Andrew to lose Duke of York title

[Flixon]

News banner from the Torygraph saying Andrew and Sarah are losing their titles. They will be ‘put into Abeyance’ Andrew also to lose the Order of the Garter. Sarah will be known as Sarah Ferguson, he retains ‘Prince’ as he is the son of HM QE2.

bloody good job !

the press were on to something.

i'm sure they knew, he's always been dodgy with money & the press have alluded to that.

The titles in abeyance is a start but does not go far enough in my opinion and it is disappointing that KC is being so avoidant . I appreciate that he is ill but if that makes him unable to carry out his duty, maybe he should hand over to William ? People criticise William but I detect a ruthless streak . Apparently Andrew was less than welcoming to Catherine so I suspect William will remember that .,

Andrew has been dodgy for years, the Royals are only doing something because of the press attention.

They have been divorced for 29 years. The normal thing to do when you get divorced is to make a new life for yourself away from your ex husband. But oh no, not Sarah, she chose not to distance herself from the gravy train that is the royal family.
She has shamelessly used her title, Duchess of York, for nearly three decades. 70 books, collaborations with companies in the US, guest spots on TV here and in the US, she has pushed her royal connections endlessly despite being divorced for a very long time

I have never understood why the royal family allowed her to attend all these functions that, being divorced from Andrew, really had nothing to do with her. Only last year her and Andrew led the royal party into a memorial service for king Constantine of Greece!

I am not defending him I am saying that the emails and his interview are not enough to warrant the vilification in the press.

My other point is that regarding his actions he has maintained he is innocent and has neither been charged or convicted, we have a presumption of innocence until proved guilty and I believe in that principle.

My views are based upon the principle not the individual.

In case you missed it:

“I think this is just window dressing,” Mr Lownie told the Telegraph. “I think it’s a fudge, it’s all symbolic and doesn’t really change anything much.”
...
He said Prince Andrew’s claim that he had stepped aside was “ridiculous” as he had essentially been forced out more than five years ago. “It’s just mealy mouthed stuff, I think the palace must be in another world,” Mr Lownie added.

Stripping Prince Andrew of titles is ‘window dressing’, biographer claims

Yeah, he paid a woman he'd never met a huge settlement for something he didn't do!

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-60667111

You keep repeating this again and again. I can only presume you know Andrew and Sarah because you are the only person with this view on here! And ALL of the press feel differently to you.
You are defending him.

@Mimph, does the fact (and it is fact) that he is a proven liar, not change your presumption of innocence ? I believe in this principle too, strongly, but in this case he has lied, frequently, and probably continues to do so. Therefore I cannot conclude that he is innocent.

It's because they didn't actually want to get divorced.

The issue with the whole toe sucking thing wasn't that she was shagging someone else, it was that it went public. That's why Prince Phillip hated her - not the affairs or the likes, but because she wasn't discreet.

She is seen as basically his partner. Had Philip died younger/before all this came tumbling out they'd have likely remarried.

I think it'll be interesting to see if they do still remarry because if they don't her Will will not be able to be sealed in the royal vault and a public eye over her final finances/estate would be interesting reading.

That is an article that is well worth reading

I so agree with the point that Charles should have been making a statement rather than Andrew who tries to make out how honourable he is and doing this for the monarchy and the country

It just does not go far enough. Literally nothing has changed for Andrew to speak of

The titles in abeyance is a start but does not go far enough in my opinion and it is disappointing that KC is being so avoidant

What do you think he should do next @Mylovelygreendress? Royal Lodge is difficult if there really is a proper lease.
I think the government has been avoidant. I don't think it would have taken a lot of government time to do it properly - surely no-one would have voted against? And it could have been made plain that the King was in agreement.

Utterly shocking and appalling.

Confirms my suspicions as I said upthread Ferg's tentacles ran deep.

And how dare that pontificating buffoon put such intolerable pressure on a protection officer? 😡

Exactly. The apples didn't fall far from the tree with Fat Andy & Fergie the Grifter's daughters.
And what is all that 'blood Princess' sh*te which fat Andy keeps banging on about?? They are no different from you or I in the blood stakes, and certainly no different in any way than the children of Princess Anne or Prince Edward. Yet Anne & Edward's children don't flounce about claiming to be princesses/princes ffs. Fat Andy's daughters are nothing special. He should loose his title as 'Prince' and so should they. This is 2025 not 1925 after all-they are no longer untouchable and unaccountable.

