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.

She is mental dont feed the troll

What news channel do you watch, because I have only heard mention of Harry once.

He is probably glad he is out of it.

Since you posted this, the talk on all channels is to do with the monarchy and how long it will last.

Do you know what faith the CEO and board of directors of the BBC are? There is a definite effort to eliminate the royal family. How does that make you feel? The 1701 Act of Settlement says the monarch on the British throne must be a Christian. King Charles is Supreme Ruler of the Church of England - the Anglican Church.

If Parliament repeals the Act, the monarch is replaced by a President and Britain will no longer be a predominantly Christian country. The Bishops in the House of Lords will never have a majority and any move Parliament makes to dissolve the 1701 Act will be passed by the House of Lords. It may take a few years.

What sort of President do you think Britain will have to replace King Charles and the Prince of Wales? Christians will not vote for that.

The age of consent in the Guifre case is the one relevant thing about it. Had she been 18 - the age of consent in US - there would have been no case to answer. In UK it is 16.

Last year a thread on mumsnet was all in favour of under age sex!! I protested against that, and was shouted down - hounded evern.

As I said in my post, I am not condoning what happened. What I really did was to point out that if Epstein had been reported on, the other abuse would not have happened, because he and all his type would be in jail. Look how many children were attacked by Saville, and in hospitals too.

Are you saying that no one knew?

Am I wrong to call for women and girls to speak up, rather than go back for more? How do you propose to do in order to stop this happening?

I do not follow this on the edge of my seat biting my nails in anticipation. I just make comments and say what I think. I think I am entitled to do that, don't you?

I find it odd that despite all the punishment Andrew has received, and despite his not having had a fair trial, people are still baying for his blood. I am not supporting him, just saying that there is a limit to punishment.

I have a feeling people want him to take his life. That is a problem with me, because recently social media sites have been closed because of the encouragement to posters to take their own life, and now we find all the news reporters and channels, and media sites will not stop until Andrew does just that.

Now BBC is clamouring for the demise of the whole royal family, and saying the King should have to pay a price for his adultery with Camilla.

They are also calling for the end of the Monarchy.

Hasn't it gone too far yet?

No. She was trafficked. Therefore it was rape. WTF is wrong with you?

An execrable, racist post.

FYI the 1701 ACT stipulates the monarch must be a protestant, not a 'Christian'. It was designed to prevent any Catholic from acceding to the throne.

I don't know why I'm bothering to respond to your vile bilge.

I am not excusing that or condoning it. Was she right to report it 20 years later? She admitted that 8 non-English speaking young girls were in the same party with her.

No doubt I will start another forore by continuing, but this whole thing of child abuse has to be put into some sort of perspective. Should older women take millions in compensation knowing that young girls are still being exploited?

In a hypothetical case where a mother and her 15 year old daughter lived next door to a couple in their 50s and one day the daughter told her mother she had been raped three times by the pedoephile next door. Filled with adrenaline, the mother storms next door and the woman opens it.

The mother tells her that her husband has raped her daughter three times. The woman says ''He likes young girls. He has had half the 'women down the street' and they look OK. He raped me when I was 15 and I married him.''

What would you do if that was your 15 year old? Then a woman down the street, by now not far off retiring age decides she hasn't much of a pension pot and decides to sue the man for raping her age 15.

What would you do if that was your 15 year old, and you find out that he was a habitual abuser of children and your daughter suffered because those women said nothing until they needed money. Would you sit back and say nothing knowing that the woman next door knew about him and did nothing? Would some of the 'women down the street' not have deserved more protection?

Who are the victims: the older women who said nothing, or the young girls who could have escaped the abuse or the trafficking?

Isn't it time we looked into that? Shouldn't we be asking ourselves if lives could have been better but for the silence of early witnesses?

The gangs got away with abusing children for years and some have not been prosecuted. Do you know how many men in London alone are on remand for abusing children? In some of those cases the police did not believe the girls.

Your victim blaming is disgusting. Just stop.

What is a protestant? What is a Catholic? Are they not all Christians?

Henry V111 broke from the catholic church in Rome because he wanted an annulment and the then Pope would not allow it. The Rules of the Roman Catholic church in Rome were written into the laws of the countries who embraced the Church, as well as the laws of the country. In some respects, at that time, Rome ruled over Europe.(a bit like sharia law around the world and the different severities of that).

Henry didn't like that and set up his own Christian church and appointed himself Supreme Ruler of the Church of England. There were frequent clashes between Rome and Christian England, but they did not affect the country until King Charles 1st declared himself allied to Rome and all that entailed. He was a Roman Catholic and had no objection to England being ruled from Rome. (We didn't think much of being ruled by the EU and left).

A civil war followed and Oliver Cromwell had the King beheaded. Cromwell didn't last long. Charles 11 took the Oath of Allegiance to the Church of England but then converted to Rome on his deathbed.

Eventually William and Mary ruled England jointly, then came Queen Anne in 1702 and the Act of Succession was passed in 1701 to stop history repeating itself.

You have to fill in the gaps yourself.

