Royal News

INT21

Antediluvian
Joined
Jul 18, 2016
Messages
7,627
Likes
6,269
Points
279
Other countries have Kings and Queens. It works for them.

And the Queen is Apolitical (at least on the surface.
 

Victory

Abominable Snowman
Joined
Jan 15, 2017
Messages
521
Likes
1,127
Points
134
Location
London
So.....because a thing has always been a certain way means that it shouldn't be changed or that their might not be a fairer or better way..?
:thought:
Oh I agree that just because something has existed for years it does not make it immune from change on the basis it can be done in a better or fairer way.

But I think that does not apply to the British Monarchy, because 1000 years ago it was very different.
It has devolved over the years.
It no longer orders executions or for people to be imprisoned without trial.

Many changes have occurred - Magna Carta, The Wars of the Roses, The Civil Wars - Interregnum- Restoration, The Glorious Revolution, The Bedchamber Crisis, The Abdication of Edward VIII, Princes Diana, the change from Civil List to Sovereign Grant and now Meghxit.

The Monarchy adapts and changes....but I really think it remains a voice of tolerance and middle path in a polarised political landscape.
The Queen and Prince Charles both speak out about this.

It needs to change further, and it will.
In particular for me, it should hand back the artefacts it owns which were basically stolen from foreign countries.
 

Krepostnoi

Almost uniquely humourless
Joined
Jul 9, 2012
Messages
3,114
Likes
6,186
Points
209
They perform a function, work hard, and get paid for it.
To reiterate, this is no different to what plenty of other people do every day, without fanfare.
But plenty of people do not do exactly what the Royal Family do, or live in the same goldfish bowl.
And most people would flounder if they tried.
This is not an argument in favour of the institution of royalty, it's an argument against the excesses of the unaccountable UK media.
They are not freeloaders
Other opinions exist.
as someone born in a country where a heriditary monarchy has existed for over 1000 years I see nothing strange or unjust in it still existing.
I, too, am someone born in that country. I see plenty of strangeness and injustice about the monarchy.
In particular for me, it should hand back the artefacts it owns which were basically stolen from foreign countries.
I should say I applaud this sentiment whole-heartedly.
 

Krepostnoi

Almost uniquely humourless
Joined
Jul 9, 2012
Messages
3,114
Likes
6,186
Points
209
A colleague yesterday put forward the idea that Harry and Megan have volunteered to fall on their swords in such a public and apparently messy manner precisely in order to draw flak away from Andrew. It's win-win: they wanted out anyway, while the firm was keen to minimise the negative fall-out surrounding the now surplus-to-requirements second son of Elizabeth. Seems plausible to me.
 

Victory

Abominable Snowman
Joined
Jan 15, 2017
Messages
521
Likes
1,127
Points
134
Location
London
A colleague yesterday put forward the idea that Harry and Megan have volunteered to fall on their swords in such a public and apparently messy manner precisely in order to draw flak away from Andrew.
If that is the case it has failed spectacularly.
Andrew's case remains headline news, for the last week behind Brexit and the Corona Virus, but still very much talked about.

It's the lead story in today's Daily Mail.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...called-victim-Virginia-Roberts-sick-girl.html
 
Last edited:

Krepostnoi

Almost uniquely humourless
Joined
Jul 9, 2012
Messages
3,114
Likes
6,186
Points
209
Joined
Aug 19, 2003
Messages
49,779
Likes
22,802
Points
284
Location
Eblana
Fair enough. But the fact the attempt failed doesn't mean the attempt never happened. Plus, they have form when it comes to flat-footed responses to events.
Andrew has brought the latest round on himself by failing to properly co-operate with the FBI.
 

maximus otter

Recovering policeman
Joined
Aug 9, 2001
Messages
5,852
Likes
11,405
Points
309
Andrew has brought the latest round on himself by failing to properly co-operate with the FBI.
Andrew has been asked to undergo a voluntary interview with the FBI. He has, allegedly, declined to do so, as he is perfectly entitled to do.

He is under no obligation to subject himself to such a conversation, a conversation which could do him no good, and could potentially damage his defence if this whole saga has legs.

Under the same circumstances l’d do exactly the same. The onus is on the investigators & prosecution to make a case, not on Andrew to defend himself.

maximus otter
 

Yithian

Parish Watch
Staff member
Joined
Oct 29, 2002
Messages
28,410
Likes
32,163
Points
309
Location
East of Suez
Andrew has been asked to undergo a voluntary interview with the FBI. He has, allegedly, declined to do so, as he is perfectly entitled to do.

He is under no obligation to subject himself to such a conversation, a conversation which could do him no good, and could potentially damage his defence if this whole saga has legs.

Under the same circumstances l’d do exactly the same. The onus is on the investigators & prosecution to make a case, not on Andrew to defend himself.

maximus otter
Inclined to agree.

I have no especial faith in the FBI or their ability to see black from white and there's no way in hell that I'd step onto U.S. soil for a friendly chat.

Andrew may be a bad 'un, but I haven't seen any evidence of it yet--only of very poor judgment.

