To be surprised Andrew has lost his Prince title

I think that only applies officially to the Monarch as Head of State. I don’t think there’s anything preventing other members of the RF facing criminal charges. There have been driving convictions in the past.

I don’t recall any serious criminal cases, though, no doubt because the RF and successive governments have protected them to prevent the scandal it would cause. (Most notoriously, protecting the former Edward VIII from facing charges of treason for his Nazi collaboration during WWII.)

But there was a case brought against Andrew in New York, a civil case, and there was a criminal investigation at one time too. There’s only a lack of evidence preventing the case from being reopened there. Especially if the Epstein files can finally be released.

Documented proof of what? The corruption or sexual exploits or both?

The royals aren’t normal citizens. Normal laws don’t apply to them. They don’t pay taxes and can’t vote. The courts are the law courts of the monarch. They can’t bring evidence or bear witness against themselves or each other. It’s pointless thinking Andrew will ever sit in the dock for things he did while Prince Andrew. He can for anything he does from now on, although probably not even (he’s still not an entirely ordinary citizen, he’s still Royal, he just doesn’t have the styles and titles).

Interesting take on when you ask @Ukisgaslit
”Does this statement from Charles mean the House of Commons will not now be debating the rest of the Windsors and the Crown Estate?”
Hmmmm !!
Having watched a Channel 4 documentary on the Duchess/Crown Estates and its practises and income that is a shame.

I dislike the reporting on this. Virginia didn’t ’have sex’ with Andrew, she was raped.

Yes, Andrew should face the consequences of his actions in court. But I do think that it would be impossible for him to have a fair trial in this country. What jury could ever be unbiased? It would become a trial by media.

And what would he be charged with? Virginia Giuffre wasn’t underaged in this country and it would be very hard to prove that Andrew knew that she was trafficked. (Although I can’t believe that he didn’t.)

Could he be charged in the US, which at one time was a genuine possibility? That’s more likely to lead to a successful conviction; the RF won’t protect him this time, except for probably covering his legal fees.

But for that to have a serious possibility of leading to a conviction, the Epstein files would need to be released, and there are powerful men, including Trump himself, who don’t want this to happen and will do all they can to prevent it.

The police could question Andrew - the Met.

Or is Andrew worried for his bodily safety and security ?
Poor fellow, what must it feel like, I wonder, to think there might be men on the prowl wanting to get close to you…..”

Very clever @canklesmctacotits 👍

I absolutely agree with this ^
And to answer your question I think they would still be covering for him, of course he would be less involved in a slim down monarchy but the truth was that he was cut so openly because it’s in the open already and impossible to control.

No. The presumption of innocence is a legal maxim applying in one place and in one place only: a criminal court.

It applies NOWHERE else. We are perfectly free to decide someone is guilty of wrongdoing, and only laws relating to defamation or sub judiciae contempt constrain any of us from saying so.

What is interesting is how many people develop an intense interest in this extremely limited legal maxim only in relation to crimes against women and children.

Could be. It's all horrifying, I just keep thinking about those poor girls and if they'll ever get proper justice.

Should be more than just losing the title and not being able to live at Windsor. We know he keeps denying it but if proven, Joe Bloggs certainly would lose a lot more than "his title" and the ability to live in some fancy place.

Yeah I don't know. I'm wondering if there is more to come from somewhere.

Its clearly not just speculation however

I was wondering if it was Virginia's posthumous autobiography?
That's tough reading.

I never said that the public are stupid?
I think there's a difference between fact and speculation, though.

The figure was widely reported and never refuted. The public are not stupid.

I wonder what is about to come out that has prompted this?

There is no evidence of the amount, nor where the money came from.
All that is clear is that A paid Virginia. That is all.

The £12 million she paid out to the girl was a clue really. 🤷‍♀️

I'm glad he's gone, but the rest of them have known about this saga for years, and done nothing other than hope it would all go away. They're all raging hypocrites.

Why would there be? No younger royals conduct is in any way comparable to Andrew's.

What's your evidence that QEII was presented with clear evidence which she ignored?

Yes, indeed! To be strictly fair, the one positive thing to emerge from this debacle is that the victims of sexual abuse were mentioned in the Palace statement yesterday and for far too long, their plight has been ignored.

The palace said: 'Their Majesties wish to make clear that their thoughts and utmost sympathies have been, and will remain with, the victims and survivors of any and all forms of abuse.'

Whether I believe that their sympathies have always been with the victims is a moot point. Particularly given the alleged £12 million pay off to make it all go away!

And it didn’t specifically mention Andrew in relation to the victims. So I wonder how long they wrangled over that particular sentence. But it’s something I guess. But far too late!

It’s evident that without the late QE2 to protect him, Andrew has become increasingly exposed.

But this does still lead back to the question of why cover ups are tolerated within the system? I am thinking particularly of Andrew’s nefarious financial activities now.

Is it right that our Head of State is largely permitted the freedom to police themselves?

@CinnamonCinnabar

The Windsors ‘disowning’ Andrew is a side show .
Why hasn’t the law been applied - the Windsors have known for at least a decade about Andrew and Epstein . Andrew’s abuses while a ‘trade envoy’ -on our dime -were explained to Elizabeth Windsor - repeatedly - and she ignored it all .