News Forum - King Charles III sacks 100 staff & employs brother, Prince Andrew

[mws]

It looks more like anti monarchists have infiltrated the staff I mean how the hell does a leaky pen get into the hands of the king when he's about to sign the most important document of the century? Definitely something fishy going on there. Staff should be investigated for that incident and fired if found negligent. God save the king!

[palooka]

33 minutes ago, Pinetree said:

On the contrary, I do, but not for expecting others to pay me to do nothing, or cover up my own inadequacies, or throw benefit money at me to sit on my ass doing nothing, or expect my company to act like a charity and keep me in a job that no longer exists, these are all very socialist  principles for which I have no sympathy at all.  I respect those who go through life and make their own way and not expect others to make it for them.  

Ironic, you just described the Royal Family.

[Marc26]

44 minutes ago, Pinetree said:

Could you operate as effectively as he is doing right now in his world, at this time, having lost both parents within 12 months,  I doubt any of us on here could. We are all the product of our own environment, upbringing, education and training, he is clearly doing his best and  so far, he is making a good fist of it 

His parents were in their 90's

It's not like they were sudden deaths

 

And it's not like he had a great personality in the 1st place

 

He obviously doesn't have the grace the Queen had

I doubt that will change but maybe he will grow into it, but again, I doubt it

 

I also think the Royal Family will be less significant since the Queen has passed, different times now.......

[Faz]

Members, please note that posts with any reference to 'monarchy', will automatically be held for manual approval by a moderator. Therefore, this means during the late evening and early morning hours of Thailand, posts may take several hours to be approved.

Admin.

[Mazz11]

7 hours ago, Marc26 said:

His parents were in their 90's

It's not like they were sudden deaths

And it's not like he had a great personality in the 1st place

He obviously doesn't have the grace the Queen had

I doubt that will change but maybe he will grow into it, but again, I doubt it

I also think the Royal Family will be less significant since the Queen has passed, different times now.......

I agree

Both of his parents outlived the average age by a long way.

Both of my parents are getting well into their twilight years and as a family we have all accepted that we are approaching the time that they will leave us.

Of course I will be upset when this happens but I will not be surprised and will rejoice in knowing that they both had a wonderful and fulfilling life.

Charles spitting his dummy in front of the world over a leaking pen is not a good look in self control coming from a head of state. I'm sure that the queen would have handled this situation in a much more refined manner. 

[Thommo]

16 hours ago, Mazz11 said:

I am Australian so that makes me a subject of the Commonwealth but I believe that there is no longer a need for Australia to be tied to the British monarchy.

The more foolish decisions made like this one will only reinforce my opinion as I'm sure it will do for many others as well.

agreed,  can't wait for the referendum 

[Fanta]

Some of the 100 staff were likely tasked with duties specifically for QEII and now are simply no longer required (the wet nurse to the Corgis, polisher of Lizzie’s bedpan, private secretaries etc) or surplus to requirements with one less family member. I feel a bit sorry for Charlie - lost his mum, started a new job, a few of his staff are idiots and then there is his brother…. 

[cockneyboy]

17 hours ago, ExpatPattaya said:

No he was not a pedophile.  In the United States, the most common age of consent is 16, which is a common age of consent in most other Western countries.  Germany is 14 years of age

Yes in England age of consent is 18, yet this girl/sex slave of Epstein and trafficked to Andrew was not British she was American/Australian .  So yes, if she was in England, she would be under age at 17

Andrew was charged with sexual abuse....basically rape, which is horrific as well, but no conviction

the age of sexual consent in the UK is 16, he was not charged with sexual assaults it was a civil complaint

[Richard61]

2 hours ago, cockneyboy said:

the age of sexual consent in the UK is 16, he was not charged with sexual assaults it was a civil complaint

The rape took place in New York where the age of consent is 18. 

[Cabra]

His mother just died. I have to cut him some slack for being a bit edgy. 

[lspab]

5 hours ago, Fanta said:

Some of the 100 staff were likely tasked with duties specifically for QEII and now are simply no longer required (the wet nurse to the Corgis, polisher of Lizzie’s bedpan, private secretaries etc) or surplus to requirements with one less family member. I feel a bit sorry for Charlie - lost his mum, started a new job, a few of his staff are idiots and then there is his brother…. 

Trivialities aside, correct However the news article is fake news, and the author admonished for misleading headlines.

No one is being sacked, ie. summarily dismissed from a job.

100 staff face redundancy, ie. their jobs no longer exist. They will be entitled to at least statutory redundancy payment. For redundancies of 100 or more, UK law requires a minimum 45 days notification. For 20 or more, there is collective consultation. If the process is not followed then the employer is liable to charges of unfair dismissal. Obviously this is an unusual situation in employment law.

