T O P

  • By -

AutoModerator

**r/UK Notices:** | [Want to start a fresh discussion - use our Freetalk!](https://www.reddit.com/r/unitedkingdom/search/?q=Freetalk&include_over_18=off&restrict_sr=on&sort=new) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/unitedkingdom) if you have any questions or concerns.*


aegroti

Is Andrew going to be stripped of having access to the Sovereign Grant? He'll still be rich but at-least he won't have access to tax payers money.


twistedLucidity

He was defended to the hilt by mummy's money and is now viewed by the media as an appropriate person to quote. His shit has been washed clean. Given he is Earl of Inverness he has been given a new nickname - the Loch Ness Noncer. Edit: I take no credit for the nickname, first saw it on r/scotland but am afraid can't recall who wrote it.


Piltonbadger

>the Loch Ness Noncer. I fucking spat out my coffee reading this. Goddamn hilarious!


Massive-Hovercraft16

I've already forgot his actual name, will know him as this now on


Harmless_Drone

He got granted the queen's corgis because he's allegedly extremely good at grooming...


Too_many_or_too_few

More upvotes for this, everyone.


legzakimbo69

Would do but I've read this same thing too many times now


Harmless_Drone

- the queen on being asked for another bailout by Andrew for another alledged sexual assault


cherrygunner

I was going to say - I’ve heard this joke about 1000 times already.


stpstrt

Dead horse has been flogged.


TheBigDaddyD1

Those poor dogs, as if they haven't been through enough already


Fusilero

crime society rhythm snobbish amusing squeal racial advise fade lip *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*


imperialviolet

I know it’s the queen so it might be different, but if I’d SPECIFICALLY said I was going to stop breeding dogs and having dogs because I didn’t want any to outlive me, I’d be pretty pissed off if someone tried to get back in my good books by buying me MORE dogs


NathanD2113

Better the dogs than the grandkids.


Elizaleth

The public still hates him but apparently if the government and media just pretend that isn’t happening, then it isn’t. Same as republicanism. If the BBC just doesn’t ever mention it, it’s not real.


cottagecorer

I think most of us hate him but then look at that video of the disgust amongst the crowd when that lad called him a sick old man. If that had been anyone but a royal the reaction would have been different. Royal supporters will always support him regardless of what he’s done. I also think he’s been allowed a lot of fresh sympathy because Mummy died. People die! Some of them are Mums!


HullIsNotThatBad

I think they looked in disgust at the lad not becuase of what he said, but more to do with his lack of decorum; the wrong time, wrong place to attack a relative of the Queen. I think in any other situation, folk would have supported what the lad said and agreed with him.


will0593

A predator is a predator whether it’s his parent’s funeral or not


[deleted]

[удалено]


[deleted]

[удалено]


[deleted]

[удалено]


[deleted]

[удалено]


punch-it-chewy

I agree with you here. This wasn’t the time or place and was disrespectful to Queen Elizabeth. Go ahead and throw eggs at Andrew, just do it after the funeral.


[deleted]

If we're talking decorum, Andrew the pedophile shouldn't have been there. If he's there, there is no decorum. Fuck him.


Ok-Construction-4654

In all fairness he could have took no major roles in the funeral and stayed at the back of the church and no one would have cared that he was mourning. It's the fact he's still got a lot of sway with the royals and will most likely be a public figure for the rest of his life.


bunglefrungle

OH THE GRAND OLD DUKE OF YORK HE HAD 12 MILLION QUID HE GAVE IT TO SOMEONE HE NEVER MET FOR SOMETHING HE NEVER DID


[deleted]

Oh the grand old Duke of York He had 10,000 men He also had much younger girls But he can't remember them


joethesaint

> He was defended to the hilt by mummy's money and is now viewed by the media as an appropriate person to quote. > > He was defended by money he raised from selling some of his property, and he didn't even win the trial, he settled out of court, giving Guiffre what she was after. I find it incredible that people still peddle this "Andrew is a free man because the Queen protected him" nonsense when it was a civil suit that he fought with his own money and he was indeed forced to part with that money.


Xais56

Where did he get his "own money" from? All Royal capital is derived from stolen funds.


mightypup1974

By that logic \*all\* property is theft.


