Associates and HRH does that make allowances for bad behavior.

Trudie · October 07, 2009, 06:23:41 PM

I was wondering how many of you out there think that being associated with HRH and HRH himself are allowed to get away with bad behavior that normal commoners are not.

Mike · October 07, 2009, 07:09:43 PM

Quote from: Trudie on October 07, 2009, 06:23:41 PM
I was wondering how many of you out there think that being associated with HRH and HRH himself are allowed to get away with bad behavior that normal commoners are not.

Aren't there laws on the books permitting the Royal Family certain "liberties?" I don't know.

Fabulous Fake · October 07, 2009, 07:35:20 PM

True to form, Trudie is baiting again. :zzzz:

Trudie · October 07, 2009, 07:37:54 PM

^ I have no idea what you are talking about?

sandy · October 07, 2009, 08:08:30 PM

I think there is a double standard. Definitely. Camilla with an HRH is practically bestowed sainthood by Charles' sympathizers. And CHarles never has to apologize for adultery or hurting his family.

Trudie · October 07, 2009, 08:54:41 PM

I think it goes way beyond that Sandy there seems to be a cocoon around HRH and his known associations. Someone sent a PM to me reminding me that Annabel Elliot was involved in a hit and run crash sometime after C&C married yet nothing happened but Diana's mother was involved in a drunk driving crash in the '90's and had her driving priviledge taken away for a while. It is almost like that of ancient kings Charles and his cronies believe that he will someday rule by divine right and therefore whatever his or his courts behavior no one should dare question what most would believe to be immoral or inacceptable behavior.

daibando · October 08, 2009, 11:48:47 AM

Quote from: Mike on October 07, 2009, 07:09:43 PM
Aren't there laws on the books permitting the Royal Family certain "liberties?" I don't know.

Not really, Mike. Only the Queen is exempt from prosecution.

The next comment is not for you, Mike. In Britain, the police and the Crown Prosecution decide what criminal actions will be pursued. We don't know the circumstances of each and every case and we are never likely to know.

Trudie · October 08, 2009, 12:06:53 PM

^ Especially when it comes to friends and associates of HRH

daibando · October 08, 2009, 03:07:37 PM

Trudie, what is that nonsense supposed to mean?

Trudie · October 08, 2009, 07:04:11 PM

I'm not going to spell it out for you.

Fabulous Fake · October 08, 2009, 07:25:16 PM

Are you really implying that friends and associates of Prince Charles are given special dispensations to break the laws of this country? :madgirl:

For such blatant wickedness to be permitted on a moderated forum is an absolute disgrace.

Trudie · October 08, 2009, 07:46:27 PM

I am not implying anything of the kind with the law. What I am implying is that there have been many allowances for bad behavior.

Fabulous Fake · October 08, 2009, 07:49:46 PM

In that case I apologise but you didn't exactly make your point clear refusing even to clarify when requested.

Mike · October 08, 2009, 07:59:52 PM

Quote from: Fabulous Fake on October 08, 2009, 07:25:16 PM
Are you really implying that friends and associates of Prince Charles are given special dispensations to break the laws of this country? :madgirl:

What brought on my original question was this from Morton's book regarding meetings about the separation between Charles and Diana.

Andrew Morton, "Diana, Her True Story, In Her Own Words," pp.316-317:

QuoteThe meetings continued, each with its highly charged content of argument and anger. Tried beyond endurance, during one of these discussions Diana desperately played her ace. Her frustration with the royal system was such that she threatened to take her children and live with them abroad, making a new life in Australia. To no avail - she was reminded very forcibly that the boys were second and third in line to the throne and as such had to be raised inside the royal court in order to learn their royal duties. She was also made chillingly aware of the stark legal realities underlying her predicament. Laws which apply exclusively to the royal family effectively deny a royal mother any real say in the upbringing of her children.

This suggests there are laws on the books that allow the Royal Family to take certain "liberties." Did I read this right?

drezzle · October 08, 2009, 08:33:45 PM

Of course Diana was made paranoid she would lose all say in the upbringing of her children, and of course Diana knew that different laws apply to the royal family compared to everyone else. Even if technically, only the Queen is exempt from prosecution, she will use that to protect her family from prosecution, i.e. the trial of Paul Burrell.

