Yesterday, The Guardian newspaper overturned a High Court injuction that prevented Prince Charles' former right-hand-man, Michael Fawcett, being named as the person who obtained a pre-emptive gagging order over another newspaper, the Mail on Sunday. (Source)

The Mail on Sunday had been planning to publish accusations levelled against Mr Fawcett by another ex-courtier to Prince Charles, but apparently, Mr Fawcett - by then a private citizen acting on his own behalf - rang a High Court judge on his car phone as soon as he (Fawcett) found out about the story, and got an injunction against publication on the grounds that it was probably libellous. This is highly unusual, even with relatively stringent British libel laws (to which, as a British citizen writing in Britain, I have to consider myself subject, even here, so please forgive me if I'm more than usually circumspect).

It is far more usual to wait until the newspaper goes to press, and then sue for libel based on what is published - the principle of "publish and be damned". But, the logic goes, the nature of the allegations are so serious that the delicate ears of the British public must be protected, lest they lose the remaining vestiges of their faith in the institution of the monarchy. (I wish.)

Then, last night, a few hours after the Guardian's court victory, Prince Charles' spokesman Sir Michael Peat made a formal public statement denying the Prince's involvement in the (as yet unspoken) allegations against him, part of the same man's story. (Source

That story, as far as I've been able to piece it together from what is in the public domain in the UK, plus some international Googling, is that Diana's former butler Paul Burrell got hold of a tape recording made by a former servant of Prince Charles.

This servant (I'm not supposed to know his name, but if someone else would do Google the words "Paul Burrell tape sex scandal" for me and post links here, I will have complied with the letter of our rather asinine laws) alleges, without corroboration, that he stumbled across an unnamed member of the Royal family engaged in a sex act with another of his servants, and that this second unnamed servant raped the first one (the one making the allegations on the mysterious tape). I don't know which event is supposed to have happened first, but if one or both are untrue, they are certainly libellous, and if the second is true, anyone involved in a cover up must surely be guilty of criminal conspiracy at the very least.

Supposedly Diana herself made the tape, the existence of which is not in question by anyone, even though it has not yet become public, and she allegedly believed that the allegations contained in it could "bring down the monarchy". Also allegedly, her belief that Charles would never be king was motivated by the accusations on the tape as much as any abiding dislike of her ex-husband.

Burrell had been keen to keep it secret, but the Royals didn't want to risk exposure, and initiated a prosecution for theft against Burrell. This removed any remaining pro-Royal sentiments Burrell had, helped by the huge sums on offer for publication of his memoirs, and he decided to write a book that indicated where the metaphorical bodies were buried. In reply, the Princes William and Harry demonstrated they really are the children of Chuck and Di ,by issuing a press statement condeming Burrell and claiming ownership of their mother's legacy for themselves. Clear so far? You couldn't make it up.

Coincidentally, last night on British TV, a documentary was shown about the younger brother of King George VI and Edward VIII, who was revealed to have been promiscuously bisexual, having affairs with many actors and actresses, including Noel Cowerd. So it's not as if there is no precedent for a Royal to swing both ways, as it were.

In effect, Prince Charles has publicly denied an allegation that has not actually been made yet - a ridiculous situation. Our media is tying itself in knots trying to cover a story of legitimate public interest - the alleged cover-up of an alleged male rape must fall into that category, even speculations on the sexual behaviour of the future king may not - without being able to mention either the people allegedly involved or the alleged activites that have allegedly taken place. (I'm doing some fairly complex verbal yoga myself, as you can tell.)

Now, allegations of same sex relationships among the current generation of Royalty is nothing new (or interesting) - Prince Edward, TV producer and name-dropper extraordinaire, had lots of "gay slurs" during his bachelor years, and even after them. Nor, any more, is homosexuality anything like as frowned upon as it used to be. Arguably, an "out" homosexual in the Royal Family might be a sign that they inhabit the 20th century, if not the 21st. But in the peculiar world that they inhabit, with its links to history and religion, such ideas must not be entertained lest the majesty of royalty be lessened.

I've been a republican (i.e I'm for Britain becoming a republic with an elected president) as long as I can remember, but it seems to me that republicanism is becoming the only thing that can save the Windsor family from themselves.