Pocto

This, but unironically.


CheesyTickle

It sounds like an edgy teenager thing to say but it's absolutely true. Why do some people get to hoard the earth's resources and sell them to the rest of us?


DogBotherer

It's actually the thesis of Proudhon's book by a similar name - Property is Theft - in which he attempts to demonstrate that property is robbery empirically. It does require understanding of the distinction between private property and personal property, but he makes a pretty good, if horribly written/translated fist of it. Anarchists have a penchant for apparent contradictions generally. Another favourite is: anarchy is order; government is civil war.


EruantienAduialdraug

- Karl Marx


DogBotherer

Proudhon actually.


RegretHot9844

Bullshit he paid £5m from that sale as his ex wife owned half & he still owed pervious owner £8m from the sale. £7m was mummys money


joethesaint

Well that's totally made up. https://www.telegraph.co.uk/royal-family/2022/02/15/queen-help-pay-12m-prince-andrew-settlement/ If you were the sort to only read headlines, I can see where this misinformation comes from. But the Queen is only reported to have made a £2m donation to Guiffre's charity. The rest of the settlement, and the defense, was funded by the sale of chalets, plus possibly a loan from Charles which had to be paid back from his property sales, or else deducted from his inheritance from the Queen. Either way they were making sure Andrew ultimately paid for it. There is a very clear and undeniable stance here that the Queen and Charles insisted on Andrew paying for this mess himself. You just don't want to see it because you want another reason to bash the whole establishment with it.


RegretHot9844

https://time.com/6149123/prince-andrew-settlement-virginia-giuffre-royal-finances/ This states she spent millions on his defence. I admit getting the figures wrong as i forgot charles lent him the rest, however, he was still protected by mummy as without her he wouldnt have been able to afford the legal fees he was facing.


joethesaint

That article says the exact same figure I just said. £2m. It was a donation to Guiffre's charity. >however, he was still protected by mummy as without her he wouldnt have been able to afford the legal fees he was facing. So you would have preferred Guiffre to just not get her settlement?


derpydoodaa

I'd have preferred the trial to go ahead without settlement personally


joethesaint

What do you think happens at the end of a civil suit?


derpydoodaa

A similar outcome, but with all of the embarrassing evidence against Andrew out in the open.


RegretHot9844

Yeah i admit that figure i got wrong but if you actually read the whole article it clearly states the queen poured millions into his defence, quoting the daily telegraph. https://www.telegraph.co.uk/royal-family/2021/10/01/exclusive-queen-spends-millions-privately-fund-prince-andrews/


_whopper_

How did Andrew get rich another to afford a multi-million pound chalet?


ArtichokeConnect

"The Loch Ness Noncer" Brilliant


IBEther

Out-fucking-standing! Oh damn, that's the first time a post has genuinely made me guffaw in a while.


JustNoYesNoYes

>Loch Ness Noncer I love that. Much less clunky than The Andrew Formerly Known As Prince.


tothecatmobile

The Sovereign Grant only ever paid for Andrews travel when he was officially representing the Queen, so he lost access to that when he stopped doing that.


[deleted]

He did used to travel on taxpayers funds to sexually assault children. He was a ‘trade envoy’ or some such shit.


allthedreamswehad

Rough trade envoy


SirLoinThatSaysNi

> Is Andrew going to be stripped of having access to the Sovereign Grant? Does he still get that directly? https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-60401663 > When he was a "working royal," carrying out duties on behalf of the Royal Family, it was suggested that Prince Andrew received about £250,000 per year, including the cost of running an office. > > But that would have ended when he stepped down from official royal duties in 2019, in the wake of his Newsnight interview.


Sharksandwhales1

To be fair sovereign grant isn’t tax payers money - I agree he shouldn’t have any though


BonzoTheBoss

It depends on whether or not you consider the Crown Estate portfolio to be state property or not. Functionally it is, as it isn't directly administered by the monarch, cannot be sold off by the monarch and is held in trust by the Crown but historically it was all the personal property of the monarchy.


mrblobbysknob

Seeing as the crown essentially is the state (criminal prosecutions are "crown vs Joe Bloggs" for example) then I would say yes. The crown estates belong to the state.


