Sky News contributor Sophie Elsworth says it has been reported Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor is forcing his very few staff to address him still as “sir,” despit...
Firstly, I don’t think his position made him a monster. I absolutely think it made it easier to become one, but there are plenty of opportunistic pedophiles who aren’t princes. In fact I don’t think it’s a far stretch to say the vast majority aren’t princes
Secondly, correct me if I’m wrong but hasn’t the majority of his privilege been stripped from him? Yeah, he can still visit royal places and such, but doesn’t he have about the same “power” as an in law or something?
There’s also the question of if the monarchy enabled his actions. Though, again I admit they may not have done enough after learning of his actions.
As a Canadian who never really paid attention to British royalty, this feels a lot like blaming a family for one member committing a mass murder. But that could just be a lack of understanding on my part.
That’s a good point, though powerful people do seem more likely to be a monster, to not see other people as people. Bring a members of the royal family is just one way in which one can be a powerful person. But certainly the way Virginia talked about prince Andrew was that he saw being a monster as his birthright.
I don’t know what majority of his privilege means…he’s still living a luxurious life on his estate with servants. That seems like a pretty extreme level of privilege to me…maybe privilege no human being should have, but certainly not just for being born into a family of historical mass murderers, and certainly not for being a pedophile. Until prince andrew is treated the same as any other person, I will not believe that he is not getting special treatment on account of his royal status.
I am an immigrant to Canada and I cannot understand how “chill” everyone here is about the monarchy. Is it not clearly an irredeemably evil institution? I really don’t get it.
Folks say they have no real power here but that’s definitely untrue, and even if it were (and again…it’s really not)…we should still sever ties, if nothing else to show that we don’t endorse what the royal family has done!
I, no joke, would rather Canada declare Justin Bieber king of Canada than leave it with the British royal family. Obviously we shouldn’t have a king, but we could at least pick a Canadian I guess. Anyone would be better.
Everyone says this, because so far the monarchy has generally done what parliament asks in terms of, for example, appointing a prime minister, appointing senators, etc. Except there was the “King-Byng affair” in which the crown refused to exercise its constitutional power at the behest of the elected government. Now in retrospect, that may have been for the best…but that absolutely should resolve anyone’s question that the monarchy “has zero power in Canada.” People generally remember this as the crown “saving us from ourselves” …I don’t have any strong feelings about that, as long as we recognize that it had the power to do something and still does. I think it shouldn’t have power…if someone else wants to say it should at least we can talk about that…but when we pretend that the monarchy has no power we have to talk about that first.
But ask Australians…they had no interference from the monarchy in their democracy until their “1975 constitutional crisis,” in which the people voted for a prime minister (some evil socialist who did crazy dangerous tankie things like bring in universal healthcare and pull out of the war in Vietnam…practically stalin), the queen then dismissed him, dissolved parliament, and appointed the liberal party leader as her new prime minister, and told them to have a new election.
Legally, Canada is in the exact same position as Australia was at that time. The only real differences are: (a) another 50 years of the monarchy not going rogue and fucking with democracy, but also (b) precedent of the monarchy going rogue and fucking with democracy and getting away with it.
I’m a lawyer, and it blows me away that lawyers here don’t know this stuff…like your whole government is built on a rug that could be pulled out from under you at any time! And look…if the monarchy tried to do something that was overwhelmingly unpopular, it would create a constitutional crisis, but I am sure we would get through it and get to the right result. Absurd to leave that risk on the table if you ask me, but fine… What worries me more is when the question is a bit more ambiguous…what happens if it’s not overwhelming? what happens if the country is split 60/40 on an issue, but many of the 60% are not willing to cause a constitutional crisis, and the monarchy is willing to push the less popular option? (I mean, we know what happens, that’s what happened in australia!).
The King-Byng affair was in a different time when the Governor General was someone from the UK. So British person overruling the Canadian Prime Minister was a big part of the controversy there.
Now that the Governor General is Canadian it’s kind of a nothing burger. A ceremonial position appointed by the PM. The Julie Payette situation was the only time there’s been any potential for anyone outside of the country might have to do something and that would’ve only been if Trudeau asked the Queen to fire her. But it didn’t come to that so whatever.
You’re a lawyer so you’re going to have a tendency to think about hypotheticals about things that aren’t codified into law. But right now we’re all witnessing the US that has all kinds of protections against these kinds of hypotheticals just ignore those laws. Hypothetically a US President couldn’t abuse power and be completely corrupt because he’d be impeached. The laws say so. But that isn’t happening.
It’s obvious now that the only protection against tyranny is the will of the people. If the King abused his position, we would remove the King from power. Unless we lacked the will to do that. If the King knows he’d be removed from his position if he abuses that position he won’t abuse his position since he doesn’t want to be the guy that ends the monarchy. Right now, no one in the US is being prosecuted for Epstein stuff despite their laws. The brother of the King is being prosecuted.
We see a republic where there’s basically an aristocracy that’s above the law and we see a monarchy where the King’s brother is being prosecuted. As a lawyer do you think evidence from the real world is stronger than hypotheticals?
Seems to me it doesn’t really matter what you put into the laws, if the will of the population is weak, the law will be ignored. In the end you have no choice but to trust the people when these hypotheticals arise.
Eh… I have mixed feelings on that.
