3 ms·
This is how it is done! But it could only have been done with the King's permission. I wonder how he will spin it.
by FrankWilhoit 8mo ago
This is how it is done! But it could only have been done with the King's permission. I wonder how he will spin it.
- asdefghyk 8mo agoI think there is a lot more of this story to play out ... Still seems to be lots more to play out. Example - Why all the supposed "...rich and powerful names ...." being seemingly protected ? What do they have to hide ?
- rsynnott 8mo agoThe thing about a lot of monarchical powers in the UK is that the monarch gets to keep them, provided of course that they only ever use them as prescribed by the government. As to what happens otherwise, well, Charles III won't want to emulate Charles I. (I'm kind of amazed he chose that name, tbh; it's not particularly uncommon for British monarchs to rename themselves on taking the throne, and it has... baggage.)
- jfengel 8mo agoWhile Charles I was a disaster, Charles II is remembered as a patron of the arts and sciences. He restored the British navy, which went on to be the foundation of the Empire. His personal life was rather too colorful, but a lot of people seem to think positively of that. I doubt he's anybody's favorite monarch, but his well-respected mother seems to have thought the name was OK.
- markx2 8mo agoOfficial statements have been released that clearly state the King was not informed prior to the arrest.
- rich_sasha 8mo agoI can't for one minute imagine no one asked "if one were to suspect a member of royal family of [...] and arrested them, what would the King say?"
- foldr 8mo agoThe answer is obvious. The King would have no choice but to say what he has in fact said (i.e. that the ordinary process of the law must be followed).
- gib444 8mo agoAnd there's one thing we've learnt recently is that royals do not lie
- foldr 8mo agoThe Police don’t need the King’s permission to arrest members of the royal family.