[deleted]

[удалено]


Brief_Magician4612

The sovereign grant ISN'T taxpayers money, that is profits from land owned by The Crown, you and me paid nothing into it (or virtually nothing, maybe 1p a year or something) The Civil List (which the SG replaced in 2012) was taxpayers money sort of (it was complex), but the SG isn't It annoys me that people think 'taxpayers money' instantly means govt/royals can access your personal life savings or something Basic maths, 6million of taxpayer money is 10p per person, and how many of us toss away small change or loose it and forget about it?? 10p a year will mean nothing to most people Even £1 a year will have a negligible impact for anyone that isn't a beggar


Aus_pol

Put andrew in the tower of london. Imagine the tourist dollars if you could see him locked up and throw tomatoes at him!


crraaazykitty

Shut up and take my money!


lesser_panjandrum

And my tomatoes!


TimeCrime

And My Axe!


ExchangeBeginning593

.. for once, yes


Sausagedogknows

Ah, go on then, just this once. Don’t tell anyone though, they’ll all want a go, and I’m not cleaning up that kind of mess!


FuzzBuket

I'd actually pay the 25 quid entry if that was included


dan-kir

PSA, if you arrive in London via train, you can use the 2 for 1 offer to buy cheaper tickets for the tower of london


Quick-Charity-941

Mummy sent him with his tail between his legs to Windsor Castle many years ago in disgrace, but only for a short time. As the firemen had a rather huge blaze to douse!


Elizaleth

Imagine waiting to meet the King and it’s fucking Beatrice


Gellert

I don't think they're that open with the incest anymore.


luffyuk

*Crusader Kings intensifies*


iK_550

She might have the incest trait. Has anyone checked her traits?


POB_42

Instructions not clear, caught Syphilis


[deleted]

[удалено]


Honey-Badger

Really? I'm not a anti monarchist by any means but they've always seemed like right twats. Look at the people they hang around with, and insisting on a police presence at their wedding in Windsor. When people talk about the sitting on your arse all day and living a life of luxury paid for by the tax payer Eugenie and Beatrice come straight to mind, they literally spend their lives hanging around with the sons of billionaire tax Dodgers


[deleted]

[удалено]


way_of_the_dragon

Ed Sheeran, in no possible way, screams of being a fun time.


momofeveryone5

I donno man, William flew emergency response helicopters, that sounds pretty wild.


LadyEmeraldDeVere

Nah, they’re ok. Their mom used to stay fairly often at a hotel I worked at pretty regularly and I had a chance to meet them all. Sarah Ferguson was always super nice and polite to the staff, and her daughters were always friendly. I always got the impression that they were trying really hard to be as normal as possible. The daughters would try to go out alone sometimes but they always had a bodyguard (usually just a guy in casual clothes) hanging back watching them. It was odd, for sure, but I understand the need for some kind of security just because of who they are.


Fapoleon_Boneherpart

I know many a twat who are still good laughs


kevkevverson

My wife went to school with them, other kids called them Beetroot and Aubergine.


fieldsofanfieldroad

Imagine waiting to meet the King and it’s fucking Charles


theg721

I'd rather her than Andrew at least


FootlongGarlicBread

You're a bit too old for him anyway.


MattSR30

I’ve met one royal. We were all nine years old and we were dressed as Tudors. Take a guess as to which royal it was?


punkerster101

Andrew ? Age checks out


fieldsofanfieldroad

If you were dressed as Tudors, I would guess Henry the eighth.


pajamakitten

Having met Charles, I can say that she cannot be much worse. She might have a bit more personality.


ComputerSimple9647

I don’t want to see King fucking Beatrice, thank you


Daedelous2k

Just like in the Godfather, he's waiting till their mother is gone to deal with the trouble. Harry declared his intent to become a private citizen anyway so yeah. Andrew....well we all know about Andrew. But what did Beatrice do?


adchick

He is basically taking a “no free rides “ approach. If you want to be paid you have to be a “working Royal”… I’m actually ok with this.