He is certainly not behaving like an innocent man. Who emails a convicted paedophile promising to "play again soon".

Emily Maitlis was on the BBC this morning and was asked about whether the Prince title should be removed and she basically pointed out that there are questions about Epstein dating back to 2008 and that all this is 1% of the whole affair. I want Andrew to now disappear from public life but more than that I want those who are hiding in his enormous shadow to be called to account. Why focus on removing his title? Is it too distract people from looking at everyone else involved with Epstein? I hope the remease of the book this week also turns the spotlight on others.

Adil Ray made what I thought was the best point about Andrew. If he is innocent and honourable why won't he consent to being interviewed as a witness and helping the investigations?

We now know he used, or tried to use, the Met to dig up dirt on VG, we know SF has been begging for money from a very unsavory connection, and others, we know Andrew facilitated that and probably financially benefited himself.

Some of his emails are concerning, ‘we will play later’ it may mean golf but I don’t know if Epstein was known as a golfer. ‘Does she have a message from you’ from an email where Epstein looks like he is offering Andrew another trafficked victim, ‘someone I think you would like to have dinner with’.

Andrew still has plenty of buddies in the ME, he could head there and socialize with the disgraced King of Spain.

Very funny Andrew , I knew someone who served with him believe him when he said he was kept well out of harms way.

Anyone concerned that Andrew is banned from attending church should be reassured by the fact that All Saints Chapel (where his daughter Beatrice was married) is within the grounds of his own house. He can go there as much as he likes!

Tricky one but I really think KC should have agreed to it going before Parliament. I cannot imagine any MPs would vote against the motion ( if that’s the right term!) so it wouldn’t necessarily take up a lot of time .
At the moment A still has the titles but has agreed not to use them . Do we believe him ? I don’t. H and M agreed not to use HRH yet M has admitted she uses it for personal communication.
HRH needs to be legally removed from A .

Sorry @bluegreygreen just realised I have repeated some of your post ! Great minds and all that !

My presumption is innocence until proven guilty and I like most of I guess don’t know the full facts. I apply that to all so it’s not personal to PA, I don’t agree with trial by press, public opinion is swayed by the press and there have been cases in the past where individuals have been hounded and vilified and then found to be innocent. I under stand that others have different views.

He is a proven liar @Mimph .

If they are going to take up parliamentary time, maybe they can do a wider change that restricts HRH to working members of the family and ensures automatic removal if they leave that role. Much tidier.

I understand the point you are making. However regular people, faced with an allegation of serious crime, would be expected to participate in an investigation; in fact if they are innocent of the allegations they are normally willing to engage with investigators to establish the facts and exonerate themselves.

This is not a normal situation. Andrew has failed to engage with authorities and provided in their phrase 'zero cooperation', and used his royal status to protect him from the scrutiny that you or I would be subject to. He chose to bypass that scrutiny and instead arrange an interview which backfired on him as he looked not just guilty as sin but arrogant, pompous and callous. It has since emerged that some of his statements were lies which fatally undermines his credibility.

Andrew has bent over backwards to ensure none of us have the full facts. So much evidence points to his guilt but it looks as though he will never face any consequences and will continue to be protected. The 'trial by press' is the only trial he is going to see.

I want Andrew to now disappear from public life but more than that I want those who are hiding in his enormous shadow to be called to account. Why focus on removing his title? Is it too distract people from looking at everyone else involved with Epstein? I hope the release of the book this week also turns the spotlight on others.

@MrsLeonFarrell Yes, this is what I keep coming back to. Andrew is nothing when it comes to political or business power and authority. There are lots of powerful men still out there who were involved and are not being touched because everyone is focused on a Prince and a British woman in prison.

I wonder if it’s not just the recent revelations that has led to him being pushed to do this, but also the way he behaved at the D o K’s funeral. He was obviously loving being in the public eye, laughing and joking, despite it being a solemn occasion. He made sure to stand beside W and engage him in conversation. W wasn’t biting. I wonder if W was furious at the optics of it and put his foot down.