The queen and Charles for starters pay tax and capital gains on things not associated with Royal duties. The sovereign grant, that is used to pay for many of the lesser royals and bits of the more important ones has run from somehwere in the 50's to the hundred million marks pa occasionally a bit higher.

The Duchey's of Lancaster and especially the Duchy of Cornwall (charles) pays from its business enterprises a very large part of the royal finances, including for William, kate, Chales and Camilla and some other senior Royals. Their royal duties are financed fom the profits of the Duchey. Thats self perpetuating. a different question is maybe whether thats morally right.

A consultancy called Brand Finance estimated in 2017 that the monarchy’s annual contribution to the UK economy to be around £1.8bn a year, drawing in an additional £550m of tourism revenues a year, and an increase in trade, from the Royal Family acting as ambassadors, supposedly worth £150m a year.

https://brandfinance.com/press-releases/valued-at-67-billion-the-monarchy-is-britains-greatest-treasure

Thats massively more than the soverign grant (the taxpayer portion of their annual allowance).

Again I concede with others points on whether that would remain, decrease or disappear if there were no Royal family living in the palaces and no guards in bearskin hats doing royal parades etc. But that again is a different argument, a moral one on whether its right or wrong, and I fully accept there are plenty of people who dont agree morally with a royal family.

The economic argument, pure cost/revenue argument is sound.

Nope.

As would be expected from a consultancy firm called 'Brand Finance' that report is utter nonsense.

As explained here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7qgdJ5XWj8c

Obviously that's a review with an agenda - but the report IS nonsense - it is just a PR puff piece dressed up as a 'serious report'. It relies heavily on the 'intangible value' of the monarchy's 'brand' and also seems to assume that stuff like the crown jewels and all the estates would simply disappear if we abolished the monarchy, rather than turning into assts that we all own and take value from..

 

[peterward]

Nope.

As would be expected from a consultancy firm called 'Brand Finance' that report is utter nonsense.

As explained here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7qgdJ5XWj8c

Obviously that's a review with an agenda - but the report IS nonsense - it is just a PR puff piece dressed up as a 'serious report'. It relies heavily on the 'intangible value' of the monarchy's 'brand' and also seems to assume that stuff like the crown jewels and all the estates would simply disappear if we abolished the monarchy, rather than turning into assts that we all own and take value from..

It is neither nonsense or just PR just because you don't like if, or it may run contrary to your opinion.

Research Brand finance. They are wholly independent with offices all over the world and are one of the largest independent brand valuers in the world who do this sort of think 1000's of times a year for all sorts of brand based entities.

Their report, is their report and as a leading independent authority their reports are often cited by all sorts of other journalistic publications as authoritative.

It's not nonsense just because you don't like it or say it is, I guess with some bias or anti royal agenda?

 

[highflyer]

It is neither nonsense or just PR just because you don't like if, or it may run contrary to your opinion.

Research Brand finance. They are wholly independent with offices all over the world and are one of the largest independent brand valuers in the world who do this sort of think 1000's of times a year for all sorts of brand based entities.

Their report, is their report and as a leading independent authority their reports are often cited by all sorts of other journalistic publications as authoritative.

It's not nonsense just because you don't like it or say it is, I guess with some bias or anti royal agenda?

It is palpable nonsense. Exactly the sort of nonsense that gives economics a bad name. It's a PR piece - to boost their hits and get media attention. I do know what I am talking about here. The point of the video is that it shows just how easy it is to dismantle the arguments if you happen to have an alternative view and choose to spend a bit of time with your brain engaged. Thus the whole debate on 'economic value of the monarchy' is useless. In fact worse than useless. The reality is we have no idea what the true costs vs benefits of having a royal family are. There are too many unknown factors involved.

I am broadly against the monarchy on principle, but as previously stated, don't see it as a useful hill to die on. But this use of an economic argument for the monarchy annoys me. You want to keep the monarchy then fine - say so. you want to get rid, then equally fine. My sympathy happens to be with the latter. But using spurious arguments to justify it (either way) on economic terms is a symptom of a society that thinks things can only ever be judged on monetary value, and arguments must always rely on economic self interest.