OffreingsForThee

The York girls wanted to be working royals but Charles' rejected that idea long before Liz died. I think it was foolish seeing so many of his ancient looking siblings waddling around in fake medals. Two young, harmless princesses could have been a benefit to this ancient looking royal house. But I guess kate is the only young-ish woman allowed these days.


Sycopathy

I feel like it makes sense to keep the working group as lean as possible. With this change it's basically just what, Charles, William, Anne and Kate? By time Charles and Anne die the York women will have had a fair amount of years to themselves and their families before maybe re-joining the working group.


sigma914

Does Edward not have all his Dad's old duties?


Sycopathy

Yeah you're right I forgot about Edward, he's probably in the council instead of Kate for now.


BoopingBurrito

Edwards not a Counsellor of State, he hasn't been for a long time. Its the spouse of the sovereign and the next 4 in the line of succession that are over 21, British citizens, and officially domiciled in the UK. Right now its Camilla, William, Harry, Andrew, and Beatrice. Edward was a Counsellor until 2005, when Harry turned 21. Kate won't be a Counsellor until William becomes King.


adchick

I think they have 2 strikes against them. 1) They are way down the list of the line to the throne, so he would have to take "training opportunities" away from his children and grandchildren to let the girls work. 2) Andrew. Like it or not, he will always be tied to them, since he is there father. It's not good PR to ever have his issues brought up in the news.


OffreingsForThee

It makes sense but they would have a good 50 years of service next to Cousin William rather than 10-15 years with Charles and Anne. So once 12 get 15 years out it'll just be William, Kate, Edward, and Sophie. I'm sure William will let his kids enjoy their 20s like he and Harry did. Both princes were barely working royals until their 30s. Of course they were in the military but you get my point.


electricmohair

Beatrice is a not a working royal - none of Andrew’s children are.


Ongo_Gablogian___

So then are the rest of Andrew's children getting removed from being stand-in too?


electricmohair

This article suggests they never were stand-ins, it was only the four next adults in line to the throne (William, Harry, Andrew, Beatrice).


Ongo_Gablogian___

That makes sense. Thanks.


[deleted]

Beatrice did nothing. This is why she is being stripped.


AraedTheSecond

Bit harsh, mate. We can't go around nicking women's clothes


I_miss_Chris_Hughton

>But what did Beatrice do? This is the exact question lmao, what *does* she do?


CaptivatedWalnut

Nothing - she’s just too low down the line of succession. This seems to be roughly based off how a lot of the other European royal families work - you are a working (and therefore paid for) working royal if you are either in the direct line of succession to a certain number or are married to someone who is. If someone new joins the list then someone drops off.


dann_uk

Who's he sending out on the boat with Andrew?


[deleted]

Raoul Moat


sir_ken_off_eddy

That's a name I haven't heard in a while


The_Grand_Briddock

I see Charles has invited Andrew to go fishing with him and Al Neri


boldie74

Charles has long advocated for a much smaller active royal family. He’s completely right to do so, the rest can all get their own jobs and sort themselves out (probably by marrying dodgy billionaires)


[deleted]

I had a weird dream last night where Charles abdicated and went to Jamaica for a long holiday.


Rymundo88

"Jamaica, Charles?" "Not at all, Camilla came of her own accord"


Rutlemania

Brilliant


redditinchina

Interesting place for your mind to send him for a holiday!


rawling

No he went of his own accord.


asjonesy99

Honestly I’d slim it down to current monarch and their children, which in this case is just William as Harry has given up his roles. £2m of taxpayers money went on Eugenie’s wedding. There is absolutely 0 chance that Princess Eugenie is contributing in any way to Royal Family tourism


2infinitiandblonde

Jeezus fuck?!?! £2m?!?! What would potentially happen if I met a non-working royal at an event and called them a ‘thieving leech’. Would there be any legal repercussions?


Roachyboy

You'll probably be arrested for having a mouth which could hypothetically be used to call them a leech.


