• Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!

Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor, the secret sealed document and his arrest

JamesT

Established Member
Joined
25 Feb 2015
Messages
4,913
Is there an alternative between Republican and Monarchy? Asking because I genuinely don't know; think the Royals should go but I don't want a president; thinking more along the lines of two well-known and respected people (non politicians, voted for by us) to represent the UK on the world stage like ERII did?
That is still a presidency, however it's one where the role is primarily ceremonial. Ireland is set up like that, the President gets wheeled out to shake hands at the rugby, whilst the Taoiseach wields executive power.
However, the majority of previous Irish Presidents have been former politicians, I suspect as they have a suitable profile and are willing to campaign etc. for it. Even if they don't have any power, anyone for Presidents Blair, Johnson, Farage?

I think I've posted this in a previous thread, but my view is that monarchy is the least worst option of the systems we have on offer. An elected head of state is almost certain to owe favours to somebody, and an appointed one has all the drawbacks of an inherited one with none of the pagentry/history.
I would agree. The monarchy has advantages around longevity. I think several prime ministers have remarked how useful it was to have conversations with the late Queen, as she had seen things come and go and could give advice with a longer view than the typical politician.

I did enjoy this comment from a local journalist:
• And if you want to know what else your local police force has been up to this week, on Thursday Thames Valley Police announced they had arrested “a man in his sixties from Norfolk”. The Clarion has reached out to Alan Partridge for comment.
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

jfollows

Established Member
Joined
26 Feb 2011
Messages
10,171
Location
Wilmslow
I think I've posted this in a previous thread, but my view is that monarchy is the least worst option of the systems we have on offer. An elected head of state is almost certain to owe favours to somebody, and an appointed one has all the drawbacks of an inherited one with none of the pagentry/history.

My ideal system would be a head of state chosen by lottery.
Whilst I don’t agree with you, I’ll also be the first to admit that I don’t know what could replace it and would be better.
 

Howardh

Established Member
Joined
17 May 2011
Messages
9,799
That is still a presidency, however it's one where the role is primarily ceremonial. Ireland is set up like that, the President gets wheeled out to shake hands at the rugby, whilst the Taoiseach wields executive power.
However, the majority of previous Irish Presidents have been former politicians, I suspect as they have a suitable profile and are willing to campaign etc. for it. Even if they don't have any power, anyone for Presidents Blair, Johnson, Farage?
Er, no! past politicians worthy of the post are few and far between, and mostly dead!

Not sure if Seb Coe (athlete) was/is involved with politics, if not then he'd make a great ambassador for the UK as "President" as would Dame Kelly Holmes and so on. From entertainment you have Graeme Norton or Joanna Lumley who have been particularly faultless - a gay President would be fab and we could have the Pride flag flying over Buck Palace!

But if we lost the Royalty, then in my opinion the replacement/s must be non-political. And be prepared to travel by train!!
 

AlterEgo

Verified Rep - Wingin' It! Paul Lucas
Joined
30 Dec 2008
Messages
29,668
Location
LBK
Public support for the monarchy has hit an all time low, and in fact did so last year, before Andrew's recent revelations.

There will be a tipping point eventually where it becomes untenable.

I am sure this is not it for the monarchy just yet, but Wills is going to have a hard time regaining public support for the monarchy when he takes over. He is, admittedly, a far more sensible chap with seemingly far fewer skeletons in his closet. If he doesn't get a grip on it though, the support will continue to fall asleep the generational divide shifts.
The end of the monarchy in Britain will be the same as Irish unification. It will be in a way impossible to visualise ahead of time until a number of conditions coalesce and make the correct cocktail for it to happen, and when it does happen it will seem like a completely obvious event.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==

Er, no! past politicians worthy of the post are few and far between, and mostly dead!

Not sure if Seb Coe (athlete) was/is involved with politics
Maybe a look at Wikipedia may help (!) - he is *Lord Coe*, a Tory Peer, and a lengthy political career - he was a Tory MP!