Added to that, the way that they have manipulated the press and the judiciary indicates to me that they not only still have too much real power, but that they are desperate enough to use it. Both of which has serious implications for the quality of British democracy.

Our politicians are forced into silence by the oath of allegiance that they have to take on taking office (Sinn Fein's absence from Westminster is only because they refuse to swear allegiance to a monarchy they want to be separated from). Our media are either gagged or mealy-mouthed for fear of being gagged, or even imprisoned.

I would forgive Americans if they thought the whole situation is a laughable demonstration of the downside to monarchy and limited free speech, because that's what I think too.

Apart from protecting myself by posting on a USA-based site, I'd be genuinely interested to hear the views of anyone not blinded by pro- or anti- monarchist sentiments, who are normally the most vocal in British debates on the royal family.

QUESTION FOR DEBATE:
Is the British monarchy a busted flush? What purpose does it serve?
Supplementary questions:
What steps can they take to get themselves out of this mess? Should they even try, or just bow out gracefully?

It looks to me like Britain's freedom of speech laws need to be overhauled.

Less importantly, it appears that the Charles/Diana saga is playing itself out and, because of his many indiscretions and the attraction of notoriety and wealth to his erstwhile servants, Charles is bringing down the monarchy singlehandedly. It's hard to remain when one is the object of continued ridicule.

Mama is undoubtedly not amused.

I believe that this link has the information that you were unable to reveal.

Burrell implicated in gay sex allegations

This is better than Jerry Springer.

Admittedly, I know very little about the way in which the British government is set up, so indulge me for a moment, if you will. Does the royal family actually have any power when it comes to running the country?

Thanks Cyan, but that's not the half of it.

The rumours now seem to be saying that George Smith claims to have been raped by a senior aide to Prince Charles, a report that was blocked from publication, we now know, by Micahel Fawcett (a former senior aide to Prince Charles). The mysterious tape referred to in your posted link is also rumoured to contain allegations that Smith saw an unnamed senior royal engaged in a homosexual act with the same senior royal aide. Coincidentally Prince Charles has issued a formal denial, even though no formal complaint has been made, at least not in the UK.

His defence seems to be that he says he didn't do it (the unnamed sex act with the unnamed courtier), that the person making the unknown accusation is an unreliable witness who has suffered from post-traumatic stress disorder (he is a veteran of the Falklands War) and alcoholism in the past, and that anyone who knows the prince would know this was an absurd accusation.

If may well be false, and it will never be properly investigated because a homosexual act between two grown men in a private residence is not illegal. But it will not be false simply because Chuck, says so, is a nice guy, and his accuser (although we are STILL being told nothing about what, exactly, Charles is being accused of) is a weakened personality.

A PR and media relations expert, Max Clifford, has said he thinks the denial was a mistake because what was a rumour known to a few hundred people in the media village has know reached the awareness of millions. I have to say that I agree with him on that one.

One your second point, the royal family themselves have little real power. About the only thing that the monarch decides for themselves that has any political significance is the decision to dissolve parliament and appoint a Prime Minister (i.e. to call a General Election), and in practice, if they were to do that on a whim by appointing someone other than the elected leader of the winning party, or dissolving parliament at a time other than that chosen by the government of the day, they would soon find themselves shorn of that power.

To that extent, the powers of modern British monarchs are not much different from those of an apolitical President, such as those common through several smaller European nations, for example Ireland. If it were up to me, I would change our system to match that.

The USA's form of Presidency casts a long shadow, so that all opponents of monarchical abolition in the UK have to say is "imagine a President Thatcher" or "Imagine a President Blair" to strike abolitionists dumb, but that isn't the point. The point is, if we get rid of the royals and have an elected leader, we can decide for ourselves what should qualify or disqualify aspiring British presidents. One criterion I would specify is the lifelong absence of policital party membership. Indeed, I think about the best qualified person to become an apolitical President is a Mr C Windsor of Gloucestershire and Westminster.

From a political and constitutional standpoint, though, the existance of the monarchy gives a Prime Minister many powers through the "royal prerogative", removing the need to consult parliament on many issues, such as the appointment of cabinet ministers, declarations of war, and so on.

Lastly, I think that the modern royals current rash of former courtiers cashing in by selling their stories indicates one urgent and pressing action that all the royals should immediately take - learn to iron your own shirts!

