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.

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.

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

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.

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

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

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

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

Its clearly not just speculation however

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

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.

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

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.

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.

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 👍

The police could question Andrew - the Met.

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.

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

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.

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).

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

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.

Some years ago Princess Anne was prosecuted when her dog bit somebody in a park. Apparently she is the only royal with a criminal record.

Yep, she 'fessed up and took the rap.
Quite right.

This family have only acted now because the scandal is affecting them.
I'm sure there’s plenty more to come out, and not just about this unpleasant individual. He might have lost a medieval title, but hes been banished to what - a life of luxury, a huge house with servants on a vast private estate?
he was a trade envoy, why isnt information on what he was up to made available ?
And there is no transparency on this family. Why, what are they hiding?

Yes, I remember that, now you’ve mentioned it. So they can be convicted of crimes. So in theory, Andrew could be charged with sexual offences, it would just be problematic for the reasons I gave, sadly.

But it’s been proved that a case can be brought against him in the US. If enough evidence can be found.