Firstly, I don’t think his position made him a monster. I absolutely think it made it easier to become one, but there are plenty of opportunistic pedophiles who aren’t princes. In fact I don’t think it’s a far stretch to say the vast majority aren’t princes
Secondly, correct me if I’m wrong but hasn’t the majority of his privilege been stripped from him? Yeah, he can still visit royal places and such, but doesn’t he have about the same “power” as an in law or something?
There’s also the question of if the monarchy enabled his actions. Though, again I admit they may not have done enough after learning of his actions.
As a Canadian who never really paid attention to British royalty, this feels a lot like blaming a family for one member committing a mass murder. But that could just be a lack of understanding on my part.
That’s a good point, though powerful people do seem more likely to be a monster, to not see other people as people. Bring a members of the royal family is just one way in which one can be a powerful person. But certainly the way Virginia talked about prince Andrew was that he saw being a monster as his birthright.
I don’t know what majority of his privilege means…he’s still living a luxurious life on his estate with servants. That seems like a pretty extreme level of privilege to me…maybe privilege no human being should have, but certainly not just for being born into a family of historical mass murderers, and certainly not for being a pedophile. Until prince andrew is treated the same as any other person, I will not believe that he is not getting special treatment on account of his royal status.
I am an immigrant to Canada and I cannot understand how “chill” everyone here is about the monarchy. Is it not clearly an irredeemably evil institution? I really don’t get it.
Folks say they have no real power here but that’s definitely untrue, and even if it were (and again…it’s really not)…we should still sever ties, if nothing else to show that we don’t endorse what the royal family has done!
I, no joke, would rather Canada declare Justin Bieber king of Canada than leave it with the British royal family. Obviously we shouldn’t have a king, but we could at least pick a Canadian I guess. Anyone would be better.
I do want to point out, the British monarchy has zero power in Canada. Any status they have is purely symbolic.
Everyone says this, because so far the monarchy has generally done what parliament asks in terms of, for example, appointing a prime minister, appointing senators, etc. Except there was the “King-Byng affair” in which the crown refused to exercise its constitutional power at the behest of the elected government. Now in retrospect, that may have been for the best…but that absolutely should resolve anyone’s question that the monarchy “has zero power in Canada.” People generally remember this as the crown “saving us from ourselves” …I don’t have any strong feelings about that, as long as we recognize that it had the power to do something and still does. I think it shouldn’t have power…if someone else wants to say it should at least we can talk about that…but when we pretend that the monarchy has no power we have to talk about that first.
But ask Australians…they had no interference from the monarchy in their democracy until their “1975 constitutional crisis,” in which the people voted for a prime minister (some evil socialist who did crazy dangerous tankie things like bring in universal healthcare and pull out of the war in Vietnam…practically stalin), the queen then dismissed him, dissolved parliament, and appointed the liberal party leader as her new prime minister, and told them to have a new election.
Legally, Canada is in the exact same position as Australia was at that time. The only real differences are: (a) another 50 years of the monarchy not going rogue and fucking with democracy, but also (b) precedent of the monarchy going rogue and fucking with democracy and getting away with it.
I’m a lawyer, and it blows me away that lawyers here don’t know this stuff…like your whole government is built on a rug that could be pulled out from under you at any time! And look…if the monarchy tried to do something that was overwhelmingly unpopular, it would create a constitutional crisis, but I am sure we would get through it and get to the right result. Absurd to leave that risk on the table if you ask me, but fine… What worries me more is when the question is a bit more ambiguous…what happens if it’s not overwhelming? what happens if the country is split 60/40 on an issue, but many of the 60% are not willing to cause a constitutional crisis, and the monarchy is willing to push the less popular option? (I mean, we know what happens, that’s what happened in australia!).
The King-Byng affair was in a different time when the Governor General was someone from the UK. So British person overruling the Canadian Prime Minister was a big part of the controversy there.
Now that the Governor General is Canadian it’s kind of a nothing burger. A ceremonial position appointed by the PM. The Julie Payette situation was the only time there’s been any potential for anyone outside of the country might have to do something and that would’ve only been if Trudeau asked the Queen to fire her. But it didn’t come to that so whatever.
You’re a lawyer so you’re going to have a tendency to think about hypotheticals about things that aren’t codified into law. But right now we’re all witnessing the US that has all kinds of protections against these kinds of hypotheticals just ignore those laws. Hypothetically a US President couldn’t abuse power and be completely corrupt because he’d be impeached. The laws say so. But that isn’t happening.
It’s obvious now that the only protection against tyranny is the will of the people. If the King abused his position, we would remove the King from power. Unless we lacked the will to do that. If the King knows he’d be removed from his position if he abuses that position he won’t abuse his position since he doesn’t want to be the guy that ends the monarchy. Right now, no one in the US is being prosecuted for Epstein stuff despite their laws. The brother of the King is being prosecuted.
We see a republic where there’s basically an aristocracy that’s above the law and we see a monarchy where the King’s brother is being prosecuted. As a lawyer do you think evidence from the real world is stronger than hypotheticals?
Seems to me it doesn’t really matter what you put into the laws, if the will of the population is weak, the law will be ignored. In the end you have no choice but to trust the people when these hypotheticals arise.
Well when the family has a long history of mass murder…
It’s kind of their thing really lol