Remember, the last years of Princess Margaret's life were a misery of pain and restricted mobility because she tried to run a bath for herself, after a lifetime of having some flunky do it for her. She didn't know that the water in the hot tap comes out hot enough to scald, so sat herself down in almost boiling water. A Family that contains adult women that have been so cosseted their entire life that they are dangers to themselves if left alone is not an appopriate role model for 21st century Britain, or anywhere else.

They should all be gotten rid of. Cut from the state system and left to fend for themselves, just as the nobility were.

The same goes for the Danish royals. I don't quite understand what they are supposed to do for the nation, but what ever it is, if it takes money away from the poor to feed them, then its not worth it.

We have museums, books and the Discovery channel for history so we don't need to be paying a family of parasites for it!

As for the president thing, well, the EU will have its own president, so why bother forking out a boat load of cash for a domestic president. We have the Folketing (parliment) with it single chamber, and the PM to run the nation... what do we need a domestic president for?

I think as long as the post is PURELY symbolic and they cut off thier funds, so they have to wisely invest what they got, I think that monarchies are good for the european countries that have them. The US is always trying to make up for this, since we are a basically European culture, and having an established monarchy with no real power creates a national identity and outlet for this need.

But the monarch exists as the head of state of a country. Symbolic or not, surely in a modern democracy, the general public should be able to freely choose their own head of state, whether or not they have power.....

Plus its a little annoying to be a subject of the United Kingdom rather than a citizen thereof!

I think the royal family is obsolete obviously as a political institution, BUT for diplomatic measures they are still useful. I think though, that they should have their apron strings cut and should be alot more accountable and self sufficient.

what is their purpose?

I've always wondered about the fascination these people hold for anyone. Are they "good-will" embassadors? do they have a hand in govt policy? what function DO they serve?

I find I think of the "Royals" as living museum pieces, on display. what is the point in perserving them? Blue Bloods, Untouchables and the Bristish "caste" system. Are they due any more respect and consideration just because of dna, than anyone else in the UK?

as far as "the scandal," my God, is there a good reason to care?

The Monarch acts as the Head of State, CinC of the Armed Forces, Head of the Anglican Church and has the power to dissolve parliament. The Monarch is also immune to prosecution under British law (and is granted diplomatic immunity everywhere else). For a list of British monarchical powers, see:

http://www.royal.gov.uk/

(thats their website)

The idea is that ultimate power in Britain does not belong to any one political party, but to someone who is concerned purely with what is good for the British people. There was a similar rationale behind the old House of Lords - that is, stability and democracy is ensured by having elements of government that do not have to answer to public opinion (mob rule).

If the prime minister had control over the armed forces, he may choose to take over the country using the army and rescind elections.

Nowadays these are generally regarded as purely symbolic duties - this however is not actually guaranteed - it is purely by custom that the monarch does not exercise their constitutional (in so far as Britain has a constitution) powers.

[QUOTE]The Monarch acts as the Head of State, CinC of the Armed Forces, [/QUOTE]
False, she is the Head of State, but Military deployment is at the bihest of Parliament. With Afghanistan, the Prime Ministers emergency powers allowed him to take acts of war without the consent of Parliament. The only role the Queen has within the Armed Forces is the figurative head, as with the rest of the country.
[QUOTE]Head of the Anglican Church [/QUOTE]
True. However, when Archbishop of Cantebury Rowan Williams was appointed, Number 10 vetted the candidates and gave the monarch a choice of two.
[QUOTE]and has the power to dissolve parliament.[/QUOTE]
False, According to Parliamentary convention, It is at the discression of the Prime Minister to call for dissolution of parliament. This was used well by Margaret Thatcher after the Fauklands War. She dissolved Parliament and called an election at the height of her popularity, after a prolongued period of unpopularity durring economic ressesion.
[QUOTE] The Monarch is also immune to prosecution under British law[/QUOTE]
According to the European law, no one person is above the law in any member state. The Queen may be prosecuted by european law, therfore British Law. Although the entire establishment would work on her legal case if ever there was on to exist.
[QUOTE](and is granted diplomatic immunity everywhere else). [/QUOTE]
This is at the bihest of the host nation. However, i doupt any contry would arest the Monarch, especialy the monarch of a powerfull nation with allies of even greater power.

