Andrew to lose Duke of York title (part 2)

[elprup]

I thought I’d start a new thread as the previous one is full!

Here’s the first thread: https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/the_royal_family/5429027-andrew-to-lose-duke-of-york-title?page=1

Epstein is the least of Andrew's issues. What about the alleged bribes and alleged spies?

That's a good point

I think Epstein is the lightning rod and because it is US based it is far more newsworthy here and across the pond, where they are desperate to have the Epstein files released

I agree about the Chinese spy stuff, I think there is a hell of a lot more to come out about that. Maybe it's a small dead cat covering a big dead cat

Andrew was not a small player. He was a man with huge power protected by his unique royal status. A man you cannot easily prosecute, has staff to help him evade ever being served, and whom even the MET police wouldn't investigate several times. Even now, he's not even being called to a police station to answer questions. I've seen normal people taken in police cars and held for several hours in a station to answer questions for events they have had minimal association with. He is not now, and has never been treated as an average citizen would have been for accusations of such a serious nature. He enjoys the privilege of being in the upper end of a two tier system.

One could argue some of the alleged other men implicated (some of whose names are available elsewhere online, just not in the UK press) are less insulated by the strange institutional set up Andrew enjoys. They just have vastly more money, and more political affiliations that could be put to bear to threaten Giuffre and make her life even more hellish.

Giuffre named the other men. She also travelled to meet people who could help her corroborate her accounts to bring them to justice, but these individuals refused to come forward and help. There's nothing more she could do.

Listening to her co-author, it seems Giuffre wished Andrew to aid in a similar way as a witness. It's not too late for him to be 'too honourable' and speak about at least some of what he does know.

Andrew is suffering the consequences of speculation. I don't think his life is in tatters. He is only losing titles because all the sordid details make the royal family look bad. That's all.

It's not the same as being arrested, going to trial, being questioned by police and lawyers, facing your accusers, and either being cleared or going to jail. All that, in the public eye.

Interestingly, his privilege is a double-edged sword - he gets wealth, deference and powerful protection from the royal family, but he can't defend himself without bringing them into disrepute.

He could put a stop to all this now by offering to speak to the FBI and to the Met. The fact that he hasn't done it invites people to draw the conclusion that what's hidden must be even worse than what we've heard.

Again your point that many more men are involved stands. I am hoping that this might be the beginning of others facing consequences. I know at least one other man has been easily identified on Reddit from details on Virginia Giuffre's book.

I wonder what all those vile abusers are thinking now, whether they feel safe or a bit uneasy or sick as fuck.

I think Andrew sees himself as Teflon-coated, nothing will stick as long as he holds the line (and lies convincingly enough), so all he has to do is sit it out.
I greatly suspect that we’re only being fed the tip of the iceberg by the palace and press (obviously the former will suppress as much as they can).
His association with the Chinese spies, dubious characters in god knows where including Kurdistan, Turkey etc makes me think that probably Mossad and the Kremlin will have holds over him and Ferguson.
Him supposedly relinquishing his titles means sod all, he’s probably smugly imagining that the plebs and commoners will shut up and go away now.
He clearly has more than enough money to maintain his current lifestyle and there will always be billionaires who want to be acquainted with him.

he’s probably smugly imagining that the plebs and commoners will shut up and go away now.

I think they all are.

KCIII issued that statement saying he wanted his visit to the Pope to happen without the other stuff overshadowing it. So he's suggesting we and the media all shut up, whilst he's doing more important things at least.

I hope they wake up every morning knowing that today could be THE day that THEIR identity is revealed 😡

I thought the emails being released to the press about Andrew wanting to wage a smear campaign and his 'play soon' email was from the Epstein files. If not where did they come from? The press are very wary of any hacked info now, how did they get A&S emails?

The visit to the Pope is pretty historic so I can understand his frustration. At this point the press are really going round in circles with nothing very new being said. I feel it's up to the government to act now.

As I understand it, some redacted papers are being released. Not all

Apparently Kier Starmer has indicated he would back MPs leading an inquiry into why Andrew hadn't paid rent for 20 years.

Good.

I love this podcast and their views this week

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/m002l3dq?partner=uk.co.bbc&origin=share-mobile

edit - it’s the When It Hits The Fan

He hasn't done any such thing.

BBC reporting suggests he said just that it was important for proper scrutiny.

The following was the exact exchange.

"Sir Ed said: “Will the Prime Minister support a select committee inquiry, so all those involved can be called for evidence, including the current occupant?”

The Prime Minister said: “It’s important in relation to all Crown properties that there is proper scrutiny, and I certainly support that."”

I think his answer makes it look like he might be saying he supports it, and I imagine at a later date he'd go on to say there was already proper scrutiny, therefore it wasn't needed.

So the facade of agreeing but not really.
He'd probably leave it up to the RF to investigate themselves if pushed!

Yes - and one of the most stupid ones. I’m sort of surprised he himself hasn’t named any other names.

That's disappointing, the headline I read definitely gave a different impression.

Maybe he is afraid to?

I don't doubt the way he phrased his answer was supposed to give that impression!

The government may be trying to wriggle away but we are a constitutional not an absolute monarchy and they need to do something.

I think what's needed now is a pullback of public respect for all in the RF. Whether they are worthy of sainthood, or not.

Not one of them deserve our reverence and respect now. Unless they come clean and do something to earn their privilege and entitlement, and explain where their wealth comes from, how their taxes are calculated and on what, who owns or leaseswhat, how that (and their lifestyles) are funded - inheritance, trust fund, Sovereign Grant, taxpayer, income from Duchies whatever. I'm sure some will say that all this is available to see (somewhere), but I'd like a statement naming each member of the RF together with their funding and how that happened.

I don't want to have to trawl through many and varied accounts, most of which are probably opaque to people like me, not accountancy trained. But I suppose Privacy will be the excuse not to. I won't hold my breath anyway.

The report in the Times (archive link below) says that the National Audit Office recorded that 2 independent advisors had reviewed the terms of the lease at the time, so I assume things were done appropriately.

As I understand it, from discussion on another thread, the lease Andrew has is a fairly common form of long-term lease, whereby the lessee pays money up-front for maintenance/refurbishment, a very low (or peppercorn) rent, and guarantees to hand back the property in good condition at the end (which may mean further costs towards the end of the lease).

If that is the case, Keir Starmer would probably look quite foolish committing public money to an inquiry.

Archive: Times Prince Andrew lease

Oh good - haven't listened to this week's yet

So if he can't hand the property back in a good condition, which he may not be able to if funds dried up, then they could possibly get him out?

Only by taking him to court - something I can’t imagine ever happening.

Five years ago I would agree but now, who knows.