 

[clapham_gull]

You've not searched to hard then!

The queen and Charles for starters pay tax and capital gains on things not associated with Royal duties. The sovereign grant, that is used to pay for many of the lesser royals and bits of the more important ones has run from somehwere in the 50's to the hundred million marks pa occasionally a bit higher.

The Duchey's of Lancaster and especially the Duchy of Cornwall (charles) pays from its business enterprises a very large part of the royal finances, including for William, kate, Chales and Camilla and some other senior Royals. Their royal duties are financed fom the profits of the Duchey. Thats self perpetuating. a different question is maybe whether thats morally right.

A consultancy called Brand Finance estimated in 2017 that the monarchy’s annual contribution to the UK economy to be around £1.8bn a year, drawing in an additional £550m of tourism revenues a year, and an increase in trade, from the Royal Family acting as ambassadors, supposedly worth £150m a year.

https://brandfinance.com/press-releases/valued-at-67-billion-the-monarchy-is-britains-greatest-treasure

Thats massively more than the soverign grant (the taxpayer portion of their annual allowance).

Again I concede with others points on whether that would remain, decrease or disappear if there were no Royal family living in the palaces and no guards in bearskin hats doing royal parades etc. But that again is a different argument, a moral one on whether its right or wrong, and I fully accept there are plenty of people who dont agree morally with a royal family.

The economic argument, pure cost/revenue argument is sound.

The report has been widely pulled to bits. The economic benefits don't hold up at all, particularly the tourist ones. The reality is Versailles has more visitors a year than the entire UK Palaces put together.

If the Royal Family were detached from the state, there would still be a "Royal Family" and people would still visit those places.

 

[herecomesaregular]

While a Royal family is far from unique in the world, the extraordinary history of our Royal family plus the good work they have done around the world does make ours "unique", in my opinion. I'm also of the opinion that William will make a good King (and, hopefully, Charles' reign will be a short one before him). No need to disband them. However, the colourful history of the Royals shows there have been plenty of wrong 'uns before Prince Andrew and there is no reason to get rid of it all just because of him. He should absolutely be investigated and if, necessary, fully prosecuted without allowance for being a Royal.

 

[Clive Walker]

While a Royal family is far from unique in the world, the extraordinary history of our Royal family plus the good work they have done around the world does make ours "unique", in my opinion. I'm also of the opinion that William will make a good King (and, hopefully, Charles' reign will be a short one before him). No need to disband them. However, the colourful history of the Royals shows there have been plenty of wrong 'uns before Prince Andrew and there is no reason to get rid of it all just because of him. He should absolutely be investigated and if, necessary, fully prosecuted without allowance for being a Royal.

define "good king"? What does one actually have to do to be successful?

 

[peterward]

It is palpable nonsense. Exactly the sort of nonsense that gives economics a bad name. It's a PR piece - to boost their hits and get media attention. I do know what I am talking about here. The point of the video is that it shows just how easy it is to dismantle the arguments if you happen to have an alternative view and choose to spend a bit of time with your brain engaged. Thus the whole debate on 'economic value of the monarchy' is useless. In fact worse than useless. The reality is we have no idea what the true costs vs benefits of having a royal family are. There are too many unknown factors involved.

I am broadly against the monarchy on principle, but as previously stated, don't see it as a useful hill to die on. But this use of an economic argument for the monarchy annoys me. You want to keep the monarchy then fine - say so. you want to get rid, then equally fine. My sympathy happens to be with the latter. But using spurious arguments to justify it (either way) on economic terms is a symptom of a society that thinks things can only ever be judged on monetary value, and arguments must always rely on economic self interest.

The report has been widely pulled to bits. The economic benefits don't hold up at all, particularly the tourist ones. The reality is Versailles has more visitors a year than the entire UK Palaces put together.

If the Royal Family were detached from the state, there would still be a "Royal Family" and people would still visit those places.

You're both wrong imho !!.