To suggest that public opinion is Mob Rule is obsured. I encourage you to read Johnothan Freedlands 'Bring Home The Revolution'

[/QUOTE]There was a similar rationale behind the old House of Lords - that is, stability and democracy is ensured by having elements of government that do not have to answer to public opinion [QUOTE]
An unelected body with powers of legislation is not democrtic and does nothing to further the cause of Democracy. The policy of the Labour government to remove the Hireditary Peers from the house was very sound. Further accountablity between the people and their upper chamber isgreatly welcomed.
America have achived a vibrant representative democracy whilst still retaining the elements of experience and specialist knowlege that the lords posses.

[/QUOTE]Plus its a little annoying to be a subject of the United Kingdom rather than a citizen thereof! [QUOTE]
Check your passport. You are a British Citizen and not a subject. Membership of the EU and a signature of the European declaration of Human Rights ensures an individuals citizenship. Hence the 'citizen' passport.

A simple fact to face is that I, a simple UK citizen cannot become the head of state of my country. A privelage that a few gain, but all are entitled to in the US. (Par non-American born. And dont change it, i dont fancy Arnie as a President, then we realy will have a hawk in the White House)

But you americans, dont think you have it all great. The logrolling that goes on in congress is amazing. The Senate is based and works on a system of favours. You scratch my back and give my state money, and ill scratch yours and give your state money.
The power of Political Action Commitees is also asstounding.
For a post that critisises the old school style Monarchy and its archaicism, your second ammendment is an even worse case.
The right to arms was for defence against the british at the time. Its need is no longer there, therfore it is irrelavent and the NRA should shut up and give up. Homicide rates from gun crime is highest in the US per capita than anywere else in the world.
Again, watch Bowling for Columbine and read Johnothan Freedlands 'Bring Home The Revolution'

Before we complain about each others archaisms, we need to get rid of our own.

P.S. Archaisms, Electoral College! Gave Bush the presidency. Al Gore won by popular vote. The democraticaly elected President was barred from presidency because of some deals made with his Brother the govenor in Florida, his cousin the Director of the company brought in for the recount and the electoral college, a peice of archaism origionaly used to keep undesirables out of the White House, because the Framers of the constitution thought too highly of themselfs.


EDITED BY UKPeter = Quotes didnt work!

How is the second amendment worse? Freedom to own a gun is a bad thing? The right to protect yourself is archaic? I don't think so. In this country the NRA has the RIGHT to it's ideals and is HARDLY irrelevant in what it's trying to protect our citizens from happening. I hope they NEVER shut up and NEVER give up. It would be the end of America as I know it, the day the second amendment is overturned or voided. Bowling for Columbine is a filth of a film that purposely misconstrued the NRA, responsible gun owners and the plight of what some call "gun control" in this nation. I believe in gun control, to an extent, but to rid ourselves of the right to bear arms as citizens would be an injustice.

we will have to totaly dissagree on this point.
A gun is still a gun regardless of who is holding it or who fights for others to hold them.
If there were responcable gun owners in America, tragedies like Columbine would never have happened. Thousands and thousands of people wouldnet die by the bullet.
Aside from the actual gun killing someone, how else do you explain the phenominon that America holds a monopoly on?

Racial tension?
Britain has buckets of that, but we dont have guns, nor do we have an incredable death per capita by the bullet.

Its like kids and candy. We know they like it, it tastes good. But eventualy it will rot youyr teeth and cause all kinds of problems. America has the gun, it causes deaths by the thoudand by the day. Whats the simple answer? Take away the candy.

Why cause more crime with the existance of guns?
Whats a guy robbimg a conveniance store without a gun gonna do?

Its a warped sence of security if anyone thinks owning a gun solves the problem of crime. It creates crime, panic, fear and terrable avoidable deaths.

I will stop here, this topic is way off. My apologies for leading the diversion. If you wish to disscus further, please do so over PM, i welcome it.
Alternatly I can give you my home adress, im certain the NRA would love to talk to me....

Fair points well made BJ, and in response to an aside which might not be too relevant. But you are off topic yourself, as I'm sure you know. I can't speak for UKPeter, but I think he was just saying that, to British eyes, the right to bear arms often seems as irrelevant as the British Monarchy does to Americans (and many Brits, myself included).

