British politicians on monarchy “wouldn’t that be an appropriate time to call it a day”

Prince Andrew may have done significant damage to the British monarchy. His disastrous interview led to his brother Charles asking their mother Elizabeth to dump him from royal duties. British politicians are suggesting that once the Queen’s reign ends maybe all royal duties could be dumped.

Daily Express: End the monarchy? SNP Sturgeon demands talk on Royal Family future after Prince Andrew row

The Royal Family has been caught up in the furore surrounding Prince Andrew’s car crash BBC interview over his relationship with the disgraced US financier Jeffrey Epstein. In the biggest crisis the Queen has faced since the death of Princess Diana, some are now calling for a national debate over the monarchy’s future. Jeremy Corbyn has led the way with calls to rid the UK of its Royal tradition, saying that he would create a Head of State to replace the Queen.

In an interview with GMTV, Mr Corbyn said: “I think it’s time that we just moved on and said, when the Queen completes her reign, wouldn’t that be an appropriate time to call it a day and have an elected Head of State.”

And now it seems that Nicola Sturgeon has lent her support to Mr Corbyn’s republican agenda.

In an interview on ITV News At Ten on Thursday, the SNP leader argued that it was time to have a debate over the role of the monarchy.

When asked whether the Prince Andrew affair made her consider whether the monarchy is fit for purpose, she replied: “I think it raises a number of questions.

It’s most unlikely anything will happen (beyond whittling down the hangers on like Andrew) while Elizabeth remains queen, but if party leaders in the UK are openly questioning the monarchy, or saying it should end in the next decade or so, then it must have just about done it’s dash.

There’s even less need for the monarchy here on the other side of the world. It really isn’t relevant to us in Aotearoa, apart from providing a bit of hob nobbing and rubbing shoulders with royal celebrities for some of our politicians.

Prince Charles has just visited and that was very low key. I think that most of us just didn’t care.

It would be simple for us to become independent of a ruling system that hasn’t ruled for a long time, here or in Britain. We could keep something like the Governor General here, maybe renamed, for some official signing stuff and a token check on the power of politicians, but we wouldn’t need much.

I don’t think we need a president, or anything called a president. That would imply some sort of power that they shouldn’t have.

I doubt our politicians would have the gumption to drop the monarchy. Jacinda Ardern seems to like the hob nobbing. Simon Bridges seems quite conservative so I doubt he would do anything semi-radical on the monarchy.

But it could be forced on us if Britain separates it’s governance from the monarchy. If they do that it would be more ridiculous than it is now to maintain a connection that has no relevance to modern New Zealand.  they Queen hasn’t been here for yonks and won’t be back.  Princes come and shake a few hands every few years but I’m sure we could manage without that sort of poncing.

“Prince Andrew is toast”

A monarchist writes:

Prince Andrew is toast. I don’t know the proper Latin phrase for the constitutional hole he’s dug for himself but it’s wide, deep and a stinker.

He is damned irrespective of the veracity of the allegations against him. The story’s delicious timing, juicy headline and his shocking judgment all operate in concert to condemn him, at best, as an irresponsible fool.

The story broke over the New Year, a traditional dead time for news. There is nothing to beat copy that headlines “sex slave”, “underage” and “Prince”. It was guaranteed to run, and run big.

Only a skeleton crew of Buckingham Palace spin doctors were on duty. The Duke was holidaying with his family.

The story began slowly, with mention of the Prince in court documents in a hitherto unheard of legal action in the United States, but quickly deepened to embroil and ensnare him. The initial Palace response has proven shallow and flimsy. The advice now is not to add to the story but, too late: it’s up and running under its own steam.

It’s a hard hit. The allegations are deadly serious and the accompanying facts alone slice and dice him.

From Yorker bowls the prince

The meddling (to be) King and Air Miles Andy

Prince Charles is next in line to the British throne. Prince Andrew could also be king.

David Farrar has posted about The meddling (to be) King Charles (metcalph points out he’s repeatedly announced his attention to be King George VII, not Charles III) linking to this in the Guardian:

The future Charles III expects to be heeded, not scrutinised, and above all he expects to intervene in politics with a regularity and partisanship his mother never dared imitate or, as far as we know, ever wanted to imitate either.

There’s no secret. His aides have announced that King Charles will “reshape the monarch’s role” and make “heartfelt interventions”. I can’t see him moderating his stance when his mother dies. He’s 66 and has waited for the throne all his life.

Unlike Prince Andrew, he can move out of the gossip columns and into the history books. Old men in a hurry don’t change when a prize like that is in sight. More to the point, no one is making him change.

A by no means exhaustive list of his political interventions includes: health – he forced ministers to listen to his gormless support for homeopathic treatments and every other variety of charlatanism and quackery; defence – he protested against cuts in the armed forces; justice – he complained about ordinary people’s access to law, or as he put it:

“I dread the very real and growing prospect of an American-style personal injury culture”; political correctness – he opposes equality as I suppose a true royal must; GM foods – he thinks they’re dangerous, regardless of evidence; modern architecture – he’s against; and eco-towns – he’s for, as long as he has a say in their design.

.Farrar responds:

Charles could well live to be 100, so might be King of New Zealand until 2050 or so, unless we decide to make a change.

I don’t know if a future king of England could meddle in New Zealand law or policies but it should never be allowed to happen. The monarchy is past it’s Use By date for us.

Charlie’s brother isn’t doing the image of the monarchy much good either. Andy (I won’t add a rhyming word) has left a skiing holiday in Switzerland amidst some more very embarrassing publicity. Some claims are unproven but he has proven links to the young claimant and his continued association with a convicted sex offender doesn’t look very flash.

Prince Andrew’s friendship with disgraced billionaire Jeffrey Epstein was once characterised by lavish parties and exotic holidays. But now it’s dragging the Prince into a sex scandal that threatens to once again raise uncomfortable questions about the Duke of York’s association with the convicted sex offender.

The pair have known each other for at least 15 years. Andrew maintained an association with Epstein even after Epstein became a convicted sex offender.

http://www.businessinsider.com.au/facts-about-prince-andrew-and-jeffrey-epsteins-relationships-2015-1

And Prince Andrew tells Queen: I’m innocent, as he flies back for crisis talks with his mother – not innocent of impressions of a sleazy life of privilege.

We have no need for ‘Air Miles Andy’ and meddling Charlie in modern New Zealand.

How long after Liz’s funeral should we wait before we cut our royal ties? Should we be preparing beforehand?