With the caveat that I certainly don't know what took place behind closed doors, and that I am not denying that something unpleasant may well have happened to her, I will say that Andrew's U.S. accuser, Virginia Roberts Giuffre, either doesn't come across well or has poor legal/media advisors.

Screenshot 2020-02-02 at 23.31.41.png


She might as well have written, "You can run, but you can't hide." If she is a victim of Prince Andrew, this is not the way to garner support. She's also Tweeted a mock wanted poster of Prince Andrew and named other abusers that she intends to go after in the future. I don't demand sackcloth and ashes to demonstrate authenticity, but I don't think that making a career out of it is a typical response.
 
Joined
Aug 19, 2003
Messages
49,779
Likes
22,802
Points
284
Location
Eblana
Andrew has been asked to undergo a voluntary interview with the FBI. He has, allegedly, declined to do so, as he is perfectly entitled to do.

He is under no obligation to subject himself to such a conversation, a conversation which could do him no good, and could potentially damage his defence if this whole saga has legs.

Under the same circumstances l’d do exactly the same. The onus is on the investigators & prosecution to make a case, not on Andrew to defend himself.

maximus otter
But it does look bad, for him and the Royal Family. It would make more sense for him to agree to be interviewed by the FBI in the UK with both British and US lawyers present to represent and advise him on which questions could be damaging to his defence in any possible future case. I guess I mean helping the police with their enquiries.
 

Yithian

Parish Watch
Staff member
Joined
Oct 29, 2002
Messages
28,410
Likes
32,163
Points
309
Location
East of Suez
But it does look bad, for him and the Royal Family. It would make more sense for him to agree to be interviewed by the FBI in the UK with both British and US lawyers present to represent and advise him on which questions could be damaging to his defence in any possible future case. I guess I mean helping the police with their enquiries.
What I expect will happen is that he will agree to provide a written response to a set of written questions and agree to respond to supplementary questions based on his answers. Even that won't happen unless his response is legally guaranteed as confidential (at least until any trial).

I may be wrong, but I just cannot see him being interviewed by police.

And I'm inclined to believe that if the FBI had any solid evidence, they wouldn't be fishing.
 

maximus otter

Recovering policeman
Joined
Aug 9, 2001
Messages
5,852
Likes
11,405
Points
309
But it does look bad, for him and the Royal Family. It would make more sense for him to agree to be interviewed by the FBI in the UK with both British and US lawyers present to represent and vise him on which questions could be damaging to his defence in any possible future case. I guess I mean helping the police with their enquiries.
The optics, l agree, aren’t good. Remember, however, that nothing he says can do him any good (“Well, he would say that, wouldn’t he?”), and anything he says - no matter how apparently innocuous - can be potentially harmful.

maximus otter
 

Yithian

Parish Watch
Staff member
Joined
Oct 29, 2002
Messages
28,410
Likes
32,163
Points
309
Location
East of Suez
I'll bow to your police experience!
A close friend of mine is a senior CPS prosecutor.

His advice to me was that if I ever happen to get arrested for anything even slightly significant, I should keep my mouth firmly shut until I manage to get him on the phone.

And for those Stateside:

 

maximus otter

Recovering policeman
Joined
Aug 9, 2001
Messages
5,852
Likes
11,405
Points
309
A close friend of mine is a senior CPS prosecutor.

His advice to me was that if I ever happen to get arrested for anything even slightly significant, I should keep my mouth firmly shut...
l refer m’learned friend to the advice given by NightJack (a serving Detective Constable) in his excellent, but now defunct (he was ratted out) blog:

A Survival Guide For Decent Folk

maximus otter
 

Victory

Abominable Snowman
Joined
Jan 15, 2017
Messages
521
Likes
1,127
Points
134
Location
London
Fair enough. But the fact the attempt failed doesn't mean the attempt never happened. Plus, they have form when it comes to flat-footed responses to events.
Neither you nor I can prove it one way or the other.
But I doubt this tactic, as all it does is draw more attention to the Royals and the Queen's Annus Horriblis.
The papers even tried to link Megxit to Meghan wanting to be as far away from Andrew as possible.

No, I go by my theory that Meghan had post natal depression, genuinely struggled badly to adapt to royal life, and could not get along with Katherine, but is a publicity seeking narcissist who wants to be centre of attention and not share the limelight with the other Royals.
 

Tribble

Killjoy Boffin
Joined
Apr 21, 2015
Messages
2,741
Likes
6,066
Points
204
Harry and Meghan to no longer have office at Buckingham Palace from April 1st . I wonder if the Queen has chosen April fools day on purpose? ..
Start of the financial year? Easier for the tax accountants.
 

Yithian

Parish Watch
Staff member
Joined
Oct 29, 2002
Messages
28,410
Likes
32,163
Points
309
Location
East of Suez
Inclined to agree.

I have no especial faith in the FBI or their ability to see black from white and there's no way in hell that I'd step onto U.S. soil for a friendly chat.

Andrew may be a bad 'un, but I haven't seen any evidence of it yet--only of very poor judgment.