It hasnt been pulled to bits at all CG, they are one of the worlds leading independent brand valuers, respected and trusted, they have gone into this without bias imho and they in their report and I also both state that what may or may not be without a sitting head of state is an unknown and unquantifiable. obvs the assets of properties wouldnt change.

Versailles in France is no way indicative of the financial merits or otherwise of toursit/coat of arms, endorsements, souvenir shopping in this country as attendances at the Park de Princes are relevant to ours at the Amex or our club shop. A lot of people and especially some Asian and Americans love the pagentry of sitting head of state.

Highflyer it was pretty obvs you are broadly anti royalist by ignoring a perfectly valid report from an independent and respected authority (which does cite fairly many of things you suggest about unknowns) and yet advance what is clearly an anti royalist PR piece. I am most certainly using my brain critically and obectively. As a centrist, maybe more right than left I still read the Guardian . im very open to listening to both sides without dismissng that that doesnt fit my own preconceptions.

And Im not even a royalist at all...... i dont think it comes down to simply monetary terms, at all, its a much broader issue but that is often the thing thats used as a reason to disband the royal family and rightly or wrongly tear up hundreds of years of history.

I am fully content on that most basic question that returns to the treasury through multiple avenues and back to us as tax payers per annum exceed the sovereign grant paid for by taxpayers per annum. To suggest otherwise is disingenous. So the royal family are not a net financial burden to the taxpayer, and much is funded by the Duchy from its own business.

All other things are entirely different arguments mostly moral or political, but this issue of disbanding due cost doesnt hold water. Would we get the same money, more or less if we did disbanded it all? who knows and the report says this too, a lot if things changed is unquantifiable, but right now there isnt a net cost to taxpayers of the sovereign grant.

Personally, I could be pursuaded on rational/evidentual arguments both ways but not just emotive preferences. I dont personally like the clingers on at all, the Prince Michael of Kents who looks like he's got a broom handle up his arse, all the second cousins etc. They should be removed from the soverign grant imho, they offer no value. It should be at a minimum the direct family and heirs, Queen, Charles, William, George and the others should fund themselves. But thats just my opinion and in the country at large you wont find many who share the majority concencus on NSC, and you certainly won't in Westminster. Nobody will have the guts to do what you would hope for.

back to Randy Andy, dont like him one bit, he's a playboy/sponger that embodies all that is morally bad and detestable about the royal family.

 

[herecomesaregular]

define "good king"? What does one actually have to do to be successful?

Good point. I have my opinions of them but tbf I don't spend all day on here and can't be bothered to type them out for you, sorry, I'm a lazy sod especially re typing!

 

[dangull]

She has put on a bit of weight and aged a bit since that picture with Andrew. Might as well go for it now and get the publicity and money I guess.
I suspect she knew what was happening at the time, and was happy to go along with it.

 

[Motogull]

I bet there aren't many barristers that wouldn't relish cross examining the creepy Prince.

 

[highflyer]

She has put on a bit of weight and aged a bit since that picture with Andrew. Might as well go for it now and get the publicity and money I guess.
I suspect she knew what was happening at the time, and was happy to go along with it.

I assume...surely?

 

[peterward]

I bet there aren't many barristers that wouldn't relish cross examining the creepy Prince.

And they'll make it a damn site more painful than Emily Maitless.

It of course is all very serious stuff, but I would love to able to watch Andrew squirm under cross examination

 

[Motogull]

And they'll make it a damn site more painful than Emily Maitless.

It of course is all very serious stuff, but I would love to able to watch Andrew squirm under cross examination

In the right hands, it would be quite incredible.

 

[Super Steve Earle]

define "good king"? What does one actually have to do to be successful?

Good King Wenceslas?

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

Friends in the US had a similar situation with Trump. At the end of the day he was democratically elected as HOS. He got voted out democratically.

In the UK it is only by pure luck that Andrew isn't the next in line to the thrown. If it were the case there is nothing you or I could do about it as its a totally undemocratic way of appointing a HOS.

I dunno....I could vote for that. Especially if it were into the sea.

Edit, apologies, but how could I resist?