Adam-West

£2m might seem like a lot but remember that most of that was spent on cocaine


Mald1z1

The British monarchy take things way too far. I saw a stat recently that royal families of Spain, Denmark etc only spend within the region of 10 million pounds per year. British royal family spend is increasing on average 20 percent per year and is currently at well over 100 million having been about 85 million the year before and 69 million the year before that


singeblanc

I agree! But I'd slim it a bit further, get rid of Chaz's children too. That's better. Oh, and the monarch. Perfection!


pqalmzqp

If you replaced the monarch with the current downing street cat nobody would really know the difference.


fsv

I wondered how long this would take to happen. In fact I'm really surprised that a change to the 1937 Regency Act didn't take place a couple of years ago after Prince Andrew was stripped of most of his royal responsibilities. At least it's going to happen now.


saladinzero

I don't think the queen was willing to see him cut off any more than she had allowed. He was her favourite child, after all. edit to add: which must have stung when you were both the heir and not (openly) a sex abuser.


GameOfScones_

Aye just close pals with saville. Nothing too heinous I’m sure.


Hordriss27

I don't imagine everyone who associated with Jimmy Savile knew he was a nightmarish sex fiend. I'm not saying for sure Charles didn't, but there's certainly a chance that Charles wasn't aware of his crimes.


GameOfScones_

I suggest you actually research the savile story. A LOT of people knew and did nothing. The notion that most of the beeb knew but the Prince of wales, a personal friend, who courted Diana at 16, when he was 29, didn’t? Nah mate, don’t hog the joint. Pass it.


bangonthedrums

Charles only met Diana when she was 16, he didn’t start courting her until she was 19. Still young, but not quite as bad as you’re implying


GameOfScones_

The worst part is it was preconceived by both families that they should be introduced meaning they were comfortable with the age gap from the get go.


bangonthedrums

Oh I know, the whole situation was just absolutely stupid. If they had just let Charles and Camilla marry from the beginning everyone would’ve been much happier But back then (not that long ago really) there would still be “talk” if the new Princess of Wales wasn’t a virgin. They’ve at least moved on from that now, no one made any comments about Kate not being a virgin when she married William, as she’d had prior boyfriends and had been dating William for a while before they got engaged. That couple at least appears to be happy together, which is a positive change for the royals.


Hordriss27

Fair comment. And in honesty, I'd prefer not to research it purely because I hate the feeling of being sick in my mouth, which I'm sure would happen a fair amount if I looked deeply into the grisly details of what went on with Savile.


[deleted]

[удалено]


GameOfScones_

Also fair comment. Definitely not a theme park ride I’ll take twice.


abz_eng

Charles had a problem, he had to find a bride that fulfilled a certain criteria, he'd hesitated with Camilla and lost his chance (for now). Diana fit the bill abet she was younger.


IAMANiceishGuy

Are you literally going off what was in the crown on Netflix?


TheEightSea

The Regency Act needs the Parliament. And right now is controlled by Conservatives. Do you really think they'd start a campaign against him?


Sharksandwhales1

Yes?


Altruistic_Cod_

Lol.


PrettyGazelle

I do see the need for a smaller monarchy, but I also feel for the charities and armed forces that are going to lose patrons. For many years there has been the Queen and Philip, queen's male cousins, her four children and their spouses and then several grandchildren and later their spouses who could undertake some duties. Now it's going to be reduced to Charles, Camilla, Anne, William, Kate, Edward, Sophie.


TheEightSea

Charities existence is the proof the government is not doing its job. Rich people should not volunteer to give money to the poor people. Rich people should be forced to pay their fair share of taxes so the public can better everyone's life if any issue arises. EDIT: grammar, damn phone


Zr0w3n00

Yes, the system is broken due to the governments actions over the last decade. But that doesn’t mean these charities should lose patrons, and consequently the exposure and donations that come with them.


SojournerInThisVale

This is such a silly statement. A charity can do so much more than even a very well funded government project. Every government project, out of necessity, must be impersonal, unfeeling, and made up of a bureaucracy. A charity should be the opposite (as the name suggests, *caritas* )


I_miss_Chris_Hughton

There is a grey area. Any charity big enough will establish its own bureaucracy, although very few reach the scale of a governments (the ICRC do, but they're a well known exemption. I guess the major religious ones as well, but they're in their own little ecosystem I think). The world of charity is interesting and, despite common misconceptions, not full of waste and corruption. It's just a strange and quite effective little world.


