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

[Ukisgaslit]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/cvgw31y75ywt

Andrew has not given up anything .
His own ( I doubt the wrote it ) statement says he will not use his ‘titles’ .He still has them

Charles and William dare not touch Andrew in case Andrew reveals all about the rest of them - plus they no doubt see nothing wrong- what’s another used and abused peasant to them ?
But another woman linked to the Windsors has died, Virginia Giuffre, and her book is released next week . So the Windsors need to throw a bone to the public and make it look like they have done something . They have done precisely nothing .
It’s hot air .

Is the BBC helping to prop up the Windsor grift ? The article does say Andrew doesn’t ‘use’ his HRH - but he still has it . So they must know this nonsense re ‘giving up’ a title is not the whole story . Why not make it clear to the reader ?

Ack, it's clear enough. When something happens "after discussions with a king" the clear message is that the king has at the very least made a suggestion that you can't refuse to take up. I'm sure there is all sorts of face saving wording that the BBC has carried over,

Who cares? So long as he is jettisoned they can use what words they like.

Erm, so it is clear. The correct terminology has been used.

It's clear that Andrew is, to use the right parlance, utterly fucked.

No the headlines are NOT clear
A victims campaigner thinks Andrew has had his titles removed - no doubt she thinks this because of the use of ‘stripped’
The headline is misleading

Andrew hasn’t had anything stripped . He still has his titles .

’Andrew says he won’t use the title he still has’ - this is the truth but doesn’t have the same impact does it ??

What is in Virginia’s book that has caused another PR panic for the Windsors

@ProfoundlyPeculiarAndWeird

As other posters have pointed out , Andrew has not been ‘jettisoned ‘

Nothing has changed for Andrew .

This is PR puffery and you’ve fallen for it.

He has lost many privileges so whilst to us, normal people, he appears to be ok, within his now small circle it's quite a status drop so it will hurt (hopefully quite a lot!)

Whatever anyone wishes he wasn't going to end up penniless living in a council flat so keeping him hidden from public, is the best they can do. He has his own money from inheritance so they can't take that from him.

Andrew (like Harry) isn't too smart and lacks insight. He didn't realise the world had changed and didn't understand the implications of social media or even ability of people to access his emails. You can be arrogant or stupid but in his case he was both.

I don't think the Royal Family are unique in not parenting children well - you see it amongst very wealthy families across the world, how do you make children become good citizens when they have grown up around such wealth and privilege.

Andrew and Sarah Ferguson should rightly not hold anymore titles.

I hope the days of a royal family in the uk are nearly over.

Meh. So technically the headline should have said that he had given up the use of his titles. Would it make that much difference? The facts are in the report.

I presumed this is the BBC announcing that they won't be using any of his titles across their platforms going forward. They'll have to refer to him as Prince Andrew though.

I think it does matter

Many people just glance at a headline

More importantly a victims campaigner thinks that strong action has been taken , when is hasn’t

That matters .

The PR hope was that most people would see ‘stripped’ and believe the Windsors have finally done something . They haven’t .
The media should be clearer and I hope the campaigner understands that Andrew still has all his titles ( is he still a councillor of state ?? )

I'll think you'll find Fergie is the more p*ssed that she can no longer call herself Duchess. Regardless of the ins and outs, he hasn't "given up" anything. Charles and William have told him that's what's going to happen regardless of how his public statement is worded. Hopefully once William becomes King he'll be quietly exiled as well.

To your last point — I know a lot of insanely rich people. Some of them are good parents. Two of the nicest, most public-spirited and together teenagers I know grew up with unimaginable ‘racehorses and incredible yachts’-type wealth, but loving, boundaried, involved parenting.

On the other hand, I can think of other children of freakishly wealthy people who will struggle. In one case because their father is a tax exile and is currently shopping about for which of Liechtenstein/Andorra/Monaco etc suits him best to be based in, but the children will live somewhere else entirely with their not too stable mother and a fleet of nannies. In another because insanely wealthy dad is famous, famously awful, and a hard act to follow. Huge wealth, an Oedipus complex and a weak sense of self aren’t necessarily a good combination.

In Andrew’s case, I imagine it’s a combination of an extreme form of UC absent parenting, mediated via layers of staff and being sent to a distant boarding school as soon as practicable, plus the added complication of being the ‘spare’, as much as the wealth. The wheels stayed on while he was a dashing young pilot with a deferential press, but he had an image problem long before his friendship with a high-profile sex criminal whose under-age human wares he availed himself of, became known.

Brilliant analysis. IMO he’s also a sex addict & a good part of that responsibility lies with whomever thought a jolly jape to send him to a brothel at 11.

By which mechanism would Willaim exile Andrew ?

He doesn’t have the power nor , more importantly , the will.
William was happy to be photographed driving Andrew around while the Epstein scandal was still all over the news - Kate grinning away in the back
At the Duchess of Kent’s funeral Andrew was joshing away with Willaim , perplexed as to why Willaim wasn’t responding as he no doubt usually does . William then spoke to Andrew with his hand covering his mouth - ie shut up uncle Andy the cameras are on me

What do you mean?

The removal of his titles can only be done by Parliament, and they have a few other things on their mind right now...

@stackhead

I realise that - why use the word ‘stripped ‘ in that case ?

Nothing has been stripped from Andrew

Exactly, headlines tend to be sound bites of a distorted truth to grab attention. They’re punchy and dramatic and simplified to provoke a response. Often not the literal truth.

Is that true??

I’m not British and realise I don’t know much about him before the Epstein story broke. My sense of his past is a vague blur of Falklands, Randy Andy, Koo Stark, Fergie, golf and general uselessness, but not much detail.

If the victim campaigner is basing their whole response on a headline without reading the whole article OP that says volumes about them!

Former royal correspondent Jennie Bond gave a good interview on the BBC news channel yesterday evening. She explained that if parliament 'strip' Andrew of his titles (which could take months or years) then his daughters automatically lose their titles too and the King and future King may wish them to perform royal duties which they couldn't do if they are no longer princesses. She also said that people have known for decades that Andrew is an entitled, arrogant man who was known from his early days in the military as Randy Andy. Not being able to use his titles will be very painful to his ego. He doesn't get money from the tax payer and will find it harder to raise his own cash without his titles in her opinion.

According to Lownie/Lownie’s book ‘Entitled’.

@SleepingisanArt

Nice bit of victim blaming there

Shame on you

@SleepingisanArt

’He doesn’t get money from the tax payer ‘ is another royal apologist lie

All they have is taken from the taxpayer . Every bit of it . No they don’t own the Duchies , they don’t own the crown estates either

They are making money from the NHS schools charities and no apology given .
I believe they.know their game is up .

Please write in to Points of View, if it's still on.

Depends what you mean by jettisoned. He can't be utterly de-royaled except by act of parliament. Everything else naturally is just PR puffery because the whole institution is just smoke and mirrors, and can invent its own conventions and protocols at the drop of a hat.
All that really matters is how much he is able, directly or indirectly, to make money from his status, and I'm imagining that every such PR puffery as yesterday's chips away at that.

I'd prefer it if he could make zero cash from his accident of birth, but then I'd prefer the same for every member of his fucked-up family.

Agreed