On the "C-in-C of armed forces" issue, sure, the powers of command vested in the monarch are largely honorary.

However I would be more comfortable if our armed forces, not to mention parliamentarians, swore allegience to Country and People rather than Queen and Country (God and Queen in the case of MPs - as an atheist republican it's one of the reasons I would never want to stand for office). One specifically includes the native populations of the UK, and the other could quite easily be interpreted to exclude us (if defence of "country" represents protection of territorial integrity alone, for example).

So let me get this straight. Not just any Joe Blow can attain the position of PM in Great Britain? Do you have to become a knight or be from a predominant family? I'm being serious.

On the Royal Family's official website it has barely a paragraph of Princess Diana...

http://www.royal.gov.uk/output/Page461.asp

and that's it. One little picture of her with her kids. I think it shows right there how out of touch the Royals are with reality and with the mood of the world concerning their image.

As we have allready established, the Monarch is the Head of State and not the Prime Minister, however unjust that may be.

As for the Diana issue, why should the Royal website feature someone who no longer was a member of the royal Family?
That website is about HRH Queen Elizabeth the Second and not her sons departed wife.
Im certain that there are hundreds of pro-Diana websites that slate the Queen. Its a battleground.
As for keeping in touch with the Modern World, well again, why do they need to. She is the Head of State and should act in a proper fashion. I would not like it one bit if she were a hippy, smoking grass and listening to Eminem, traits that the current public seem to favour, Just as much as you would not want to see GW Bush Drink Smoke and Drunk Drive whilst relying on the Christian right to support his campaign (In reference to another post in 'Elections 2004'.

If she were reqired to keep 'in touch', then im certain she would. But all that is ever asked from the Monarchy is to look good, open stuff, be nice and show your faces. Why do they need to be in touch if in touch is not what they have been asked to do.

She would however, have ben queen if she had lived. The Major government saw that during the divorce, a clause could be iserted guaranteeing her right as Queen.

However, i do feel that far too many people place great emphasis on and distort the Diana message and her tragic death. We need to do what i hope the Royal Lads have done, that is let go, and get on with it. Its not much use crying for the rest of our lives, just learn, respect and move on instead of living forever in that terrable moment...

I'm not saying that the Queen needs to be a freak. Just in the same sense that I wouldn't want the President to be one. Geesh!

What I mean is that I know of Brits who have complained the Royals are aloof from the citizens. They're out of touch with the PEOPLE on a personal level. What's the point of a monarch in todays society if they can't relate to the issues and their subjects. I would hate to live in a country where I am of a lesser standing or a second class citizen to another. An antiquated family that's above the law for no better reason then because of tradition? Please. They hold no true power and drain the citizens of England of money and resources. What do they give back? Yes a sense of heritage, but at the expense of the economy and democracy.

Edited to add: Why shouldn't Diana have her own page on the Royals offical site? She IS the mother of the future King, isn't she?

UK Peter, The positions held by the monarchy that I mentioned are those held by the monarch according to what passes as a constitution. They are decorative, but only because previous monarchs have (unofficially) given up certain perogatives. Britain works primarily through tradition, rather than anything bound by law.

The Queen is the Chief of the Armed Forces and the top of the chain of command. She grants the prime minister permission to use the armed forces, but officially she is the chief.

She is also exempt from EU law, as she isn't an official citizen of any EU country. (suprising but true). In any case, EU law is only carried out in Britain because Parliament ratifies it and it becomes British law, so the Queen would still be exempt.

Legally we are subjects, that it says you are a citizen on your passport isn't quite the same thing. The letter of the law names Britons as subjects. We are citizens of the EU, but that is beside the point.

As with the military, the Prime Minister has the discretion to ask the Queen to dissolve parliament. She doesn't have to, but as not doing so would probably cause the removal of the monarchy, she always has. That is not the same as the PM having the authority to do so. The PM has the authority to ask.

And my comment is correct (although I may have phrased it in a rather tongue-in-cheek manner). The removal of hereditary peers is one of the most welcome developments in the UK of modern times (IMHO).

