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 don't quite know where to start with this. Can you honestly not for a moment think why a middle aged (or any age for that matter) woman wouldn't want to speak out about the disgusting behaviour of some of the most powerful men in the world?

Its not on those women to speak out about the abuse they suffered to save the younger people coming after them. Its up to those rich powerful men not to behave so abhorrently in the first place.

People like you placing blame on the victims is one of a long list of reasons it would have been so difficult to speak up.

I can’t for the life of me think what the religion of Islam has to do with this thread.

I’m reporting your post for being (a) insane and (b) racist.

I was reading an article on Andrew in the daily mail the other day.

I don’t read DM much but I was curious about how the “patriots” would respond in the comments .

Nearly every top comment mentioned Harry somehow?! They were like ‘yeah and you’re next Harry’ or ‘Harry, MM and Andrew are shameful’.

It was so bizarre.

Re. American media’s apparent lack of curiosity about Epstein list, it just shows who owns them and who is scared of being exposed. It’s not about lack of curiousity it’s about bowing down to very rich and powerful men.

I’m amazed at how many lovely houses they have all over these private and royal estates. Sandringham is 20,000 acres. had no idea. It is and us and them society. So when they behave as Andrew has, with Epstein and all the dodgy deals when he was trade envoy, of course acountability will eventually hit them. Different world from when Queen Victoria’s children could behave in the same way.

I m not condoning wrongdoing, especially where sex is concerned. I would hope that no one would ever tar me with that brush. I think that it is time someone said historic abuse is too late, that other young girls and women could be saved if these historic abuse cases bore some sort of penalty, like not receiving compensation, or allowing subsequent young girls to claim from the historic abuse victims, because if they had acted at the time, those perps would have been in jail instead of abusing others.

I am asking why she waited so long to report it, even after she had done the same thing over and over, and knew that other young girls were also being brought in for sex. Do they wait until they need the money? If not, why do they come forward so late?

Are you saying that at age 17 she had no idea that she was having unlawful sex, whoever it was with? It was not one time but several. In the 21st century I would have thought all teenagers knew what the age of consent was.

Has any other woman complained of the same with Andrew? Did someone bear witness? At least two are needed for a trial, and so far I have not seen evidence of anyone else, except Epstein and Maxwell (did she take the rap for others?)

Andrew has denied it. He should not have paid compensation. He should have waited until there was a trial.

I am saying that I would be happier had he been found guilty in a court of law. Is it not the case that people are innocent until guilty?

Well think about it. You heard about Andrew: have you not heard the comments against the royal family as a whole?

Have you not heard the comments against the Anglican Church? Who do you suppose makes those comments?

Well report away if you do not agree with free speech. You don't agree with me. You have that right to disagree. I don't mind. Any response I get from a post I make is good, whether it is in agreement or not, because it is food for thought and encourages and stimulates conversation. That is important for people to discuss the pros and cons of any subject. A bit like asking the pros and cons of an item you are buying.

You cannot have a post removed because you don't understand it, or don't agree with it. The world would be one huge dictatorship if that happened. We live in a democracy at the moment, and we should strive to keep it that way. When a democracy starts to crumble, we should be demanding to know why, not pretend it isn't happening.

If you do not agree with freedom of speech, then you obviously are against democracy.

Why are you against freedom of speech and democracy?

Virginia was a victim of trafficking, a form of modern slavery and if you manage to escape from that situation - bearing in mind its run by the most powerful people then - and I haven't read her book but I expect she was scared, traumatised and wouldn't have expected anyone to believe her. I think that by King Charles's very clear support of victims in his statement about removing the Prince title that he believes his brother is guilty.

This is correct. Princely styles and titles are considered customary rather than legal and are within the purview of the monarch. Peerages, which have legal status, can only be removed by Parliament.

Several princes lost titles with the LPs of 1917.

I read or heard somewhere today that it was definitely KC’s decision while William is ‘concerned about Andrew’s mental health’.

Think it was on the Newsagents Podcast

Have you educated yourself about Hitler yet? Or are you still claiming he invented fascism and that Britain stood alone against the nazis.

You're muslim bashing here again for no reason

I wonder what else is going in major national and international events that the authorities are trying to distract us from with this dead cat.