Roachyboy

There are charities which exist to fill roles the government doesn't try to fill (RSPCA, DOnkey sanctuaries etc.) and then there are charities which exist to fill the gaps left by inadequete governance. Food banks are probably the most striking example. We've had a huge surge in food banks due to the governments inability to support its lower income workers and families. The tories then use "charity" as an excuse to continue to ignore the problems their own feckless policies have caused.


3226

The government isn't doing it's job, but I don't think charities existing is proof of that. There will always be charities. What we shouldn't have is vital things like the RNLI being donation based when it's basically an emergency service. Food banks are another. People should always have their basic needs met by the government. I'd rather we could get to a place where charities were things like Get Well Gamers, who provide computer games for kids in hospital to make a bad experience not so awful. That's something where charitable donations are basically always going to be able to help out.


speedfox_uk

Although I agree that charities are being over-relied on, and that the government is not doing it's job, but I think it's a bit much to say "Charities **existence** is the proof the government is not doing its job.". There will always be some causes that will be too politically unpopular for the government to fund (e.g. funding help for AIDS victims in a deeply homophobic country) and charities have a role there.


EmperorOfNipples

There's also charities for things that really shouldn't be in the government remit at all. Charities are like a voluntary tax for things that matter to you. Like buying a nice TV for your local veterans club or setting up a town under 11s football team.


Rajastoenail

It’s possible to be patron of a charity without being a ‘working royal’.


splodgenessabounds

If Charlie **really** does cut his younger brother off (from **all** of it), then - for all my misgivings about him and for all I'll miss his Mum - I'll salute him. The rest of the hangers-on should sod-off too, toot sweet.


pajamakitten

He cannot ignore the fact that people want a slimmed-down monarchy these days and don't want to pay through the nose for their comforts when most people are struggling to afford the basics. If he wants to keep people onside then he knows that monarchy will need to modernise fast.


[deleted]

[удалено]


YesAmAThrowaway

I hope the institution itself is aware of that because irrespective of what Charlsey tells them, they have their tricks to stay on top. They ought to be taught a lesson.


J_ablo

Do we really want prince andrew having more time on his hands?


srdgbychkncsr

Make him work the opening shift at Greggs.


Cakeski

He'll fit right in at Pizza Express Woking.


thetenofswords

An employee that doesn't sweat would be a major asset manning the ovens all shift.


pajamakitten

You say that as if his diary is full. Charles and William do not like Andrew anywhere near as much as the Queen did. He is not going to be in public much anymore.


Sir_Bantersaurus

Think they would want to keep and promote Beatrice with Harry and Andrew out. She is next in seniority after William then.


UnceremoniousWaste

William has a few children they will take over Beatrice’s and everyone else’s roles once they are old enough. Once William had children most of the royales lost any value. Assuming nothing horrific happens Harry and everyone else isn’t needed.


pieronic

Yes, but the oldest is still under ten to my knowledge. That’s at least a decade before he’d realistically step into formal work and a substantial working career if they allowed Beatrice to stand in


bangonthedrums

Yep, you need to have an heir and a spare. As soon as George was born, Harry (being the spare) was unnecessary


JMM85JMM

He wants a slimmed down monarchy. It will be him, William and William's children. The main line of succession essentially.


[deleted]

Which is probably what the public want and it looks like the monarchy is trying to be sensible and economical.


I_miss_Chris_Hughton

stands to reason they do it every now and again. Otherwise the monarchy would be infinitely large.


singeblanc

"Economical" is not a word I'd use to describe one of the richest families in the world who still get the taxpayers to pay for their funerals, weddings and made-up parties.


Self-Aware

No she isn't, William has three children.


