Indeed. At least if he's bailed he'll be able to get home on the bus for free.
only if he had the foresight to apply for his bus pass in good time...
I thought he was domiciled in Balmoral? Bus pass at 60 here!
In theory yes, but in reality nothing anywhere this severe would be handed down.
Sandringham, surely?
Only if he’s been paying NI!He's got a new source of income starting today.
It's long been accepted that the British monarchy only continues to exist with the consent of the people. The King revoking Andrew's title is more of a reflection of this fact, in my opinion, rather than something that gives rise to this conclusion - which is an important difference.
Accepted by whom? Our laws don't allow the future of monarchy to be discussed in Parliament and all our MPs have to swore on oath of allegiance so the mechanisms are not there to really put this to the test. I think the revocation of the titles is a desperate self-serving act of survival.
After all, we’re hardly seeing a wonderful advert for a democratically elected Presidency either (from across the pond!). Any change would be very complicated (would almost certainly require the drafting of a written constitution) - the experience of history suggest such changes either tend to follow a “hour zero” cataclysm or cause one. We’re not in the former position and certainly are best avoiding the latter.
Why not just replace the monarch with a Grade B Civil Servant who could be appointed and rotated as per normal every two or three years? No changes to constitution required and they could simply adopt the position and title of "King" or "Queen" for their tenure. Of course what would change is they would be fully subject to FOI, rules on conduct, receive only their CS pay and allowances whilst the incomes from the Duchy of Lancaster would flow directly and entirely into state coffers.
Could the 64% in favour pay an extra tax, with the proceeds hypothecated to pay for the royals? Or would that result in support dwindling when people realise paying for these people is voluntary?
Not to mention that if you try to raise the matter during the process of succession, as Republic did, you get 'accidentally' wrongfully arrested and detained until after the ceremony, at which point you're released with an apology.
What was the legal position when the monarch was executed at the time of Cromwell?
Apologies. I should have said "After he's charged..."
Depends on whose side you were on surely? The King and Monarchists would not have recognised the right of Parliament to have any legal authority over the King (and I believe that was part of his arguments when he was put on trial!).
The reality that we had fought two of three Civil Wars with a death toll higher, relative to population, of that of the First World War. Hopefully we would never need to go through that again.
That's not true. The monarchy exists with the consent of Parliament and it could abolish the monarchy with a single Act. Even Republic know this. https://www.republic.org.uk/abolish_the_monarchy
Or indeed "if he's charged". No guarantee he actually will be.
Why did she have a dog in a magistrate's court and why didn't she control it whilst they were there ?
Every family has black sheep. Mine especially included. It is not unusual for a sibling or offspring to stray, and where there is lots of money [not in my family!] (hereditary or business or dare I say it - crime) this can pay for shenanigans that others can only dream of, and expensive lawyers to keep things out of the public eye. The current situation with Andrew and family will be a salutary lesson to the many others in a similar position.