The American media are extremely interested in the matter, in particular the relatio ship between trump and Epstein/ Maxwell.

They're not too interested in Andrew or the Windsor family shenanigans, however, as that's all something of a sideshow.

The powerful individuals will know how to cover their tracks including the likelihood of deadly retribution if someone speaks up, hence nothing happening. Guiffre’s children were allegedly targets when she started speaking out.

It is an us and them society and Andrew comes across as an extremely entitled, odious man. I heard years ago that he felt he was more fit to be king than his older brother. His older sister didn’t occur to him it seems. How wrong that proved!

There is an anomaly in the royal family whereby all the hangers-on live in grace and favour homes and have a rarified life, but can’t ever begin to earn enough to support themselves in the manner of the exceptionally rich and successful social circles they mix in. They are entirely dependent on the monarch. It’s quite infantilising compared with knuckling down and working to own the roof over your head. I think this creates a structural imbalance that can easily lead to money grasping behaviour. It seems Anna and Edward have avoided this trap by not mixing with the global superrich, preferring the company of English county types who ride horses. By contrast, Andrew and Sarah are magpies.

There’s also been a national social shift over the last century from one in which half the population had at least one member of staff, to one in which most people can’t even afford a weekly cleaner. Meanwhile, they maintain many fulltime staff for minor royals. Consequently, the gap between them and us has widened.

I honestly don’t care whether Andrew lives in a mansion in Windsor or a cottage in Norfolk as long as he is out of the pubic eye. I’m far more concerned about real issues impacting British people.

This post is disgusting.

I don't know where to start.

The age of consent is entirely irrelevant, first off.

You think victims should pay compensation to other victims, and the perps get off scott free. That is .........some mental gymnastics.

You're obviously ignorant of how trauma works. Not to mention all the other stuff around how someone would "report" this sort of thing. Imagine in doing so they were faced with you? All "well, there's no evidence so it can't be true, can it", and "there have to be two of you", and "who can bear witness? Oh, no-one? Well he says it never happened, so he must be innocent".

Plenty of other people have been named. How can you have missed that?

You would be "happier" if he had stood trial? Well, luckily your happiness isn't relevant.

And as for "innocent until proved guilty", that is in court, not just in general. Plenty of guilty people go free because they are not brought to trial, or a trail fails due to lack of evidence, that doesn't actually make them innocent you know. I was abused by my father, he never faced any legal proceedings. Are you claiming that didn't happen because he was never "found guilty" so must therefore be innocent??

Excellent post and sorry for what you’ve been through ❤️‍🩹

What has the word "European" got to do with corruption etc @RhododendronFlowers ?

Yes, agree! It just points to the fact that all of these titles, traditions and honours are meaningless human constructs developed over centuries that are made up in order to separate them from us, and exert power and influence. They can be taken away at will! And they say nothing about the innate character or worth of a person.

The notion that the main objective of the monarchy is to serve us the people is laughable! It is, and always had been, largely focused on its own continuation and very existence and the acquisition and retention of wealth! And we have all drunk the kool aid. And this secretive institution supports a system of privilege at the very heart of our establishment where honours are conferred and silence bought.

There may have been times in the past when the soft influence of the monarch has been helpful diplomatically or its continuity has been a stablilising influence, but nowadays I doubt there is anything that a monarch can usefully do for our countries, that could not be achieved by an elected President, supported by the same trappings of state,

Time for the entire shebang to go, And then we can focus on what really matters.

Hear hear @Wellthatsacharlingknot

I think it right, he could have caused a lot more damage seen to still retain titles.

Having a royal family apparently costs less than having a Republic where you have Presidents, Prime Ministers and everything else. At least they do a lot of charity work and entice people to come here to visit. They do a lot more than we see in the papers, sadly, some of the family get caught up in all the trappings.
Following Queen E won’t have been easy for Charles, she was broadly very popular and I think people are more likely to heckle a male than a female. William probably won’t have it easy, especially with H throwing the odd bit of mud, I think overall it’s better to have them than not probably just see the family slim down from a generation or so ago.

He's now been removed from the Royal Family website altogether, they've just left a large space on the page between Princess Alexandra and Harry & Megan.