Democracy in Britian has evolved (slowly) out of some extremely non-democratic systems, the HoL was not originally intended to be remotely democratic. As the name suggests, it was put in place to protect the interests of nobility. It's role then changed to one of preventing overly populist changes being made, which is eactly the same rationale behind the upper house in the US system. The evolution of democracy in Britain has worked because the interests of different powerful groups have been accomodated through institutions and they have not had to attack the system to ensure that their interests are catered for. It works, but you do end up with a system that can seem to be somewhat undemocratic at times. Its value lies in pragmatism.

Anyway, getting besides the point. It is shocking that we cannot elect a head of state, I quite agree, however I do like the idea of seperating official power (that the Queen has) and (err) actual power (that the PM has).

The monarchy works well enough and would be a major pain to replace. The Queen may well be aloof, but that is the way that people prefered the monarch to act when she became Queen. That this has changed over the last 10 years may well change Charles and Williams behaviour as Kings to reflect public opinioin.

Several people on these boards have commented on how the British Monarchy should be 'Cut off from their funds' or some such.

In fact, the Monarchy is a HUGE net earner for the British State. The family holdings of the Royal family are quite significant, parts of London and large valuable parts of the country. These are private holdings, belonging to the family.

This Royal Estate earns about 140 million pounds stirling a year (or it did in 2002) in rent and sundries in PROFIT, that is over and above the expenses of the monarchy itself. This 140 million pounds per annum was donated in its entirety to the Exchequer for use by the government.

If the UK were to abolish to post of Monarchy, I am pretty sure the Royal family would stop donating all its profits to the state, and happily walk away enormously richer.

But it does not stop there. The Royal family charges rent on its lands of slightly below the general average, apparently they feel as Monarchs they cannot charge full price in rent to British citizens in good concience. Removed from their posts I suspect a significant rent increase would also be in order.

I think you're mixing up the Crown Estate (the lands owned by the "monarchy") with the "royal estate" the lands owned privately by the Windsor family.

All the profits of the Crown Estates go to the exchequer, since it is in effect owned by the state. The royal families private revenues mostly go to themselves. It is only comparatively recently that the immediate royal family was persuaded to pay anything at all to the Exchequer in taxes, and even then, they do not pay the applicable rate (40% - the Queen pays somehting closer to the base rate of 22%).

So if they were no longer monarchs with a special case to plead, they would actually be legally obliged to pay rather more of their estate revenues to the exchequer in income tax, without considering the substantial obligations they would face in inheritance tax.

If they are viewed as senior public servants this is unacceptable exceptionalism. If, however, they are viewed as the personaification of the state itself (the traditional monarchist view), they should not pay any tax, since they are in effect paying it to themselves. The very fact that the Queen pays tax at all indicates she accepts that this is no longer a tenable position.

Additionally, no tax is paid on the civil list payments made to her (under the same agreement, she gets all the civil list payments and distributes it among her family, in return for the tax deak). Which undermines the idea that she is a civil servant, since they all pay tax on their incomes even though they are paid by the state.

Besides, even if your case is correct, £140million is not too hard to imagine being raised in tourist revenues from the all-year-round universal public access to the state-owned royal palaces (i.e. all of them except Balmoral and Sandringham).

And, just as an aside, the royals only pay their limited contribution to the public coffers they so freely dip into inside the United Kingdom. Canadians, for example, don't see a panny of it.

On the thread topic itself, it looks like Charles media strategy has indeed won the battle - aside from slipping another notch down in the public estimation, he has managed to survive the scandal over alleged butler buggery (not least because it was so far-fetched to start with).

As has been pointed out by another poster, the Crown Estate is not the personal property of the Windsor family. Its legal position that of a corporate sole. Elizabeth Windsor merely acts as the agent for the transfer to the executive branch government the income from a totally separate legal entity - the Crown. The queen incurs absolutely no financial loss in this transfer process. As for being a net earner for Britain, the reverse is in fact the case. The annual costs for maintaining the Royal Family are astronomical compared to our closest European neighbours and their impact on tourism is negligible.



If good conscience is a watchword of the Windsor family, then perhaps they should review the bona vacantia and bastardy funds. According to her accountants, the fund did "surprisingly well" as a result of the deaths of widows of soldiers who were killed in the second world war. Its seems their conscience will allow them to quite happily take money from the estate of those who died to defend this country in the war.