Duchess Meghan Markle says Britains Royal Family Members are Racists.

originally posted by: SprocketUK
The other week talk about the queen using royal assent to force alterations in legislation was increasing.
Then no one is talking about it cos of racism.

Well played.

Would be interested in hearing more about that if true. As far as I know a monarch has always granted Royal Assent for every Bill for the past 300 years but the ability to use it was broadened with Brexit and highly likely to be used to stop the UK splitting up.

a reply to: bastion

It was actually Queen's assent. Apparently she uses it to be advised of legislation ahead of time and then suggests changes to whatever it is prior to a parliamentary vote.

a reply to: SprocketUK

Queens Consent?
The causal way its explained away as merely being 'parliamentary process' despite it quite clearly being used to directly influence legislation in order to hide something from the public shows a level of disdain that suggests a certain level of contempt for the public.

Can't help but wonder how often Queens Consent has been used this way or even how often her advisors and representatives have exerted a certain amount of unofficial pressure on administrations over the years?

I've long had the feeling that Charles would concern himself with matters of government far more than his mother has done, maybe its just that Liz has been more discreet and surreptitious than I suspected?

a reply to: Freeborn

And when you consider the lack of any written records from this interference it becomes even more sinister.

a reply to: SprocketUK

Queens Consent.

The royals describe the consent process as “a long-established convention that the Queen is asked by parliament to provide consent … for the debating of bills which would affect the prerogative or interests of the crown”.

Apparently its been used on many occasions over the years:
www.theguardian.com...

A Guardian investigation has revealed that it has been used by the Queen and her advisors on at least more that a thousand times during her reign.

As I said before; just can't help but wonder how often these people have tried to influence policy over the years.

My initial reaction is to say enough is enough.
They are an anachronism and its time they went.

a reply to: Freeborn

And just think how big this story might have been if Oprah never got involved with Harry and Meg.

a reply to: SprocketUK

Very true.

Do you think Harry may have been sent to the USA as a deliberate distraction and maybe even some sort of sacrificial lamb.
Maybe the long term plan is for him to return to the fold at a later date as a prodigal son - just to keep the biblical references going - having done his job of distracting attention away from things like this?

As far as constitutional time bombs go there can't be many more bigger than this.
It could undermine the whole principle behind a 'constitutional monarchy'.

a reply to: Freeborn

Precisely this.
When you think of this consent being used over a thousand times, that's 20 times a year for 50 years.
It's no wonder nothing really changes with this spider lurking in the shadows.

originally posted by: SprocketUK
a reply to: bastion

It was actually Queen's assent. Apparently she uses it to be advised of legislation ahead of time and then suggests changes to whatever it is prior to a parliamentary vote.

Just read the link, it's an interesting piece cheers.

As part of the Royal duties the Monarch has fortnightly meetings with the PM to discuss upcoming matters that may affect the Constitution and Royal Prerogative - they do have a big benefit with the current Queen as she's the most experienced Head of State in the World but that case was pure abuse of power; any time I've seen it in the past it has been to smooth transition between Governments or fill in a new Government on key info.

Its use in hiding wealth is pretty interesting and a good example of weird grey areas and loopholes in the UK Constitution. Normally a company would have to write to the Home Secretary and claim their profits or public image meant that it was a matter of national security that their accounts remain secret and they recieve secret intelligence from MI5 and MI6 who offer industrial espionage using shell company names.

Publicly the Queen doesn't 'do politics' so she used confidential channels to force her own exemption from the transparency clauses.

a reply to: bastion

I think, the more one digs into this, the filthier it becomes.

a reply to: SprocketUK

It certainly warrants further investigation....possibly even a Public Enquiry?
But what are the chances of that?
And if one were to happen it would be impossible to have any level of faith that it would be conducted with complete transparency and honesty.

originally posted by: Freeborn

As an aside; I firmly believe that at some point in the future Meghan Markle will seek a more prominent role in the US, probably in politics.....she really is that arrogant and convinced of her own importance.

Well it would appear she is qualified for the job then

originally posted by: Freeborn
a reply to: SprocketUK

Very true.

Do you think Harry may have been sent to the USA as a deliberate distraction and maybe even some sort of sacrificial lamb.
Maybe the long term plan is for him to return to the fold at a later date as a prodigal son - just to keep the biblical references going - having done his job of distracting attention away from things like this?

As far as constitutional time bombs go there can't be many more bigger than this.
It could undermine the whole principle behind a 'constitutional monarchy'.

I had a dog and his name was Bingo.

I would just like to say, it is pleasing to have a page of the queens english.

Well Prince Andrew definitely isn't as I'm sure he loves a bit of 'walnut'.


Harry seems to be the only semi normal one, the rest would spit on you given half the chance. There are better people to fawn over.

Best not to believe the tame royal picture taker any more than that nauseating BBC 'royal correspondent' that they dig up every few months.

I'm just waiting for the BLM types trying to make the queen take a knee!

originally posted by: EvanB
I'm just waiting for the BLM types trying to make the queen take a knee!

No one should Take a Knee .....

Happy Days

Riouz

Over meagain debarkle 😆😜😝😆😂😂

a reply to: EvanB

If you haven't watched it, people should watch Charles III.






Can't find clips showing Harry dating a woman of colour as part of the 'plot'.
This was first done as a stage play, then BBC decided to film it, way before we even heard of Meghan Markle. Unfortunately Piggot-Smith died shortly after filming so never lived to see the film production.

Rainbows
Jane

a reply to: Dalamax

Snap im on your team.

The logic is plain as day all the same.

Feck dying for that mob or any other no matter what there name is.

Back then through a load of people put stock in royals, king and country, after said conflict well not so much.

Did not stop they turning up for seconds all the same, but i don't think you would get a third out of them, unless we want them to be flinging rocks and spears in the fourth .

a reply to: ToneDeaf

QAnon much mate?

When will it bloody end?

That mob/family have been at the game for a about 1000 years, probably a lot longer, with the Queen and Crown Estate owning one-sixth of the land on the entire planet.

They are not going away anytime soon im afraid.