Prince Andrew stripped...

[Sarahlou63]

Of all royal patronages and military titles.

Guess mummy has finally had enough.

Might Andrew have received a nice wedge of £££ from his father's will? I know its contents weren't made public so just speculation.

@IWillFartOnYourCake

Might Andrew have received a nice wedge of £££ from his father's will? I know its contents weren't made public so just speculation.

Maybe, but the Duke of Edinburgh wasn’t independently wealthy and there are 4 siblings.

I doubt that he would have been left millions in liquid assets.

Blossomtoes

That's not true, they are Mountbatten-Windsor, and have been since at least 1973, when Anne married Mark Philips that was the first time it was used.

@WinnieTheW0rm

He'll be in the succession unless he does the decent thing and quits it.

I don't think you can just 'quit' the LoS as though you were a govt minister. It would be a major constitutional procedure involving all the Commonwealth countries in addition to GB. Andrew is currently 9th in line so virtually no chance he will ever be king. Thankfully.

@BernadetteRostankowskiWolowitz

I think if he was to use a surname (eg flight manifest, or whilst at school) he would use York.

As Kate/William/George use Cambridge

In the French court case over the topless pics of Kate, they were listed as Monsieur et Madame Mountbatten-Windsor.

Just discussing this with Dh who works in this area - PA has not actually been found guilty of anything yet so seems premature and quite shocking for his own family to throw him under a bus so readily to save their own backs.

I would do away with the whole royal family. After the queen goes a line should be drawn. It’s ridiculous and embarrassing for us as a country.

@MsTSwift

Just discussing this with Dh who works in this area - PA has not actually been found guilty of anything yet so seems premature and quite shocking for his own family to throw him under a bus so readily to save their own backs.

I would do away with the whole royal family. After the queen goes a line should be drawn. It’s ridiculous and embarrassing for us as a country.

If you work for a company and are judged to be 'bringing the organisation into disrepute', that can be grounds for suspension or termination. They're not obliged to await the outcome of a civil court case in another jurisdiction, which will be months or even years away.

Andrew has just been fired from the royal 'firm'. He's still a part of the family and will live a highly privileged life compared to the vast majority of people. The only thing the queen did wrong was letting this drag on and not cutting him loose much sooner.

@MsTSwift I was thinking the same thing, it's like an admission of guilt that they are taking this stance now before any formal charges?

I think he utterly deserves it and I think the RF have known and covered up for him for decades so it's a pretty hollow gesture imo

@MsTSwift

Just discussing this with Dh who works in this area - PA has not actually been found guilty of anything yet so seems premature and quite shocking for his own family to throw him under a bus so readily to save their own backs.

I would do away with the whole royal family. After the queen goes a line should be drawn. It’s ridiculous and embarrassing for us as a country.

It’s not really about being found guilty , it’s about him either having to be publicly cross examined, Pay her off or ignore it and be found guilty in his absence, it’s all bad. He could have went and cleared his name years ago but he’s squirmed and tried every trick in thr book to avoid it, Plus the royal family will know what he plans to do

In addition maxwell is now no longer protecting the anonymity of the seven men in the John doe lawsuit so , if Andrew is one of them, he’s about to have a lot more dirty shit become apparent.

The royal family will know much more than we do. They know what’s coming and they want to distance themselves.

@MsTSwift

Just discussing this with Dh who works in this area - PA has not actually been found guilty of anything yet so seems premature and quite shocking for his own family to throw him under a bus so readily to save their own backs.

I would do away with the whole royal family. After the queen goes a line should be drawn. It’s ridiculous and embarrassing for us as a country.

I’m not sure what you mean by ‘working in this area’, but this isn’t yet about criminal guilt. (And the case is civil so would only establish liability, not criminal guilt).

We know that at the very least Andrew has allowed 2 convicted sex offenders to exploit the respectability conferred by royalty to facilitate abuse, and that he continued the relationship with Epstein after his conviction.

That might not make him a criminal, but it certainly means he has no business representing the state or the armed forces.

He could have went and cleared his name years ago

I very much doubt that, he’s guilty as sin.

I would defend my child until they were actually found guilty. Wouldn’t you?

RF seem very eager to protect the gravy train that benefits them all and if that involves throwing one of their number under a bus then so be it. I don’t they come out if this at all well.

The reason this is being done now is that they can no longer pretend that he can avoid a court case, and the regiments would not have put up with the situation for any longer.

@MsTSwift Really? So if you were Jimmy Saville's mum you would have insisted he is innocent as he was never tried in court and found guilty?

I would defend my child until they were actually found guilty. Wouldn’t you?

He is already guilty of enough, by his own admission, to make his position in the working royal family untenable.

They are jumping the gun. He’s denied it to the hilt and no court has found him guilty.

Don’t get me wrong can’t stand the man but think this shows up the whole royal edifice for the sham that it is. People shouldn’t be born to roles or you end up with idiots like this.

[quote AllThePogs]@MsTSwift Really? So if you were Jimmy Saville's mum you would have insisted he is innocent as he was never tried in court and found guilty?[/quote]
I’m pretty sure The Duchess would have done exactly that. Violet Kray did too.

@MsTSwift

I would defend my child until they were actually found guilty. Wouldn’t you?