I think it unlikely that the King had any hand in the timing of the letter to staff (note, no actual redundancy notices  have been sent; Sir Clive Alderton, the King's aide, sent out the letter. However, the notification period starts on monday). Those made redundant will received an "enhanced" package, plus will be offered the opportunity to apply for roles in the other Royal Households,as well as external roles. I think any applicant from Charles' household will be immediately top candidate for any Royal Household, because of their niche experience. How many other candidates will there be in the UK with recent experience of working for royalty AND have the necessary DV or SC clearance. Even the basic SC takes 28 days minimum to obtain, meaning candidates with in-date clearances have an automatic advantage (this is part of the reason Heathrow got in a mess; it let go air-side staff during lockdown, and now cannot get them back, and has a backlog of background checks to make before the candidates can start work).

Notably, the Prince of Wales, as he has inherited the Duchy of Cornwall, will no doubt have some new posts to fill.

The staff who end up being made redundant, without an alternative role, will be well looked after.

A point of correction; the civil allegation concerned "sexual assault", not "sexual abuse", let alone "rape".

The US definition is:

Quote

"The term “sexual assault” means any nonconsensual sexual act proscribed by Federal, tribal, or State law, including when the victim lacks capacity to consent."

Its a very broad brush. A mark of shame, no doubt.

In any case, the King has now power to personally appoint Counsellors in State. These are appointed in Law. Andrew cannot stop being the King's brother. Counsellors in State are the next 4 in line to the thrown, who are aged over 21, plus the Monarch's wife. The 2013 Succession to the Crown Act abolished, rightfully, male royal primogeniture, however, it only applies to those born after October 2011. Any possible practical role that Andrew has will be very fleeting. How likely is it that Camilla, William and Harry will be unavailable to stand in for Charles over the next 12 years? From 2034, Prince George will be added to the list, and Andrew ceases to be a Counsellor in State. Counsellors in State have a very narrow set of duties; nothing Constitutional, unless there is express written consent from the Sovereign. In practice, I expect the Prince of Wales wiill be rather busy. King Charles will likely take a higher than expected number of overseas trips for a man of his age, as he connects with countries who want to retain him as their new Head of State.

Only Parliament can change the rules concerning Counsellors in State.

 

[IanL]

Don't believe what you read here.  No such news in the UK - no elevation of Andrew to councillor (nor Beatrice, because Edward and Anne are missing from your list). This is the second appallingly biased anti-UKmonarchy article I've read on Thaiger.  Why have you taken this stance, especially at this sensitive time for UK citizens?  Such disrespect.  Maybe I and many others will reconsider our plans to visit Thailand soon.

[palooka]

13 hours ago, Mazz11 said:

I'm sure that the queen would have handled this situation in a much more refined manner. 

She was always a lady ( in the true sense of the word) first and foremost.  Sadly a rare breed these days.

[palooka]

10 hours ago, Fanta said:

polisher of Lizzie’s bedpan

Requires minimum 3 to do this job.

One empties said bedpan, another washes said bedpan, 3rd polishes said bedpan.

Surely there is a need for Chucky to have a 4th to PRE polish said bedpan.

One job saved.

All well and good until you go home at night and the little one says they have a "show and tell" at school tomorrow , subject - "what dad does at work?"

[Marc26]

3 hours ago, IanL said:

Don't believe what you read here.  No such news in the UK - no elevation of Andrew to councillor (nor Beatrice, because Edward and Anne are missing from your list). This is the second appallingly biased anti-UKmonarchy article I've read on Thaiger.  Why have you taken this stance, especially at this sensitive time for UK citizens?  Such disrespect.  Maybe I and many others will reconsider our plans to visit Thailand soon.

Please, you Brits are the biggest culprits of ragging on any and everyone 

 

So getting your panties in a bunch over rightful criticism is a bit rich 

[Vigo]

On 9/15/2022 at 9:27 PM, Marc26 said:

He comes off as a bizarre jerk(weirdo) who can't function outside his weird Royal Family cocoon

And yet he was decades ahead of the trendies when he advocated organic farming and was opposed to "New" architecture that gave us soulless concrete and glass monstrosities.

[Vigo]

In respect to the staff redundancies, nothing unusual there and they were expected and even welcomed by some employees who had stayed on past their retirement qualification age. Why the surprise?  The notices were required to be given under the UK employment laws. Any employee in good standing who wants a job elsewhere within the Royal staff will be given the opportunity since there are a significant number of open positions. In preparation of the changes, there had been a hiring freeze except for critical positions.  It is also expected that many of the older workers will take the retirement packages that will be provided. Some of the workers are also subject to additional pensions.  as they are military veterans or had been serving government employees. 

[Marc26]

7 hours ago, Vigo said:

And yet he was decades ahead of the trendies when he advocated organic farming and was opposed to "New" architecture that gave us soulless concrete and glass monstrosities.

What does that have to do with his manner and personality?

