Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor

[GrownUpBeans]

From the Royal family website:

"For the most part, members of the Royal Family who are entitled to the style and dignity of HRH Prince or Princess do not need a surname, but if at any time any of them do need a surname (such as upon marriage), that surname is Mountbatten-Windsor."

I would say Andrew is in need of a surname and I wish the media would us it rather than his titles.

Pigs might fly before that happens!

Hes in need of a boot up the arse

It just seems silly to use his titles in articles saying he doesn't deserve them. If you think he doesn't deserve the titles then don't use them - it's not compulsory.

I've said it before and I'll say it again, when Charles become King he will feed Andrew to the wolves. I hope he does and I can't wait if it happens

I agree. Andrew is protected now. By the Queen. It will all be very different when the Queen goes. And it's all going to start unravelling at the end of November when the Maxwell trial starts.

I think it will be very difficult to control the damage limitation from then on.

Charities stepping back from him big time.

www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/prince-andrew-dropped-patron-almost-24120392

I can't understand why any charities continue to have him as patron?!

@FrangipaniDeLaSqueegeeMop

I've said it before and I'll say it again, when Charles become King he will feed Andrew to the wolves. I hope he does and I can't wait if it happens

I seriously doubt he will.

I think for sure he’ll be faded into the background and will likely be “unwell” at big events like the coronation or whatever.

But Andrew as a loose canon selling stories and needing cash is the last thing Charles needs as he, no doubt, has skeletons of his own he’d prefer to keep hidden.

Plus if you start reminding/telling the public that titles can be removed and places can be removed then they might start wanting to remove them from others and that makes them all vulnerable to losing the lives they have (and presumably want since they’ve never left).

Yes I agree. I did read somewhere (no idea how true) that Charles really really doesn't get on with Andrew and I can imagine that.

So when the queen has gone, it is going to be very different for Andrew.

I would say Andrew is in need of a surname and I wish the media would us it rather than his titles.

Nah. Keep reminding us that we defer to that creep- it helps to chip away at the idea that the royal family is a good thing.

But Andrew as a loose canon selling stories and needing cash is the last thing Charles needs.....and that makes them all vulnerable to losing the lives they have

All very true but I think you overestimate Charles' intelligence.

I'd be interested to know just who would decide "who deserves a title and who doesn't".

They're a job lot. If you want a royal family you take the porphyria, weak chins and fraternising with traffickers of young women or nothing.

They're not pick-n-mix, that's the whole point.

@MrsTerryPratchett

They're a job lot. If you want a royal family you take the porphyria, weak chins and fraternising with traffickers of young women or nothing.

They're not pick-n-mix, that's the whole point.

I agree - it's all or nothing I'm afraid. If we started deciding that some royals don't deserve a title based on some flaw or other, where we we end up ?

None of them 'deserve' their titles. There's no actual 'blue blood' and being descended from a monarch doesn't give you any guaranteed talents or desirable traits. Expecting them to be "deserving" misses the point. Any of them can be and often are utterly awful and they will still be who they are. If we want a system where utterly awful people don't get that level of power and status then we don't want a monarchy. If we want a monarchy we have to accept that we will get a mixed bag of some reasonably decent people who do their best, and some utterly awful people, and some at various points between these extremes with varying levels of traumatic damage, and varying levels of ethical standards and practical competence. Which members of this mixed bag will end up having senior status over the others will always be just the luck of the draw, and it would be perfectly possible for the eldest child to be awful in some way and for the younger sibling to be much better suited to the role but except just that once in 1936 there's not usually anything to be done about that. Merit is not part of the system.

Yes, I agree there is no merit in it.

We may have struck lucky with the Queen (sense of duty, hardworking but really imperfect also) but who knows for the future if the Monarchy carries on in its present form.

If you want a royal family you take the porphyria, weak chins and fraternising with traffickers of young women

I wish it were as simple as that. PA was on that Lolita Express alongside the two Bills, and, undoubtedly, others, whose names will come out of the woodwork in due course. It's all a one, big club and there's not much to choose between any of them.

I fail to see why he wasn't on the next plane and giving a deposition in the USA years ago. Surely refusing makes him look guilty?

I get that he most likely will hang himself with his own words if his interview with Emily Maitless is anything to go by. He appears to have no self control and his arrogance shines like a lighthouse but all the same, I think he should have done his best to help the enquiry if he had even a shred of integrity.

According to him he hasn't refused but that's pure weaselling. What he has offered is a written statement which obviously falls a long way short of the desired live interview.

This is the man who was too 'honourable' to dump his convicted sex offender pal any way other than in person but won't comply with an informal interview with the potential to clear his name even after trumpeting his willingness to cooperate with enquiries on national TV.

the two Bills

Who are these?

He won't do anything because everyone else was at Epstein's island as well, and he knows it. Nothing at all is going to happen because to do anything with him is to open up a can of worms with all of them. Protect one, protect them all. Get one, and they all fall down.

@Crackoflightning

He won't do anything because everyone else was at Epstein's island as well, and he knows it. Nothing at all is going to happen because to do anything with him is to open up a can of worms with all of them. Protect one, protect them all. Get one, and they all fall down.

This ^^ The Epstein net went extremely wide and extremely high. As much as I would like to see that house of cards fall I don’t think it will.

It's a 'he said'
'she said'

situation..

The FBI says he is not responding to calls for him being interviewed. He says he is offering his help.

I think I know who I'd believe. He is being protected by one of the biggest forces in the world. The RF, its lawyers and its PR machine.

This is the man who... when given the opportunity to say he regretted the friendship with a paedophile... didn't. He refused to.

Maitlis said 'Do you regret the whole friendship with Epstein?'

Here is his answer....
Now, still not and the reason being is that the people that I met and the opportunities that I was given to learn either by him or because of him were actually very useful. He himself not, as it were, as close as you might think, we weren't that close. So therefore I mean yes I would go and stay in his house but that was because of his girlfriend, not because of him

The arrogance of the man.

Maybe regret and contrition aren't words familiar to him.

This is the man who... when given the opportunity to say he regretted the friendship with a paedophile... didn't. He refused to

Awful man. As awful as the two Bills and others yet to crawl out of the woodwork.

*They're a job lot. If you want a royal family you take the porphyria, weak chins and fraternising with traffickers of young women or nothing.

They're not pick-n-mix, that's the whole point.*

But the public have pick-and-mixed about who undertakes Royal duties. The public has decided Andrew is unsuitable. Why not take the logical step of not using his titles either?

On the other hand, i think Diana could have remained 'Princess Diana' to the public regardless of official title.

They're a job lot. If you want a royal family you take the porphyria, weak chins and fraternising with traffickers of young women or nothing.

They're not pick-n-mix, that's the whole point.

But the public have pick-and-mixed about who undertakes Royal duties. The public has decided Andrew is unsuitable. Why not take the logical step of not using his titles either?

On the other hand, i think Diana could have remained 'Princess Diana' to the public regardless of official title.