Fabulous Fake · October 08, 2009, 11:30:12 PM

Do some folk really believe the rubbish that they type?
Obviously this nonsense isn't spouted by anyone who actually lives in this country.

I give up.

I'm fed up reading fanciful garbage about my country and it disgusts me that even a so called 'moderator' (and that's a joke in itself) joins in with the poison.

Trudie · October 09, 2009, 12:10:39 AM

^ I have yet to see a moderator join in this discussion yet. This is all it is a discussion and it does not have to do with your country this is a discussion regarding bad behavior being tolerated by HRH et al

scooter · October 09, 2009, 01:06:41 AM

Quote from: daibando on October 08, 2009, 11:48:47 AM
Quote from: Mike on October 07, 2009, 07:09:43 PM
Aren't there laws on the books permitting the Royal Family certain "liberties?" I don't know.
Not really, Mike. Only the Queen is exempt from prosecution.

The next comment is not for you, Mike. In Britain, the police and the Crown Prosecution decide what criminal actions will be pursued. We don't know the circumstances of each and every case and we are never likely to know.

UMMM...refer to the earlier thread about Camilla leaving the scene of an accident in 1997. Was the Royal Mistress brought up on charges? We do know the circumstances of that case....

Trudie · October 09, 2009, 01:16:20 AM

^So would I scooter and also the case of her sister Annebels hit and run that a friend reminded me about. :hmm:

Jonquil · October 09, 2009, 10:17:34 AM

QuoteAnd CHarles never has to apologize for adultery or hurting his family.

And you know this how? Are you a member of Charles's family? There is no way you can make this statement and declare it a fact, it's just ill-informed supposition based on a negative view that one personally wants to take.

QuoteAndrew Morton, "Diana, Her True Story, In Her Own Words," pp.316-317:
Quote
The meetings continued, each with its highly charged content of argument and anger. Tried beyond endurance, during one of these discussions Diana desperately played her ace. Her frustration with the royal system was such that she threatened to take her children and live with them abroad, making a new life in Australia. To no avail - she was reminded very forcibly that the boys were second and third in line to the throne and as such had to be raised inside the royal court in order to learn their royal duties. She was also made chillingly aware of the stark legal realities underlying her predicament. Laws which apply exclusively to the royal family effectively deny a royal mother any real say in the upbringing of her children.

These laws date back to 1775!!! They have never been repealed, just like the law relating to the wife of an heir committing adultery should be charged with treason once found guilty executed. (None of this happened to Diana)

Also look at the reality, the royal family never interfered in any way to Diana's say in the upbringing of her children. From the beginning Diana got her way with who was appointed William's nanny, Charles wanted his old nanny Mabel Anderson who at the time was nanny to Princess Anne's children. Diana said no, she wanted someone younger with more modern ideas and employed Barbara Barnes (who Diana later fell out with and Jessie Wallace was employed) Diana chose the nursery where William and Harry attended (no private nursery classes for them like other royal children) Diana first wanted William to attend the Young England Kindergarten where she had worked for a few months. She decided against it when on a preliminary visit William wouldn't join in and sat by himself, so she sent him to Mrs Mynors nursery. She chose the preprep school the boys went to and insisted they go to Eton. So they attend Ludgrove an Eton feeder school. William and Harry had a far more elitist education than the Queen's own children! And the education choices were all Diana's, Charles hated the schools he attended so didn't put up any complaints as to where his sons were to be educated, neither did the Queen, Philip chose the schools for her children.

Once Diana and Charles separated the boys time was equally divided among the 2 parents, the amount of time never changed, access was not an issue in the divorce , it was fair and equal right from the beginning. No the boys could not be taken out of the country but that's the same in other monarchies, not just the nasty Brits. The Danish royals have prenups, in them it's clearly spelt out that in the event of a marriage breaking down the children remain in Denmark. So when Princess Alexandra divorced Prince Joachim she knew that she had to remain in Denmark for her sons to live with her and so that's where she stayed.

