To be surprised Andrew has lost his Prince title

What has the word "European" got to do with corruption etc @RhododendronFlowers ?

Excellent post and sorry for what you’ve been through ❤️‍🩹

This post is disgusting.

I don't know where to start.

The age of consent is entirely irrelevant, first off.

You think victims should pay compensation to other victims, and the perps get off scott free. That is .........some mental gymnastics.

You're obviously ignorant of how trauma works. Not to mention all the other stuff around how someone would "report" this sort of thing. Imagine in doing so they were faced with you? All "well, there's no evidence so it can't be true, can it", and "there have to be two of you", and "who can bear witness? Oh, no-one? Well he says it never happened, so he must be innocent".

Plenty of other people have been named. How can you have missed that?

You would be "happier" if he had stood trial? Well, luckily your happiness isn't relevant.

And as for "innocent until proved guilty", that is in court, not just in general. Plenty of guilty people go free because they are not brought to trial, or a trail fails due to lack of evidence, that doesn't actually make them innocent you know. I was abused by my father, he never faced any legal proceedings. Are you claiming that didn't happen because he was never "found guilty" so must therefore be innocent??

It is an us and them society and Andrew comes across as an extremely entitled, odious man. I heard years ago that he felt he was more fit to be king than his older brother. His older sister didn’t occur to him it seems. How wrong that proved!

There is an anomaly in the royal family whereby all the hangers-on live in grace and favour homes and have a rarified life, but can’t ever begin to earn enough to support themselves in the manner of the exceptionally rich and successful social circles they mix in. They are entirely dependent on the monarch. It’s quite infantilising compared with knuckling down and working to own the roof over your head. I think this creates a structural imbalance that can easily lead to money grasping behaviour. It seems Anna and Edward have avoided this trap by not mixing with the global superrich, preferring the company of English county types who ride horses. By contrast, Andrew and Sarah are magpies.

There’s also been a national social shift over the last century from one in which half the population had at least one member of staff, to one in which most people can’t even afford a weekly cleaner. Meanwhile, they maintain many fulltime staff for minor royals. Consequently, the gap between them and us has widened.

I honestly don’t care whether Andrew lives in a mansion in Windsor or a cottage in Norfolk as long as he is out of the pubic eye. I’m far more concerned about real issues impacting British people.

The powerful individuals will know how to cover their tracks including the likelihood of deadly retribution if someone speaks up, hence nothing happening. Guiffre’s children were allegedly targets when she started speaking out.

The American media are extremely interested in the matter, in particular the relatio ship between trump and Epstein/ Maxwell.

They're not too interested in Andrew or the Windsor family shenanigans, however, as that's all something of a sideshow.

I wonder what else is going in major national and international events that the authorities are trying to distract us from with this dead cat.

Have you educated yourself about Hitler yet? Or are you still claiming he invented fascism and that Britain stood alone against the nazis.

You're muslim bashing here again for no reason

I read or heard somewhere today that it was definitely KC’s decision while William is ‘concerned about Andrew’s mental health’.

Think it was on the Newsagents Podcast

This is correct. Princely styles and titles are considered customary rather than legal and are within the purview of the monarch. Peerages, which have legal status, can only be removed by Parliament.

Several princes lost titles with the LPs of 1917.

Virginia was a victim of trafficking, a form of modern slavery and if you manage to escape from that situation - bearing in mind its run by the most powerful people then - and I haven't read her book but I expect she was scared, traumatised and wouldn't have expected anyone to believe her. I think that by King Charles's very clear support of victims in his statement about removing the Prince title that he believes his brother is guilty.

Well report away if you do not agree with free speech. You don't agree with me. You have that right to disagree. I don't mind. Any response I get from a post I make is good, whether it is in agreement or not, because it is food for thought and encourages and stimulates conversation. That is important for people to discuss the pros and cons of any subject. A bit like asking the pros and cons of an item you are buying.

You cannot have a post removed because you don't understand it, or don't agree with it. The world would be one huge dictatorship if that happened. We live in a democracy at the moment, and we should strive to keep it that way. When a democracy starts to crumble, we should be demanding to know why, not pretend it isn't happening.

If you do not agree with freedom of speech, then you obviously are against democracy.

Why are you against freedom of speech and democracy?

Well think about it. You heard about Andrew: have you not heard the comments against the royal family as a whole?