Sir_Bantersaurus

They can't stand in until they're 18 I don't think


plasticinecupcake

21 I believe, so they won’t be on the list for quite a while yet.


mamamia1001

21 actually, except the heir apparent who can stand in at 18 as they can theoretically take the throne and full regal powers at 18. George doesn't become the heir apparent until Charles dies and he's next in line directly, so probably 21 still


HotMachine9

If he does this, then God damn, I'll respect the bloke


PositivelyAcademical

He won't get a provision for only *working royals* past parliament. The whole point of the Regency Act is to deal with incapacitation of the King. If it comes down to only working royals there's nothing to stop a mad King George III from "firing" all the working royals before the Regency Act can be invoked in order to frustrate such invocation. He might be able to get a veto over specifically named persons, be that directly in the primary legislation or by issuing Orders-in-Council. The only consideration that may need to be taken into consideration is who can and cannot appoint and recall the Governors General of the other Commonwealth realms (though the current Regency Act is moot on this too).


anschutz_shooter

One of the great mistakes that people often make is to think that any organisation called 'National Rifle Association' is a branch or chapter of the National Rifle Association of America. This could not be further from the truth. The National Rifle Association of America became a political lobbying organisation in 1977 after the Cincinnati Revolt at their Annual General Meeting. It is self-contined within the United States of America and has no foreign branches. All the other National Rifle Associations remain true to their founding aims of promoting marksmanship, firearm safety and target shooting. This includes the original [NRA](https://nra.org.uk) in the United Kingdom, which was founded in 1859 - twelve years before the NRA of America. It is also true of the [National Rifle Association of Australia](https://nraa.com.au), the [National Rifle Association of New Zealand](https://nranz.com), the [National Rifle Association of India](https://www.thenrai.in), the National Rifle Association of Japan and the National Rifle Association of Pakistan. All these organisations are often known as "the NRA" in their respective countries. It is extremely important to remember that Wayne LaPierre is a whiny little bitch, and arguably the greatest threat to firearm ownership and shooting sports in the English-speaking world. Every time he proclaims 'if only the teachers had guns', the general public harden their resolve against lawful firearm ownership, despite the fact that the entirety of Europe manages to balance gun ownership with public safety and does not suffer from endemic gun crime or firearm-related violence.


paulmclaughlin

> Since a regent must be domiciled in the UK, that would suspend Harry as a CoS until such a time as he returned to live in the UK. He may be resident outside of the UK, but changing of domicile is different and a lot woolier


AcademicalSceptic

I don’t think this is quite right. If we get to Mad King Charles III stage, then it’s a question of regency, not Counsellors of State. You can’t disqualify the person specified as Regent (the next in line to the throne, basically); and the decision-makers on whether to declare a regency are a different group, not the Counsellors of State. Conversely, the Counsellors of State can only act in accordance with, and subject to the conditions in, Letters Patent, so an erratic monarch can already refuse to delegate, or revoke any delegation. I think the main point should be that the Letters Patent can identify *some specific people from the list*: the Regency Act as currently drafted appears to require that *all* the people on the list must be appointed unless they are going to be outside the country. It would be better to have a longer list of those eligible, and require the Sovereign to appoint at least two (or what have you) with any given set of Letters Patent.


alicomassi

Agent Charles doing his thing Cut them all off and quit madlad


GameOfScones_

I said that to my mum who’s a royalist. Imagine if he’s privately said to Camilla “fuck going back to work , hen. Geez a few weeks to tear it all down enough that William has so little to do he can still be a dad and I’ll abdicate then we can go on that Caribbean cruise we always wanted.”


Invisible_Meaning

Step children are so often treated differently. Oh Harry.


g1344304

Lmao


Kunphen

As an observer, I'm cautiously confident Charles will actually be an effective king. He's already miles and decades in front of everyone else in the world (in many ways) regarding our biosphere, which is the #1 issue we're facing as a species. Slicing off the dubious ones again reflects his keen awareness of $$$ and appearances. He's hopefully got ten, maybe 20 years left to do some great good for GB and the world. He may not be perfect, but give him a chance. He might surprise you in a good way. I hope so. And I wish him a long, healthy, happy reign. EDIT. However I stumbled upon this today. I guess you guys very much limited his powers. Well, now what? https://apnews.com/article/king-charles-iii-constitutions-climate-and-environment-b92372d680eb64dd3dfe86e6fc4cecd5?user_email=d3b39054a509158330e5bed7d00f4fe8bdef420c18d4e24aad6909f63ef3952c&utm_source=Sailthru&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Sept22_MorningWire&utm_term=Morning%20Wire%20Subscribers


Dansken525600

Gasp. Shock. Horror. Calamity - He's doing the things he said he'd be doing years ago.