With the caveat that I certainly don't know what took place behind closed doors, and that I am not denying that something unpleasant may well have happened to her, I will say that Andrew's U.S. accuser, Virginia Roberts Giuffre, either doesn't come across well or has poor legal/media advisors.

View attachment 22918

She might as well have written, "You can run, but you can't hide." If she is a victim of Prince Andrew, this is not the way to garner support. She's also Tweeted a mock wanted poster of Prince Andrew and named other abusers that she intends to go after in the future. I don't demand sackcloth and ashes to demonstrate authenticity, but I don't think that making a career out of it is a typical response.
As I was saying...

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news...rince-andrew-school-bus-buckingham-palace-fbi
 

Tribble

Killjoy Boffin
Joined
Apr 21, 2015
Messages
2,741
Likes
6,066
Points
204
Been out of the U.K. too long, the 1st of April is not the start of the tax year. 6th of April.
The financial year (and the Sovereign Grant?) starts 1st April. The tax year (for personal taxes, not corporate) starts 6th April.
 
Last edited:

gordonrutter

There must be a set character limit to this opt...
Staff member
Joined
Aug 3, 2001
Messages
2,757
Likes
3,567
Points
184
The financial year (and the Sovereign Grant?) starts 1st April. The tax year (for personal taxes, not corporate) starts 6th April.
Everything I’m finding online states the financial year starts at the same time as the tax year.
 

maximus otter

Recovering policeman
Joined
Aug 9, 2001
Messages
5,852
Likes
11,405
Points
309
Everything I’m finding online states the financial year starts at the same time as the tax year.
“In the UK...the new tax year start on April 6. To understand the reason for this apparently random date, you have to go back to medieval times.

In England and Ireland, the New Year used to start on March 25, also known as “Lady Day” in commemoration of the angel Gabriel’s announcement to the Virgin Mary that she would become the mother of Jesus Christ. Along with Midsummer on June 24, Michaelmas on September 29, and Christmas Day on December 25, Lady Day was one of the four most important days in the religious calendar. All accounts, including debts and rents, had to be settled by these so-called “quarter days”, and Lady Day was the first, gradually becoming regarded as the start of the financial year...

The move forward to April 6 results from changes to the calendar and actual number of days in various years. Until 1582, Europe had used the Julian calendar established by Julius Caesar. Under the Julian calendar, the year had 11 months of 30 or 31 days, with one month, February, consisting usually of 28 days but with 29 every fourth or “leap” year. This had worked well for centuries, but because it did not align exactly with the solar calendar (the time it takes for the Earth to move round the sun), over time problems developed.

The Julian year was only 11½ minutes longer than a solar year, but by the late 1500s, this had all added up and the Julian calendar was some ten days adrift from the solar calendar.

...in October 1582 Pope Gregory XIII instituted a change (to the “Gregorian” calendar) to solve the problem: three leap days were omitted every 400 years by the authority of a papal bull known as “Inter Gravissimas”. While Europe adopted the Gregorian calendar, however, England, with its history of conflict with the Roman Catholic church, did not (nor did Russia), and continued with the Julian calendar.

By 1752, when it was 11 days out of alignment with the rest of Europe, England finally accepted that it would have to make a change. The decision was made to drop 11 days from the month of September to catch up, and so September 2 was followed by September 14 that year. To ensure that there was no loss of tax revenues, however, the Treasury extended the 1752 tax year by adding on the 11 days at the end. Consequently, the beginning of the 1753 tax year was moved to April 5.

In 1800 a further adjustment was made, shifting the start of the tax year forward by one more day to April 6, once again to mitigate for differences between the Julian and Gregorian calendars. The year 1800 would have been a leap year under the Julian calendar system, but not the Gregorian one, so the Treasury treated 1800 as a leap year for purposes of taxation to get an extra day’s revenue. April 6 has remained the beginning of the tax year ever since, though it was only formalised in 1900.

Another oddity is the UK government’s own financial year, which runs from April 1 to the following March 31, and so does not coincide with the tax year, although 1 April to 31 March is also the fiscal year for corporation tax. The reason for this is less clear than why April 6 was adopted as the start of the tax year – and is perhaps a tale for another day.”

https://www.independent.co.uk/money/why-the-uk-tax-year-begins-on-april-6-it-s-a-very-strange-tale-a6970801.html

maximus otter

 
Last edited:
Joined
Aug 19, 2003
Messages
49,779
Likes
22,802
Points
284
Location
Eblana
A visit to Dublin.

The Duke and Duchess of Cambridge arrived in Dublin on Tuesday afternoon for their first official visit to the Republic of Ireland.

The royal couple spent the first day of their three-day visit meeting politicians and dignitaries, including Irish President Michael D Higgins and Irish Prime Minister Leo Varadkar.

There was also a photo-bombing dog and a diplomatic sip of the black stuff.


Image copyright REUTERSImage caption Bród stole the show on Tuesday, bounding up to the royal guests as they stepped outside

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-northern-ireland-51723965
 
Top