AIBU to think this BBC headline is misleadingre Andrew Windsor ? ?

To say 'nothing has changed for Andrew' is silly. It clearly has if he can no longer use the titles. You seem to be arguing simultaneously that the royals haven't done anything, that they haven't done enough, and also that that they can't do anything, as in:

By which mechanism would Willaim exile Andrew ?
He doesn’t have the power nor , more importantly , the will

As a result this comes across as an incoherent stream of complaints. Still, you seem to treat it as a hobby, given all the threads, so carry on, I guess.

I think thhe OP is just trying to attack Charles and William using anything they can find.

I give a shit about this grubby grabby family & the fact we are supposed to fund them & their silly made up titles

There'll just be yet another thread started up soon no doubt 🙄🥱

Nobody gives anywhere near enough of a shit as you think we should.

It's perfectly clear, but let us know how you get on with IPSO.

You seem a bit obsessed OP. Is your own life a bit boring?

OP called me out on looking for other anti royalist posts under their username, I found at least 5. I am well aware they've not broken any MN rules by doing this but I just knew from the username and baiting style there would be others. All along the same kind of lines. I find it obsessive and as if they desperately need a multi-presence on here but basically about the same, underlying grievance- they don't like/want/approve of -whatever- the British monarchy. Fine, thats their prerogative and their opinion- but I what I truly dislike is the initimation that a lot of the rest of us are duped or dim witted fools of some kind if we don't agree with their views on the monarchy entirely. No one has defended Andrew or expressed their surprise at todays developments; however many responding are told they just don't know the facts, or steered to another royal issue. Have an opinion, fine- but repeated new threads on the same basic lines? Completely OTT.

Mountbatten died 46 years ago. Why are you so determined to bring him up now?

What reason do you have for your staggeringly vociferous and contemptuous attacks of all things Royal? Why are you so determinedly invested in this on an otherwise pleasant Saturday in October?

You also seem to have an extreme disdain for the British public in general (your username bears this out) and you are being very confrontational towards any poster who dares to attempt a reasoned debate with you.

I'm guessing you have a vested interest in doing as much damage to the Royals as possible, and one can't help but wonder why that could be.

I agree the Royal Family has done the least that they could get away with. They have not shown themselves to care about the issue very much.

I think a few people have asked that but it hasn't had a response as yet.

https://middletemplar.org.uk/to-strip-or-not-to-strip-prince-harrys-titles/

This suggests that you don't need an act of parliament to remove the HRH. It's in the gift of the monarch.

So in your gallant efforts to free the people from the yoke of made up royalty @Ukisgaslit have you complained to BBC, to IPSO or just enjoying a rant on MN?

I agree with this.

Who are the people who have (rightly) lost something as a result of the whole awful affair (other than Epstein himself obviously)?

I can think of only four - all British citizens:

Ghislaine Maxwell
Prince Andrew
Sarah Ferguson
Peter Mandelson

It could be that I have missed it, or that the British media is not covering it, but what is happening to the other men who abused Epstein’s victims? I seem to recall that in one of the recent documents that was released in the USA, every single name was redacted except for Prince Andrew’s.

One final point, I really don’t think referring to Prince Andrew as a paedophile is helpful.

Virgina Roberts was under the age of consent in New York (but not London). He was far older.
But she was 17, not a pre-pubescent child.

That's a puerile way of looking at it. He was never held to account for his grotesque crimes, whilst his victims (orphans and children in care) were systematically silenced by the establishment. They have not seen justice, apology or recompense and I doubt they ever will. Mountbatten died an instantaneous death at the age of 79 having lived a supremely privileged and licentious life. He should have stood trial but of course the Royal Family has always enjoyed unfettered protection by the establishment. The latest pantomime involving Andrew is merely an act of pure self preservation on the part of "The Firm".

I'm not triggered. I just had a feeling one thread just wouldn't be "it"

At least 5 since start of this year. Not breaking any rules as far as I know. You just seem utterly obsessed.

So contact the BBC directly and demonstrate to them that their reporting is misleading? And/or report them to OFCOM, if they've violated standards.

People can call themselves whatever they want. My partner used to teach abroad and every year he had children in his classes with first names like Prince, Princess, Duke, Duchess, Pope, Imam, etc. - he even taught a "Prince Charles (Lastname)" (and once, a generic-sounding "Heiress"). The power the King has is to invoke consequences for Andrew IF he uses titles or stylings he's agreed not to use. And the reason he can invoke consequences is because he has the ability to withdraw or limit financial support, protection, and legitimacy to Andrew.

If anything, this latest move highlights what you'd think the RF would be desperate to hide - the fact that under this fundamentally flawed system the public is forced to subsidise and the media is incentivised to elevate what could easily be the absolute worst people in the world. It's pure dumb luck that Andrew is 8th in line to the throne, and not sitting on it.