With all due respect…no, the Queen didn’t influence tax laws to benefit herself. At least not in the way you’re implying. There was no financial benefit to herself at all and it was all above board and legal.
It was an issue of privacy. A new bill coming in 50 or so years ago about transparency would have resulted in her private finances (stocks and shares etc) being open to scrutiny. They key word here being “private”. She needs to give royal consent & assent to all legislation and on that particular occasion briefed her lawyers to speak to the government about the implications for her, which were profound. A workaround was found that protected her.
Now, we can argue till the cows come home about the rights and wrongs of this - but for me, big meh. She’s the sovereign - she never asked to be, she just is. She has issues to consider that are entirely alien to the rest of us. Keeping private information private is the big one, imo. Whether the sovereign should ever be allowed to lobby in this way is a matter for constitutional experts - like most things it’s all shades of grey. I imagine that both sides coukd make compelling arguments.
But the takeaway is that the only benefit for herself was privacy, not some big tax break that increased her coffers as you are implying. PLUS….all of the documentation is in the national archives, so not some secret conspiracy theory.
This is all a million miles away from involving herself in a CRIME to influence high court judges to present a particular verdict. Because that’s what it would be…a crime of enormous and far-reaching magnitude.
Just because it‘s “Her Majesty’s Courts” does not mean she’s in charge of them. She’s not the CEO of the CPS or judiciary! It’s all done in her name because she’s head of state. There is literally no mechanism whatsoever where she could do what you’re suggesting.
No doubt you think that the right words in the right ears is all that’s needed but it would have to be a lot of ears & in particular three sets of ears that are owned by three of the highest law makers in the land! Because, yeah, they are obviously just the people to ask for favours which involve serious corruption.
And, by the way, the defence in this matter is one of the biggest news organisations in the world, and arguably one of the most influential. Any whiff of something like that happening and they could bring down the monarchy in an afternoon - and have fun doing it. The Queen would risk that for what? To protect a woman she probably despises? There was no risk to her from this case going to trial - no irrelevant gossip about unrelated matters could be aired. The only people who could possibly end up looking bad is Markle, Ginger Pube Face, the five “friends” and Scobie.
It’s worth remembering too that most legal experts predicted the result so why the need for a conspiracy theory is beyond me.
Also, we don’t know if there was any cover-up regarding the bullying. You say the assistant was paid off but that’s gossip, no mainstream media has run that. I hope it’s true & it wouldn’t surprise me if it was but we cannot treat it as fact. We also only know what was happening from Jason Knauf’s pov…he sent it upstairs and we don’t know what, if anything, was done from there. My gut says there was no “cover-up” just a bunch of people who didn’t really know what to do. A “principal“ behaving that outrageously had clearly never happened before…even
tit-for-brains Andrew had never gone that far. But hopefully it’ll be clearer when the report is done.
So, I’m sorry - I don’t consider myself naive but your assertions don’t pass the sniff test for me.
Incidentally…why are you not all more excited by that clip of Mark Stephens talking to Julia Hartley Brewer? He is an acknowledged expert in media law/privacy (and predicted this failure, btw - he said it was 60/40 in Markle’s favour). To recap, he says that ANL will certainly approach the SC and probably fail - unlikeiy it’ll even be heard. But he considers it a near certainly they’ll take it to the European Court of Human Rights where they’ll stand a very good chance of winning.
The reason for this is because it’s considered a human right to be heard in a criminal or civil trial. ANL won’t be asking them to consider whether Markle’s privacy was breached but whether it was fair and just to refuse a trial in a case as complicated and nuanced as this one. And, frankly, if Mark Stephens (as well as media & privacy he’s also an expert in human rights law) says they could win, then they could win.
It’s not over, friends. I reckon the
witch will have to appear in court yet, although it may take a few years
- but in the meantime she won’t get her apology or, even better, anyone paying her enormous legal bills.
Take heart
(I can’t be arsed to check for typos, so forgive any there are).