To be surprised Andrew has lost his Prince title

[Viviennemary]

I certainly think this is absolutely the right decision. But this has all been swept under the carpet for a long time with the usual head in the sand approach. If makes me think there might be more to come out. This wasn't just going to go away.

This is designed to distance the core RF from Andrew and if the police take anything further, no RF protection.

The Queen paid VG and was never going to hand Andrew over! Her favourite son. She did believe he should be protected and did. Charles and William have gone as far as they can probably. It’s up to the police now.

There’s smaller properties at Windsor. Andrew and Fergie are close to their daughters and grandchildren. Banishing them abroad might not suit any of them. Norfolk - there’s Wood Farm at Sandringham.

"the Queen paid VG"
@OhDear111 , I'm not excusing anyone here, but there is no evidence at all that the late Queen paid VG off, nor evidence of any specific sum.
All we know is that Andrew settled out of court with a monetary payment. The origin of that payment and the sum is unknown.

I do wonder what we have missed recently, why is this just happening now?

Andrew has been a criminal and Sarah a leech for years, and the pay off to the victim was two years ago (I think?) why has this suddenly come back up again?

Andrew was a prince because of the Letters Patent making children of the monarch HRH The Prince Name or HRH The Princess Name.

Just as George V changed LP's in 1917 to streamline who automatically got titles, George VI created LP's to make Charles and Anne HRH Prince/Princess (they weren't automatically entitled as they are not on the male line and their mother wasn't Queen yet), and as QEII changed LP's to make all of William's children HRH Prince/Princess before Charles was King, Charles can change LP's to grant or remove HRH's and Prince/Princess titles.

Parliament is needed to remove the peerages - the York and Inverness titles.

Exactly.

The point is you aren't a prince for life whatever you do which is what we've all been led to believe.

Gossiping on chat shows and writing trashy books invading everyone's privacy is not comparable to previously have been pals with a sex offender obviously but still we've all learnt that the title is an honour not an entitlement.

Banishing them abroad might not suit any of them

Why should ‘abroad’ have to deal with this mess of Britain’s making? The British establishment created this arrogant, entitled man who appears to be above the law. He’s Britain’s problem, Britain can deal with him.

I don't think its fair to assume that Charles and William were privvy to all of the gory details for all this time. Every family has secrets, how many women live in normal sized houses with monsters and not know about it for decades. It happens all the time.

Now imagine you are part of a family which is more like a business that has hundreds of assistants roaming around constantly, whilst there is gossip there is also a wall of silence when required. The royal machine is very good at keeping things quiet.

Andrew didn't do these things in his own home, he travelled far and wide. I think its unfair to assume that Charles and William got a phone call every time and knew all along.

Good points, @MyPurpleHeart .
It's not like they all shared a semi detached house and were privy to the others' comings and goings.

@OhDear111

’Charles and William have gone as far as they can probably . It’s up to the police now ‘

You see , the order here is wrong ( I’m not suggesting you think this is the correct order - I know what it’s like typing quickly )

Andrew should -at the very least -have been interviewed by the police . As any of us would have been .

Andrew hid while the authorities were trying to serve papers . He was protected .

Once the police interview him THEN the Windsors can take away whatever made up nonsense ‘titles’ they please .

This so called ‘action’ still places Andrew - and the rest of the Windsors -above the law .

This whole issue needs to be debated in parliament .

Parliament cannot discuss individual ‘royals’ - they can only discuss general ‘arrangements and payments etc

We do not have a democracy.

Personally I think as last week it was fine for him to say he wouldn’t use his titles and stay a prince that something cataclysmic has happened, that Charles has been made aware of something and it’s forced his hand.

Looking at the statement they have made it clear this is about abuse, as they say they support anyone who suffers abuse, so maybe more about Virginia, or more women,

but my view is as this changed so suddenly from last Friday, there is something more, and Charles has been forced to act in this scorched earth approach.

usually we find out on a Sunday, and it’s no mistake this sort of thing happens towards the end of the week, before the Sunday news hits.

my view is the palace have been made aware of something coming out and have tried to get ahead of it, but there is no way, this is just they thought about it for a few days after andrew put his statement out and decided fuck it, let’s strip him of everything, this is there is something more.

and Sarah is doing a runner and distancing herself from him.

I'm glad Charles has forced his hand. I must say that smug press release where Andrew made a parade of voluntarily not using his titles got up my nose. It was like he was still parading his importance and 'honour', and keeping power and control over the situation. This has put him right back in his place.

Charles is our unelected head of state .

He should be seen to be particularly careful to be seen to do the right thing ( I know - as if they’d change the habit of centuries )

Why hasn’t Andrew at least been interviewed by the police ?
All this ‘removal of titles ‘ is nonsense .

Although it does prove my point - no one is a ‘prince’ it’s invented .

@Lobelia123

Hes not in any ‘place’
He has not helped the police , he is shown to be above the law

He will be living in luxury - just well away from the plebs

Thanks for explaining @Mannersareall It's really interesting how these things work. So, am Act of Parliament would not be required, just a new Letter Patent (to officially remove the Prince/HRH title as opposed to just not using them)?

Charles' request is currently with the Lord Chancellor. I suppose his actions make it legal.

@Ukisgaslit The police quite possibly should have done but they haven’t. Who tells them to get on with it? The monarchy and police are separate. The basic problem in dealing with Andrew was the Queen. The king did not know what to do and clearly protects the monarchy. I think they have all been ludicrously slow! It’s now damage imitation,

@RhododendronFlowers It was widely reported at the time it was the Queen’s money! Everyone knew this. Or it was our money. The taxpayer.

This was the bbc at the time. No comment tells the story. The money is reported to have come from the Duchy of Lancaster.

The focus needs to move to Trump's relationship with Epstein now.

Why hasn’t Andrew been questioned by the police in that case ?

Any of us would have been and rightly so .
Andrew was actively protected from the police and from individuals trying to serve papers . Our land , our gates ( it’s all ours) were used to protect Andrew

All this obfuscation has to stop now . The UK public look like absolute fools for tolerating this medieval nonsense .
So his made up title is removed . So what ?

All of the titles are made up .

I agree with the decision and think it's entirely appropriate. I wonder if there is a small element of warning to younger royals for the future.
Hardly without precedent for a royal family to disown members - usually terminally in the past.

@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 .

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?

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

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