They were all Christians and have been Christian ever since, by the grace of God, for which I am grateful. However, The Archbishop of Canterbury had his work cut out persuading Charles the swear allegiance to the Anglican Church because he wanted to defend all the faiths, which is daft, really. All hell would break loose just trying to keep them away from each other's throats as to which faith is the most important! He does have to vow to allow other faiths to be practiced during his reign. As Supreme Ruler of the Church of England he must ensure the upkeep of the Churches and regular services.

Last week William said he would change the monarchy, then declared himself an atheist. Not much to say about that.

All the criticism aimed at Andrew (are any of us without fault?) he is condemned and King Charles questioned and criticised, yet thousands of people hate Prince Harry because he wanted independence from them.

Are we seeing an age when no one wants to odd man out? If everyone is baying for blood we should join them lest something worse happens to us?

Thereby a scene for evil to be done.

I agree. It is hypocrisy. What seems to be missing from all this is his divorce from Sarah in, I think, 1996. She was plastered all over the papers with other men, one a toe titillation photo. She told a newspaper that she had caught Andrew in bed with a man. The late Queen banished her from court. She was not allowed to join in the festivities, though was allowed to stay in a cottage on the estate to be near the girls. It wasn't so much that it was a lie, but that she told the newspapers about it. One printed it before the D notice could be put on it.

Now he would get lots and lots of sympathy if his peccadillos had been of that persuasion with E... and M... Homosexuality was legalised in England just after Andrew was born, in private, but the age of consent was 21 and was lowered to 18 just before the divorce. It was not lowered to 16 until 2000.

Would he have fared better had he stuck to that and not been photographed with his accuser? Was homosexulity worse than having sex with someone of 17 when the age of consent in his own country was 16? If it did occur, was he not aware of the difference.

In 2005 the first reports of Epstein's abuse of young girls was made by the parents of a 14 year old girl who was abused at his mansion.

Jeffrey Epstein was first indicted by a Palm Beach County grand jury in July 2006 on a single state felony charge of soliciting prostitution. This was a lesser charge than the multiple counts of unlawful sex with a minor that police had initially recommended. He was imprisoned in 2008 and In 2009 he was released from prison. In 2019 he was arrested on sex trafficking and that is when Giuffre accused him. All the charges were of American crimes.

I am not sticking up for him. I just think that the legal side needs to be proven with every accusation, and in his case, I don't think it was. Homosexuality in the royal family was, at the time of his divorce, a scandal. Whether it still is, I don't know, but such is the way of the world. One day you are in, the next out.

She didn't "have sex with him", he raped her. She was not able to consent. She had been trafficked so could not consent to sex. Thus it was rape. The literal definition.

Her age is not relevant to that part.

But it IS relevant that 17 is still a child. He raped a child.

And also that, while the age of consent might be 16 in the UK, it's not 16 so that sleezy 40+ year old mean can fuck young teenagers.

Nothing needs to be proven. If I want to shun someone from my family I will. The King can do the same. Regardless of whether there's anything been proved criminally.

The problem is that the King's full title is Supreme Head of the Church of England. He has to set an example, and shunning anyone is out of the question. He has sworn an oath to be Defender of the Faith. That is the Christian faith, and he has to practice that faith, and that includes forgiveness.

If a sin has been committed and requires punishment, that does not mean he cannot forgive his baby brother for any wrong he has done. He is following the teaching of Jesus.

Jesus never said it was easy to be a Christian. It is very hard. We are tested all the time. If we hit out in our defence we get ''Call yourself a Christian? You're just like the rest of us.''. We are tested by people for our faith all the time.

This is all just made up nonsense and has nothing to do with the issue being discussed.

What victims have I blamed?

Just because you don't understand or agree, doesn't make it nonsense, and it has every bit to do with the thread.

What proof do you have?

There is a lot of blame being thrown out here and on the news on TV. is it fair? Is it justice?

I just hope that there are few only on this site whose friends now or in the past don't turn out to do something criminal, because that is what this is when all is said and done.

Who rattled your cage?

Harry hasn't been accused of anything remotely like the accusations against Andrew, has he?

Yes, a medical doctor can be banned from practicing as a medical doctor, and so effectively are only a doctor on paper.

Of course not but some people are obsessed in trying to compare them and not just on mumsnet.

There is no comparison.

The attempt to link Harry and Andrew is a deeply cynical move - probably coming from the royals . It’s stupid enough to be from them

But the linking does make you think - Harry left and his funding and security was almost immediately cut . He was ordered not to use ‘titles’ etc. Constant leaks to the press from ‘sources’ to brain wash the stupid into hating Harry and family . Years of it .

Andrew was an associate of Epstein and not only abused trafficked girls but someone posted here that underage boys were abused too . The royals have known for over a decade . Andrew was housed in luxury and protected . His royal protection literally meant legal papers could not be served. Official statements were released stating the accusations against Andrew were utter lies. The full force of palace protection was given to Andrew until public opinion forced their hand finally to act - each act itself small and meaningless. Andrew is still protected.

The difference in treatment and cynical attempt to link the 2 tells you all you need to know about the Windsors . And their remaining supporters .

Yes Andrew is not to be compared to Harry. But this is showing that all these titles and honours can be removed with comparable ease if there is a will to do it. In spite of us being told before that it couldn't be done without acts of Parliament.