Have you not heard the comments against the Anglican Church? Who do you suppose makes those comments?

I m not condoning wrongdoing, especially where sex is concerned. I would hope that no one would ever tar me with that brush. I think that it is time someone said historic abuse is too late, that other young girls and women could be saved if these historic abuse cases bore some sort of penalty, like not receiving compensation, or allowing subsequent young girls to claim from the historic abuse victims, because if they had acted at the time, those perps would have been in jail instead of abusing others.

I am asking why she waited so long to report it, even after she had done the same thing over and over, and knew that other young girls were also being brought in for sex. Do they wait until they need the money? If not, why do they come forward so late?

Are you saying that at age 17 she had no idea that she was having unlawful sex, whoever it was with? It was not one time but several. In the 21st century I would have thought all teenagers knew what the age of consent was.

Has any other woman complained of the same with Andrew? Did someone bear witness? At least two are needed for a trial, and so far I have not seen evidence of anyone else, except Epstein and Maxwell (did she take the rap for others?)

Andrew has denied it. He should not have paid compensation. He should have waited until there was a trial.

I am saying that I would be happier had he been found guilty in a court of law. Is it not the case that people are innocent until guilty?

I’m amazed at how many lovely houses they have all over these private and royal estates. Sandringham is 20,000 acres. had no idea. It is and us and them society. So when they behave as Andrew has, with Epstein and all the dodgy deals when he was trade envoy, of course acountability will eventually hit them. Different world from when Queen Victoria’s children could behave in the same way.

Re. American media’s apparent lack of curiosity about Epstein list, it just shows who owns them and who is scared of being exposed. It’s not about lack of curiousity it’s about bowing down to very rich and powerful men.

I was reading an article on Andrew in the daily mail the other day.

I don’t read DM much but I was curious about how the “patriots” would respond in the comments .

Nearly every top comment mentioned Harry somehow?! They were like ‘yeah and you’re next Harry’ or ‘Harry, MM and Andrew are shameful’.

It was so bizarre.

I can’t for the life of me think what the religion of Islam has to do with this thread.

I’m reporting your post for being (a) insane and (b) racist.

I don't quite know where to start with this. Can you honestly not for a moment think why a middle aged (or any age for that matter) woman wouldn't want to speak out about the disgusting behaviour of some of the most powerful men in the world?

Its not on those women to speak out about the abuse they suffered to save the younger people coming after them. Its up to those rich powerful men not to behave so abhorrently in the first place.

People like you placing blame on the victims is one of a long list of reasons it would have been so difficult to speak up.

I was inclined to think the same. Now I am not sure. So far, he was accused by a middle aged woman of having sex with a minor age 17. He denies it, and it has never gone to trial, so has not been proven. The age of consent in America is 18. In UK it is 16.

She went back again - and again. Why, if she knew she was abused the first time - and I do not believe she didn't know exactly what the age of consent was then, all teens do, and she was abused as a child).

It would have made more sense if she had reported it the first time. I have heard exerts from the book saying at one party 8 foreign girls were involved. Apparently, according to the journalist yesterday, she was 'triumphant at being able to bring down a prince'.She let that go on year after year until Epstein's trial and later death. When he was imprisoned and she had the money from Andrew she wrote her book and killed herself.

If she knew she was underage at middle age, why did she let it continue? Why would she not have saved the other minor girls involved by speaking up the first time?

It is all a bit weird. Epstein dead, Guislain in prison. Looking back in the past, why did it take so long? Did Guislain pay the price for her father's crimes?

The same with the Harrod's Al Fayed. Women came forward years after they had been abused, knowing that teenagers leaving school and coming to work with them were being abused. What sort of middle age woman keeps quiet, knowing that the abuse continues with new recruits and doesn't warn them?

And one might wonder why you are so scared of other names coming to light that you're trying to convince people that it is not of interest, given "the sh-t that is going on right now".

I said it was lack of curiosity on the part of the US media in my post which started this part of the conversation. You chose to give a sneery response. It is now clear that you had no clue what was actually being discussed. Commiserations.

I don´t think the Queen hated him, I just think she thought him a non-entity, which can be worse. The Queen Mother couldn´t stand him as she considered him to be the chief cause of her husband´s untimely death and the stress and pressure he had to go through because of his brother´s abdication.