[News] Duke & Duchess of Sussex

[The Clamp]

Yep Charles behaved like a dick, doesn’t appear that Harry has done any more than be led by the nose. I could be very wrong

One thing is for sure, I wouldn’t t want to be a woman in the Royal Family. Not much more than baby making machines. I don’t blame any of them for jumping ship. And if they can make some cash out of it? Well, it’s better than rinsing the taxpayer like our Liz has all her life.

 

[Carlos BC]

Yep Charles behaved like a dick, doesn’t appear that Harry has done any more than be led by the nose. I could be very wrong

I don't think it was his nose he was being led by.

 

[Simster]

I'm aware that the royal household has negotiated exemptions but the fact remains that the Queen has never failed to sign her assent to a law put before her.

You're now arguing over semantics. Just face it - you were completely wrong as [MENTION=33848]The Clamp[/MENTION] and in particular [MENTION=16159]Bold Seagull[/MENTION] have since highlighted. She absolutely does not just sign laws in the manner of a "merely ceremonial head of state".

And why are you insisting you aware that the royal household negotiate exemptions? You clearly weren't, otherwise you'd have said so at the time. Instead you came up with this: "They have no power and, contrary to what you say, will sign any law that is placed before them."

 

[B-right-on]

One thing I still don't get is, how, after quitting the royal family, they still retain the titles. You leave, you leave. You don't and you do your royal school visits and hospital wing openings.
#notmydukeorduchess

 

[Triggaaar]

As If MM is the only royal to “use their position” to gain money. That is literally what the entire royal family exist for. It’s what they do. It’s all most of them do. Some people simply don’t like MM because she’s a woman of colour.

The same people can’t give the late Diana enough praise. Wonderful lady, they say. She was the people’s Princess, they say. She did far more to court the media than MM but she was white. So that’s okay.

MM lead Harry away from the Royal Family and accused the Royal Family of being racist, with quotes but without mentioning names. I don't know of anything she's done for the Royal Family that's good and I'm sure she'd be disliked whatever her race.

 

[The Clamp]

MM lead Harry away from the Royal Family and accused the Royal Family of being racist, with quotes but without mentioning names. I don't know of anything she's done for the Royal Family that's good and I'm sure she'd be disliked whatever her race.

I disagree.

 

[Cheshire Cat]

First up against the wall when the revolution comes.

No time for any of the spongers.

It must hell having to open all those supermarkets.

 

[Icy Gull]

Diddy David Hamilton is fuming about it

 

[Bold Seagull]

I disagree.

It's amazing the narrative that Prince Harry, someone who served in the military, got his hands dirty by all accounts, is the poor weak minded man led away by his manipulative partner. Not that he might have his own mind and it was all his idea...

 

[Lyndhurst 14]

Don't particularly like either of them but they definitely made the right decision in going to the States and leaving behind the farce that the Royle Family is

 

[Icy Gull]

It's amazing the narrative that Prince Harry, someone who served in the military, got his hands dirty by all accounts, is the poor weak minded man led away by his manipulative partner. Not that he might have his own mind and it was all his idea...

Are you suggesting it was also his idea to do his dirty laundry on American TV and retire from public life whilst coining it with trash sensationalist tv and angst riddled interviews about his own relatives and the family that gave him such privilege? If so my opinion of him is even lower, not that he gives a shit about anyone's opinions except his own and his wifes.

I am as shocked by the way people defend them as the defenders are by the disgust of those that find the whole circus odious.

I have no problem with him not wanting to be part of the Royal Family, in fact I can sympathise, but he's living off it ...still and that stinks to me.

 

[Bold Seagull]

Are you suggesting it was also his idea to do his dirty laundry on American TV and retire from public life whilst coining it with trash sensationalist tv and angst ridden interviews about his own relatives and the family that gave him such privilege? If so my opinion of him is even lower, not that he gives a shit about anyone's opinions except his own and his wifes.

I am as shocked by the way people defend them as the defenders are by the disgust of those that find the whole circus odious.

I have no problem with him not wanting to be part of the Royal Family, in fact I can sympathise, but he's living off it ...still and that stinks to me.

Im suggesting the possibility that he wasn’t just manipulated by his wife.

Why is him living off it anymore stinky than what the rest of the Firm get up to?

 

[Questions]

Diddy David Hamilton is fuming about it

David Hamilton would have made a smashing royal.

 

[Icy Gull]

Im suggesting the possibility that he wasn’t just manipulated by his wife.

Why is him living off it anymore stinky than what the rest of the Firm get up to?

Do they live the life of Riley in the US? He has zero responsibilities now but the Queen, Princess Anne and Charles all have duties to perform. I'd say it is a lot more stinky.

I have no idea or interest what the others do (except Andrew of course) but they are not looking for headlines on a regular basis

I am no Royalist btw.

 

[rippleman]

One thing I still don't get is, how, after quitting the royal family, they still retain the titles. You leave, you leave. You don't and you do your royal school visits and hospital wing openings.
#notmydukeorduchess

Exactly. If they can't be arsed to carry out Royal duties and want to live off the media that they allegedly so despise, then they shouldn't have Royal titles. It's that simple.

 

[drew]

You're now arguing over semantics. Just face it - you were completely wrong as [MENTION=33848]The Clamp[/MENTION] and in particular [MENTION=16159]Bold Seagull[/MENTION] have since highlighted. She absolutely does not just sign laws in the manner of a "merely ceremonial head of state".

And why are you insisting you aware that the royal household negotiate exemptions? You clearly weren't, otherwise you'd have said so at the time. Instead you came up with this: "They have no power and, contrary to what you say, will sign any law that is placed before them."