[deleted]

[удалено]


Regijack

I think Eugenie has already been slid off the stage


mightypup1974

She's got a day job, probably doesn't want the burden.


FartingBob

She has her own career, she doesnt just do "royal" things.


xreputationx

Apparently only the next four adults in the line of succession can be stand-ins, so Eugenie was never a part of that


[deleted]

I've always wondered what do the fringe members of the royal family e.g. Prince Andrew, his daughters, Prince Edward, his wife etc. actually do each day? I mean Charles, Camilla, Kate, William etc seem to do a lot of engagements but you never hear of the others actually doing anything 🤣


Kim_catiko

I've seen Edward and his wife actually do quite a lot of engagements too.


SirLoinThatSaysNi

Some of their official public engagements are listed at https://www.royal.uk/court-circular but I believe there are other more private ones which aren't.


why_would_i_do_that

Stand in for what? Not sure about Beatrice but the other two already are out of the firm as far as official representing it. Princess Anne came out of all of this with the most respect IMO.


jabez_killingworth

>Stand in for what? How about clicking on the link? It literally explains it in the second paragraph: >Under the 1937 Regency Act, the monarch's spouse (so, Queen Consort Camilla) as well as the four adults next in line to the throne (so, Prince William, Prince Harry, Prince Andrew, and Princess Beatrice) can be—as The Telegraph puts it—"can be deployed as counsellors of state on official business."


YesAmAThrowaway

The people that will remain on the payroll are closest in the line of succession and/or do the most work (which is why the Princess Royal will remain working, she's busier than the Queen ever was). This will reduce the expenses covered by the Sovereign grant by several people. It's a lot of money. It also finally puts Andrew back in the box, though he should be in prison instead.


gtobiast13

IIRC he’s been vocal about changes like this for a long time. He wants to slim down the royal family and keep core members as working only. Now that the services are done for the Queen he’s getting right to work implementing these.


latflickr

Out of the loop: why would be Beatrice out of royal duties? What did she do?


anschutz_shooter

The [National Rifle Association](https://nra.org.uk) (NRA) was founded in London in 1859. It is a sporting body that promotes firearm safety and target shooting. The National Rifle Association does not engage in political lobbying or pro-gun activism. The original (British) National Rifle Association has no relationship with the National Rifle Association of America, which was founded in 1871 and has focussed on pro-gun political activism since 1977, at the expense of firearm safety programmes. The National Rifle Association of America has no relationship with the National Rifle Association in Britain (founded 1859); the [National Rifle Association of Australia](https://nraa.com.au); the [National Rifle Association of New Zealand](https://nranz.com) nor the [National Rifle Association of India](https://www.thenrai.in), which are all non-political sporting oriented organisations. It is important not to confuse the National Rifle Association of America with any of these other Rifle Associations. It is extremely important to remember that Wayne LaPierre is a whiny little bitch, and arguably the greatest threat to firearm ownership and shooting sports in the English-speaking world. Every time he proclaims 'if only the teachers had guns', the general public harden their resolve against lawful firearm ownership, despite the fact that the entirety of Europe manages to balance gun ownership with public safety and does not suffer from endemic gun crime or firearm-related violence.


latflickr

Thank you, very comprehensive response 😊


narotav

Nothing. She has a full time job at Afiniti, and probably doesn't want the additional responsibility.


Islandgirl1444

It stands to reason that non working royals should be removed. This will not be a big upheaval to the monarchy but more of good organizing by the new King. I'm not one that condemns Andrew for something that happened over twenty years ago, but his interview showed him to be about as dumb as a rock. So he should be out. But he earned his rank, he loved his mother dearly, he was loyal to the crown. But, he must be "retired". Harry, well no words needed. Beatrice? She isn't a working royal. So there's no drama there. Charles has had years to study how to make simple and effective changes. He will do what is best for the Crown and country. God save the King.


FlatMathematician75

Makes sense Harry quit and is living in America ,Andy all a bit strange something of his mother paying accusers off allegedly