RF seem very eager to protect the gravy train that benefits them all and if that involves throwing one of their number under a bus then so be it. I don’t they come out if this at all well.

Well this is not straighforward though, is it. You're talking about our unelected Head of State as though she's Doris from Number 97 across the road. She is not.

She oversees this whole, wretched, corrupt organisation called the Royal Family and brought Andrew up. When he was younger there are stories without number of how badly he behaved towards the staff of the day and yet 'Mummy' did nothing about this. I can tell you for free, if I were wealthy enough to employ staff I would make damn sure any child of mine treated them with respect and courtesy or there'd be merry hell to pay.

She is not above having Bills of Parliament rewritten before Parliament even sees them in order to ensure her continue wealth and position are given extra-special allowance under law.

So please, do not equate her with an ordinary member of the public about whom I would agree with you. No, she's part of this whole monstrous cabal and gets very little sympathy from me.

Ms Giuffre and the countless others who were ruthlessly exploited and had their lives ruined are the ones who deserve sympathy. Not Elizabeth Mountbatten Windsor or whatever she calls herself.

Totally agree with all of that Delria I would do away with the whole thing. My point is that the queen (well Charles and William) are more bothered about protecting their cushy positions than their family member - doesn’t reflect well on them does it?

They are jumping the gun. He’s denied it to the hilt and no court has found him guilty.

You don’t need to be guilty of a crime to get the sack, and he has done more than enough to make it clear that he can’t do any part of his.

@MsTSwift

Just discussing this with Dh who works in this area - PA has not actually been found guilty of anything yet so seems premature and quite shocking for his own family to throw him under a bus so readily to save their own backs.

I would do away with the whole royal family. After the queen goes a line should be drawn. It’s ridiculous and embarrassing for us as a country.

He has not co-operated though and thats bad enough. He cant co-operate because he's not innocent. The most innocent explanation is that he thought it was ok because she was 17 and the honour would be all hers. The RF havent thrown him under a bus. They waited until the last moment to actually do something

@MsTSwift

Totally agree with all of that Delria I would do away with the whole thing. My point is that the queen (well Charles and William) are more bothered about protecting their cushy positions than their family member - doesn’t reflect well on them does it?

It doesn't - although, as you say, it's what any thinking person should expect from them.

I'd also do away with the whole, wretched institution but I cannot see this happening in my lifetime I'm afraid. There is simply no debate about Republicanism in this country. It's the elephant in the room which nobody will talk about.

My mother is a Monarchist and clings to the idea that the famous 'Andrew, Maxwell, Victoria Giuffre' picture is faked. Even when I ask her why the Royal Family hasn't exposed it as a fake - given they have literally millions of pounds to throw at this - she has no answer. But it doesn't stop her trotting it out.

I hope, once her generation is gone that there might be more of a groundswell of public opinion to lose the lot of them (I'm not suggesting the French method, although in Andrew's case I doubt anyone would be wildly upset) but I'm not convinced.

Andrew has just been fired from the royal 'firm'. He's still a part of the family and will live a highly privileged life compared to the vast majority of people. The only thing the queen did wrong was letting this drag on and not cutting him loose much sooner.

To be fair, this is a pretty major thing. I'd go as far as to say that it's a monumental failing and an abuse of the position of head of state, particularly bearing in mind that this position is conferred on the basis of heredity rather than any form of merit. With such status she's the custodian of major social and financial privilege. Both she - and if she insists on having a huge, bloated family of hangers-on doing 'work' on her behalf and receiving in return similar privilege, they too - have a duty to treat that privilege with the utmost respect.

This is a gross dereliction of that duty.

To @DeliriaSkibbly's post above. Applause.

@MsTSwift

Totally agree with all of that Delria I would do away with the whole thing. My point is that the queen (well Charles and William) are more bothered about protecting their cushy positions than their family member - doesn’t reflect well on them does it?

I think your anti royal feelings are driving you. Most firms fire someone for bringing them into disrepute and it’s highly likely the queen knows more than you do. So in fact it’s more in their favour they were willing to act and remove him, rather than protec him at all costs.

To answer questions regarding the US judicial system:

The courts cannot go after assets that do not belong to the defendant. Unless it is determined that the defendant divested themselves of the asset in order to avoid seizure/forfeiture. So no, the assets belonging to other members of the RF or the Crown Estate cannot be used to pay for a judgement against Andrew. I believe most of the things HM has 'given' Andrew are Crown Estate property or from her personal assets, like life tenancy at Royal Lodge or any 'allowance' monies, so those can't be touched.

As far as Clinton et al, law enforcement/district attorneys have to have a reason before issuing warrants, subpoenas, etc. They cannot indict someone simply because they are 'friends' with someone or have had dealings with them. They must have solid evidence that would likely stand up in court before they can proceed. It's the same with the UK judicial system, I assume. IF this unsealing/revealing of the 8 names includes Clinton or any other of the 'great and good', trust me, they will be investigated and indicted.

The rich have always had a better chance to 'beat the system'. They have the money to hire the best legal team and fund them for years. The PP who seems to be saying that the US 'protects its own' vs citizens of other countries is wrong. The rich and famous 'protect their own' and they do it very well. It may be a failing of the legal system, but that does not make it a failing of the entire country. And I'm sure this is a failing in many countries including the UK.