Rubbish. There isn't one law that has been presented for royal assent that hasn't got it. If there are exemptions to a law then it is because the government of the day have agreed them (probably wrongly in most cases). If the Government of the day insisted on no exemptions then the laws would be signed otherwise there would be a massive constitutional crisis. I would also suggest that any exemptions are negotiated long before the bill is presented for royal assent. Of course, if you know otherwise then I stand to be corrected.

 

[Simster]

Rubbish. There isn't one law that has been presented for royal assent that hasn't got it. If there are exemptions to a law then it is because the government of the day have agreed them (probably wrongly in most cases). If the Government of the day insisted on no exemptions then the laws would be signed otherwise there would be a massive constitutional crisis. I would also suggest that any exemptions are negotiated long before the bill is presented for royal assent. Of course, if you know otherwise then I stand to be corrected.

I knew you'd argue because you think you're never wrong. But the fact is, you were wrong, and are now attempting to water down your position so that it fits with what you've later been told. You initially said this:

Let's be honest, they are merely ceremonial heads of state. They have no power and, contrary to what you say, will sign any law that is placed before them.

You didn't qualify that by admitting the Queen has laws revised before they reach her, so that she's not impacted. You had to be shown the evidence by [MENTION=16159]Bold Seagull[/MENTION]. At a stroke, that proves she is not "merely ceremonial head of state" and also proves you were wrong when you say she has no power. She clearly does. Over 160 laws do not apply to her, according to that article.

You've since mentioned that the Queen has voluntarily paid tax since 1990, as if that's ok. How about we have all the back tax from the previous 40 years of her reign, or 400 years of royalty then? What happens when she doesn't like the amount the state pays her that year? Do you think she'll carry on choosing to pay tax voluntarily? Do you think she'll sign a law that tells her that tax is now a legal requirement?

This is all because the Royal family is not a "merely ceremonial head of state", and definitely does NOT have "no power".

 

[Bold Seagull]

I knew you'd argue because you think you're never wrong. But the fact is, you were wrong, and are now attempting to water down your position so that it fits with what you've later been told. You initially said this:

You didn't qualify that by admitting the Queen has laws revised before they reach her, so that she's not impacted. You had to be shown the evidence by [MENTION=16159]Bold Seagull[/MENTION]. At a stroke, that proves she is not "merely ceremonial head of state" and also proves you were wrong when you say she has no power. She clearly does. Over 160 laws do not apply to her, according to that article.

You've since mentioned that the Queen has voluntarily paid tax since 1990, as if that's ok. How about we have all the back tax from the previous 40 years of her reign, or 400 years of royalty then? What happens when she doesn't like the amount the state pays her that year? Do you think she'll carry on choosing to pay tax voluntarily? Do you think she'll sign a law that tells her that tax is now a legal requirement?

This is all because the Royal family is not a "merely ceremonial head of state", and definitely does NOT have "no power".

Not just that the Queen was able to amend and alter legislation to suit Royal requirements, these amended versions were not presented to members as having been altered, so our elected officials were often unaware a previous version had been changed for the purpose of suiting the Queen. Particularly in Scotland, various bits such as forestry commissioners not being able to enter Royal land without the Queens permission, planning policy, emissions policy - all altered following vetting by The Queen, and passed without members knowing this had happened. There is hard evidence of lobbying, but the full extent of how much interference the Queen and her lawyers have had in bills and legislation is not fully known. It's certainly not 'merely ceremonial'...

 

[Simster]

Not just that the Queen was able to amend and alter legislation to suit Royal requirements, these amended versions were not presented to members as having been altered, so our elected officials were often unaware a previous version had been changed for the purpose of suiting the Queen. Particularly in Scotland, various bits such as forestry commissioners not being able to enter Royal land without the Queens permission, planning policy, emissions policy - all altered following vetting by The Queen, and passed without members knowing this had happened. There is hard evidence of lobbying, but the full extent of how much interference the Queen and her lawyers have had in bills and legislation is not fully known. It's certainly not 'merely ceremonial'...

I must admit, I was unaware these amendments don't get presented to members. That makes it even more disgraceful and undemocratic.

I'm sure [MENTION=5208]drew[/MENTION] knew all of that though, as he made perfectly clear at the time.

 

[drew]

I knew you'd argue because you think you're never wrong. But the fact is, you were wrong, and are now attempting to water down your position so that it fits with what you've later been told. You initially said this:

You didn't qualify that by admitting the Queen has laws revised before they reach her, so that she's not impacted. You had to be shown the evidence by [MENTION=16159]Bold Seagull[/MENTION]. At a stroke, that proves she is not "merely ceremonial head of state" and also proves you were wrong when you say she has no power. She clearly does. Over 160 laws do not apply to her, according to that article.

You've since mentioned that the Queen has voluntarily paid tax since 1990, as if that's ok. How about we have all the back tax from the previous 40 years of her reign, or 400 years of royalty then? What happens when she doesn't like the amount the state pays her that year? Do you think she'll carry on choosing to pay tax voluntarily? Do you think she'll sign a law that tells her that tax is now a legal requirement?

This is all because the Royal family is not a "merely ceremonial head of state", and definitely does NOT have "no power".

You're like a dog with a bone. You have still to tell me which law the queen has refused to sign when it is presented for her signature for royal assent. The Queen will not refuse to sign a bill before her. That doesn't mean there hasn't been negotiation before it gets to that stage, I never implied one way or the other. Any government doesn't have to agree amendments or are you arguing that they have to? If push came to shove then parliament would win hands down.