 

 

[Manu]

On 9/15/2022 at 6:31 AM, Pinetree said:

Why should there be?  He is quite rightly  slimming down the Monarchy, so staff have to go, just like in any business when it slims down.  They are not entitled to a job for life. 

So the Monarchy is a business "like any business"? A business "like any business" funded by taxpayers? And I of course, as a taxpayer in the UK, have no say to that? Amazing when I hear / read someone giving a definition of capitalism, every single time it seems to me that something is not right with it.

[cockneyboy]

10 minutes ago, Manu said:

So the Monarchy is a business "like any business"? A business "like any business" funded by taxpayers? And I of course, as a taxpayer in the UK, have no say to that? Amazing when I hear / read someone giving a definition of capitalism, every single time it seems to me that something is not right with it.

you don't have any say in any government business that is funded by the tax payer, but you can vote for who you want in power, but whoever you vote for the government get in.

[Manu]

5 minutes ago, cockneyboy said:

you don't have any say in any government business that is funded by the tax payer, but you can vote for who you want in power, but whoever you vote for the government get in.

I think you missed my point.

[Pinetree]

1 hour ago, Manu said:

So the Monarchy is a business "like any business"? A business "like any business" funded by taxpayers? And I of course, as a taxpayer in the UK, have no say to that? Amazing when I hear / read someone giving a definition of capitalism, every single time it seems to me that something is not right with it.

In some ways it is, but as a holder of my Quean's Commission, I know that  it is much more than that.  I fought in her name in the FI, bore the Queen's pilots Wings on my uniform, flew jets in  her name for 17 years and like very many others, pledged myself to serve her and what she represented, the united country. Not for any government, not for the public, there is no mention of either of them on the Commission Parchment, but for the Crown, and I would do the same, if i was able at my age, to do the same for the King 

To all the naysayers and critics Worldwide, especially a section of the  the muppet media  in the US,  If you haven't got that background, done those things, felt those things and committed yourself in that way, then you don't get a vote, or, in my humble view, have an opinion worth any consideration. . 

[Marc26]

19 hours ago, Pinetree said:

In some ways it is, but as a holder of my Quean's Commission, I know that  it is much more than that.  I fought in her name in the FI, bore the Queen's pilots Wings on my uniform, flew jets in  her name for 17 years and like very many others, pledged myself to serve her and what she represented, the united country. Not for any government, not for the public, there is no mention of either of them on the Commission Parchment, but for the Crown, and I would do the same, if i was able at my age, to do the same for the King 

To all the naysayers and critics Worldwide, especially a section of the  the muppet media  in the US,  If you haven't got that background, done those things, felt those things and committed yourself in that way, then you don't get a vote, or, in my humble view, have an opinion worth any consideration. . 

Respectfully, that's a ridiculous statement 

You absolutely do not have any more of a say and your opinion does not mean more than any other of your countrymen 

 

To suggest so, means you don't actually understand what service is at all and are just doing it for your own conceit 

 

And sorry but when a country has an empire conquering all over the world, the rest of the world damn right is entitled to an opinion of that.

Just as the US and others are fairly criticized for the same 

[Pinetree]

2 hours ago, Marc26 said:

Respectfully, that's a ridiculous statement 

You absolutely do not have any more of a say and your opinion does not mean more than any other of your countrymen 

To suggest so, means you don't actually understand what service is at all and are just doing it for your own conceit 

And sorry but when a country has an empire conquering all over the world, the rest of the world damn right is entitled to an opinion of that.

Just as the US and others are fairly criticized for the same 

I can put up with your insults ( I didn't say anything about my own countrymen, (unless they are Monarchy deniers),  if you didn't Serve yourself, your opinion on that service is valueless. You are clearly not the kind of person who either understands, nor should be listened to.  This generation, and many before it, had nothing to do with Empire building and have nothing to be ashamed of, or to issue apologies for. Service in HM Forces also has nothing to do with Empire or colonialism.  

[Marc26]

26 minutes ago, Pinetree said:

I can put up with your insults ( I didn't say anything about my own countrymen, (unless they are Monarchy deniers),  if you didn't Serve yourself, your opinion on that service is valueless. You are clearly not the kind of person who either understands, nor should be listened to.  This generation, and many before it, had nothing to do with Empire building and have nothing to be ashamed of, or to issue apologies for. Service in HM Forces also has nothing to do with Empire or colonialism.  

I apologize I misread the part about that

I thought you were saying your service gave you more of a voice than your fellow countrymen that didn't serve

And I read that wrong, my bad

 

But......you boasted about fighting in the Falkland Islands, a territory seized by the British Empire

 

You fought in a war/conflict in a territory adjacent to another country 1000's of miles from England

Overseen by your Queen

 

Sorry but that is all open to worldwide criticism

And your voice doesn't have any more significance than any others 

 

 

By the way, I'm personally not really a critic. I find The British Empire fascinating and think it had a lot of good and a lot of bad as well.

I am just pointing out, by it's sheer history, it can't be above reproach