From entertainment you have Graeme Norton
Graham Norton is Irish...
 

martin butler

Member
Joined
9 Oct 2018
Messages
884
Hopefully, a line has been written in the sand now, as to future standards of behavior don't associate with dodgy people, and don't get yourself into situations that might undermine your position,

Hopefully the next generation of royals, will have been made only to aware that with privilege comes responsibility, Luckily William appears to, as far as we know, not fallen into the same trap as his uncle, and Brother, lead with his head, not his appendices,
 

AlterEgo

Verified Rep - Wingin' It! Paul Lucas
Joined
30 Dec 2008
Messages
29,668
Location
LBK
That is still a presidency, however it's one where the role is primarily ceremonial. Ireland is set up like that, the President gets wheeled out to shake hands at the rugby, whilst the Taoiseach wields executive power.
However, the majority of previous Irish Presidents have been former politicians, I suspect as they have a suitable profile and are willing to campaign etc. for it. Even if they don't have any power, anyone for Presidents Blair, Johnson, Farage?
The Irish Presidency is a little different because as you say, they are effectively a mascot for Ireland on the world stage. Ireland has a large disapora and presidents in the modern era tend to be unifying and lacking in star quality. Higgins was a very popular president partly because the role is seen as a retirement from party politics. The current president is Catherine Connolly who is a personal friend of my aunt, who is of quite normal social standing and not part of high society at all. Ireland is a small nation (!).

I did enjoy this comment from a local journalist:
Very good. I was actually wondering what a Partridge bit on the radio would be, about Andrew's arrest. Probably a funny skit in there somewhere.
 

brad465

Veteran Member
Joined
11 Aug 2010
Messages
11,565
Location
Taunton or Kent
Is there an alternative between Republican and Monarchy? Asking because I genuinely don't know; think the Royals should go but I don't want a president; thinking more along the lines of two well-known and respected people (non politicians, voted for by us) to represent the UK on the world stage like ERII did?
A German or Italian-style President is probably doable: mostly ceremonial and they are elected only by elected officials, not a direct public vote. I would certainly avoid a French/US/Argentine-style president.
 

aar0

Member
Joined
13 Sep 2016
Messages
622
A lot if ordinary people have done a lot worse and seldom make headline news.
If I’m understanding correctly Andrew has been essentially state secrets he was privy to due to his position, for favour or financial gain. It feels pretty close to treason. That is aside from his other misdemeanours, documented but not proven in court.
 

michael8

Member
Joined
13 Feb 2021
Messages
236
Location
UK
Is there an alternative between Republican and Monarchy? Asking because I genuinely don't know; think the Royals should go but I don't want a president; thinking more along the lines of two well-known and respected people (non politicians, voted for by us) to represent the UK on the world stage like ERII did?
Yes. The appointment system, as found in Ancient Egypt. Elizabeth could have appointed anyone to be her heir under this system - Anne, for example.
 

RT4038

Established Member
Joined
22 Feb 2014
Messages
5,462
If I’m understanding correctly Andrew has been essentially state secrets he was privy to due to his position, for favour or financial gain. It feels pretty close to treason.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think this is to do with 'leaking' possible business opportunities - Misconduct in Public Office quite possibly, but it is hardly treason in the normal accepted sense (defence secrets etc). Andrew's visits to those countries would hardly have been secret, and, as trade envoy, it would not have taken a (foreign) genius to work out what he was there for and the possible business opportunities? Without downplaying what he has done (and the calling to account), we need to keep a sense of perspective....
 

Howardh

Established Member
Joined
17 May 2011
Messages
9,799
Maybe a look at Wikipedia may help (!) - he is *Lord Coe*, a Tory Peer, and a lengthy political career - he was a Tory MP!


Graham Norton is Irish...
So Coe's out then; can't we make Norton an honorary Brit?! Have we ever had a non-British born monarch?
 

Gloster

Veteran Member
Joined
4 Sep 2020
Messages
13,044
Location
Up the creek
Yes. The appointment system, as found in Ancient Egypt. Elizabeth could have appointed anyone to be her heir under this system - Anne, for example.

Or she could have had her doubts about her eldest son, felt that, for whatever reason, she should not be followed by another woman and instead chosen her favourite child: a certain Andrew… I am in favour of (gently) replacing the monarchy, but the current system of monarchy is generally the best of that system’s options. It always used to amuse me that those ardent Diana-monarchists who turned on Charles wanted him to be cut out and William to follow Elizabeth II. One of the few good points about the monarchical system is that, for better or worse, you know what you are getting and there are no arguments.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==

So Coe's out then; can't we make Norton an honorary Brit?! Have we ever had a non-British born monarch?

William I. George I. And by derivation a lot of others.
 

najaB

Veteran Member
Joined
28 Aug 2011
Messages
33,734
Location
Scotland
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think this is to do with 'leaking' possible business opportunities - Misconduct in Public Office quite possibly, but it is hardly treason in the normal accepted sense (defence secrets etc).
Indeed. As I understand it, a conviction for treason requires that actions were taken that provided aid or comfort to an enemy, no?
 