QuoteUMMM...refer to the earlier thread about Camilla leaving the scene of an accident in 1997. Was the Royal Mistress brought up on charges? We do know the circumstances of that case....

Well actually you don't know the circumstances of the case unless you have the police report and sat in on the meetings that decided how to proceed that the crown prosecution would have had. The reality is that not all cases are prosecuted, I know of one where a person was killed in a car accident and the crown prosecution didn't take up the case as it was judged an accident and they were unlikely to get a conviction. It's easy to be smug and an internet expert but unless to have ALL the information, not just bits and pieces from media reports you cannot make a judgement. Again it's just wanting to be negative and hold onto strongly held prejudices without real factual information

Trudie · October 09, 2009, 10:52:52 AM

Tell me Jonquil in that fatal accident you describe above did the driver that survived leave the scene of the Accident? It was documented by the other driver who was hurt that Camilla didn't check to see if she was allright and left the scene only to be questioned hours later at Highgrove and what about her sister Annebell? she too was a hit and run. Are you saying that not all hit and run cases are prosecuted? you are making it sound like the police and prosecutors are willing to overlook such things depending on the persons rank in life. hmmmmmmmmmmm

drezzle · October 09, 2009, 11:54:22 AM

Quote from: Jonquil on October 09, 2009, 10:17:34 AM

Also look at the reality, the royal family never interfered in any way to Diana's say in the upbringing of her children. From the beginning Diana got her way with who was appointed William's nanny, Charles wanted his old nanny Mabel Anderson who at the time was nanny to Princess Anne's children. Diana said no, she wanted someone younger with more modern ideas and employed Barbara Barnes ........................Diana chose the nursery where William and Harry attended...............................

What actually happened, and how Diana might have been threatened and/or what she might have been worried about concerning custody of her children are probably far different, as happens in many divorces with custody issues.

daibando · October 09, 2009, 12:23:17 PM

Quote from: Mike on October 08, 2009, 07:59:52 PM
This suggests there are laws on the books that allow the Royal Family to take certain "liberties." Did I read this right?

Mike, whatever conclusion you've come to, out of court divorce negotiations have nothing to with criminal charges being brought about for members of the Royal Family or associates. Please listen carefully, you have already been told that only the Queen cannot be prosecuted in a British court. All the rest have no immunity.

Now for all those who insist they know more about British law than we British, there are circumstances when one can leave the scene of an accident without committing an offence. The police investigate and, if they think there is a case to answer, they present their evidence to the Crown Prosecution Service, where the decision to prosecute or not is made.

The CPS uses various criteria to arrive at their decision. Sometimes they publicly explain their reasoning but that is not a legal obligation. They, the CPS, are answerable to the Home Office, which is answerable to the cabinet and so on, but no-one is answerable to any member of the Royal Family or their friends and associates.

Mike · October 09, 2009, 07:33:43 PM

Quote from: daibando on October 09, 2009, 12:23:17 PM
Mike, whatever conclusion you've come to, out of court divorce negotiations have nothing to with criminal charges being brought about for members of the Royal Family or associates. Please listen carefully, you have already been told that only the Queen cannot be prosecuted in a British court. All the rest have no immunity.

Andrew Morton's reference to "Laws which apply exclusively to the royal family" sparked my original question. I never meant to suggest members of the Royal Family could avoid criminal prosecution. My question dealt more with the Royal Family being permitted under law to conduct their private ventures in a manner not allowed to the common citizen. I apologize for the vagueness of that sentence, but I don't know how else to phrase it. Perhaps a poster more eloquent could make the meaning more clear.

Jonquil stated Diana and Charles held equal custody of William and Harry and that Diana decided on much, if not most, of how the boys would be raised. This is my understanding, too. Still, as my quote from Morton showed, Diana was still terrified (some may substitute "paranoid") about her access to the boys after the separation and certainly after a divorce. In my personal opinion, she exhibited a normal motherly concern.

In reading only the printed word, one can't hear the emphasis or voice inflection that can be so important to the meaning and this drawback can cause unanticipated problems or misunderstandings.