SuspectUsual

Established Member
Joined
11 Jul 2018
Messages
6,839
Not sure if Seb Coe (athlete) was/is involved with politics, if not then he'd make a great ambassador for the UK as "President"

Not just having been a Tory, because after all anyone is very likely to have supported at least one party, but in Coe’s case his actions as head of the IAAF were disgraceful
 

Gloster

Veteran Member
Joined
4 Sep 2020
Messages
13,044
Location
Up the creek
I think that what he is supposed to have done, if proven, i.e. deliberately showing confidential government documents to a person not authorised to see them without reasonable excuse would amount to misconduct and an abuse of the public’s trust. I suspect that the biggest stumbling block is whether he was a ‘public officer’ at the time. There might be other offences he could be charged with if he wasn’t, but that is the biggie.
 

Howardh

Established Member
Joined
17 May 2011
Messages
9,799
Think you can all tell my knowledge of the Royal family and their past is, er, limited! I shy away from any royalty questions in my pub quiz team! Perhaps they'd be more "popular" if we had a King's Day like they have in the Netherlands, just one huge country-wide party?
 

Lewisham2221

Established Member
Joined
23 Jun 2005
Messages
2,751
Location
Staffordshire
Think you can all tell my knowledge of the Royal family and their past is, er, limited! I shy away from any royalty questions in my pub quiz team! Perhaps they'd be more "popular" if we had a King's Day like they have in the Netherlands, just one huge country-wide party?
We already have the monarch's official birthday, in June despite when their actual birthday is, celebrated with Trooping the Colour etc, but nobody really seems to care much about it in the grand scheme of things. Perhaps if it was a public holiday, rather than always being held on a Saturday, people would pay more attention. Going off topic slightly, but I wonder if making a bigger deal of this, or perhaps a "Union Day" or similar public holiday "celebration" could help satisfy some of the nationalist/patriot rumblings?
 

najaB

Veteran Member
Joined
28 Aug 2011
Messages
33,734
Location
Scotland
We already have the monarch's official birthday, in June despite when their actual birthday is, celebrated with Trooping the Colour etc, but nobody really seems to care much about it in the grand scheme of things. Perhaps if it was a public holiday, rather than always being held on a Saturday, people would pay more attention. Going off topic slightly, but I wonder if making a bigger deal of this, or perhaps a "Union Day" or similar public holiday "celebration" could help satisfy some of the nationalist/patriot rumblings?
A lot (most?) countries have a national holiday, and they're usually pretty well received. That said, for many of them it's an Independence Day, thanks to us!
 

Howardh

Established Member
Joined
17 May 2011
Messages
9,799
We already have the monarch's official birthday, in June despite when their actual birthday is, celebrated with Trooping the Colour etc, but nobody really seems to care much about it in the grand scheme of things. Perhaps if it was a public holiday, rather than always being held on a Saturday, people would pay more attention. Going off topic slightly, but I wonder if making a bigger deal of this, or perhaps a "Union Day" or similar public holiday "celebration" could help satisfy some of the nationalist/patriot rumblings?
I'm aware of calls for a St George's Day holiday, have no problem with that other than it puts four bank holidays very close together, and if Easter's "late" then three within a fortnight. A "British Celebration Day", as a bank holiday/long weekend, end of June etc might give our tourism industry a boost whilst still "off-peak" - but again end of May has a bank holiday so too close together? What about the Friday before the August bank hol Monday?

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==

A lot (most?) countries have a national holiday, and they're usually pretty well received. That said, for many of them it's an Independence Day, thanks to us!
Gibralrar has a "National day" (and vey big it is too!) and the Channel islands have "Liberation day", looks like GB misses out!
 

brad465

Veteran Member
Joined
11 Aug 2010
Messages
11,565
Location
Taunton or Kent
Government now considering removing Andrew from line of succession, subject to the conclusion of the police investigation:


The government is considering introducing legislation to remove Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor from the line of royal succession, the BBC understands.
The move, which would prevent Mountbatten-Windsor from ever becoming King, would come after the police investigation has concluded.
The King's brother remains eighth in line to the throne despite being stripped of his titles, including "prince", last October amid pressure over his ties to paedophile financier Jeffrey Epstein.
On Thursday, Mountbatten-Windsor was released under investigation following his arrest on suspicion of misconduct in public office. He has consistently and strenuously denied any wrongdoing.
The government's proposal comes after some MPs, including the Liberal Democrats and SNP, signalled their support for such legislation.
Some Labour parliamentarians who have been critical of the monarchy told the BBC they were less convinced the move was required - in part because it is so unlikely the former Duke of York would ever get near to the throne.
In October, Downing Street said it had no plans to introduce a law to change the line of succession.
It would require an act of Parliament, approved by MPs and peers, and also need to be supported by all other Commonwealth countries that have King Charles as their head of state, as it would also affect their lines of succession.
The last time the line of succession was changed by an act of Parliament was in 2013, when the Succession to the Crown Act restored individuals who had previously been excluded because they had married a Catholic.
The last time someone was removed from the line of succession by an act of Parliament was in 1936, when the former Edward VIII and his descendants were removed due to his abdication.
Liberal Democrat leader Sir Ed Davey said police should be "allowed to get on with their job, acting without fear or favour".
He added: "But clearly this is an issue that Parliament is going to have to consider when the time is right, naturally the monarchy will want to make sure he can never become King."
The SNP would support removing Andrew from the line of succession if legislation is required, according to the party's Westminster leader Stephen Flynn.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/c70kjr9wjw0t
Labour MP Rachael Maskell, who represents York Central, has also backed the move.
She said: "I would support legislation to remove Andrew from the line of succession and to remove from the counsellor of state."
Counsellors of state can stand in for a monarch who is ill or overseas although, in practice, only working royals are expected to be called upon to fulfil those duties.
Mountbatten-Windsor stepped back from public duties in 2019 following a backlash after an interview with BBC Newsnight about his relationship with Epstein.
Conservative Party leader Kemi Badenoch said "all of us in public life need to give space" to the police investigation to be carried out.
Her remarks came after her Conservative colleague, shadow Scotland secretary Andrew Bowie, told GB News it "would be the decent thing" for Mountbatten-Windsor to remove himself from the line of succession.
Bowie said: "I think until the investigations have concluded, however, yes of course if he is found guilty of this, I think Parliament would be well within its rights to act and remove him from the line of succession."
The Conservative MP added Mountbatten-Windsor has "not been found guilty of anything just yet, he has yet to be charged with anything, so we have to let the police investigation run its course, and I think we should all act accordingly subsequent to that".
 

Ashley Hill

Established Member
Joined
8 Dec 2019
Messages
5,680
Location
The West Country
Removing Andrew from the line of succession means very little. Being eighth in line, it would take a major event for him to ever become king.
Little will change with the monarchy until William, the son of the nations favourite princess becomes King.
 

jp4712

Member
Joined
1 May 2009
Messages
562
Location
Lichfield
Removing Andrew from the line of succession means very little. Being eighth in line, it would take a major event for him to ever become king.
Little will change with the monarchy until William, the son of the nations favourite princess becomes King.
Andrew is indeed eighth in line for the throne. But that refers to the morning queue for the B wing toilet at Wormwood Scrubs…
 

EYFanatic

Member
Joined
29 Sep 2025
Messages
667
Location
Hell's Dungeon
Government now considering removing Andrew from line of succession, subject to the conclusion of the police investigation:

I would be much against this until, Royalist as I am, he has been convicted of a crime

If he is stripped from these last two roles and he is found to be innocent of everything and it's a frame up, there will be a lot of brown stuff flying about

And I don't mean melted toffees
 

michael8

Member
Joined
13 Feb 2021
Messages
236
Location
UK
Or she could have had her doubts about her eldest son, felt that, for whatever reason, she should not be followed by another woman and instead chosen her favourite child: a certain Andrew… I am in favour of (gently) replacing the monarchy, but the current system of monarchy is generally the best of that system’s options. It always used to amuse me that those ardent Diana-monarchists who turned on Charles wanted him to be cut out and William to follow Elizabeth II. One of the few good points about the monarchical system is that, for better or worse, you know what you are getting and there are no arguments.
Sorry, I was replying to the following question (not commenting on the merits of this system!):

Is there an alternative between Republican and Monarchy? Asking because I genuinely don't know; think the Royals should go but I don't want a president; thinking more along the lines of two well-known and respected people (non politicians, voted for by us) to represent the UK on the world stage like ERII did?

And perhaps I shouldn't have chosen Anne as an example. She could have chosen David Attenborough or Sebbie Hall under the Ancient Egyptian appointment system had she so desired. My point was this is a relatively-unknown third way, between a Monarchy and a Republic - an Appointment system.
 

Top