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

Yes - though if they try to get him out in the next couple of years they will owe him money (in compensation for the amount paid originally).

I've just listened to it. Very interesting and I thought it portrayed really clearly the differences between how a journalist and a Palace insider might approach PR crisis. Whilst they agreed on a lot, at the end they agreed to disagree as to the long term impact and I believe that was because a journalist thinks short term whereas the palace know they can afford to wait things out.

Pictures of Royal Lodge looking quite dilapidated!

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/royals/article-15216767/Prince-Andrew-Royal-Lodge-cracks-chipped-paintwork-black-mould.html

Probably out of date. It doesn’t look like that in current pictures.

“The exterior of Royal Lodge is showing signs of wear and tear, our new pictures reveal”

Feeling a bit annoyed at KC this morning, BBC banging on about his visit more important than the A allegations. I will decide if I am remotely interested in KC praying with the pope FFS. For me, praying is personal and private, it is not a public spectacle done for attention. So NO I do not give a feck, I am not interested thank you.

It brings to mind how petulant KC was about Diana getting all the adulation he was really spiteful about it. A man his age wanting all the attention is just pathetic. Jealousy runs deep in the men in that family, they have everything handed to them on a plate but it isn't enough, they still manage to complain and dictate! Charles, Andrew and Harry really are the bitter end poncing around thinking they have star power demanding attention.
I think I got out of bed on the wrong side today.

And we are back to the revolving question.

What did Epstein do which led to him being prosecuted?

Did he upset someone, was he used as example to make someone more important toe the line?

Someone in power decided to no longer protect him, the whole story is so much bigger than PA.

(To be clear I am not downplaying the abuse that so many suffered, but he was protected for years. It wasn't concern for the victims that led to prosecution.

Feeling a bit annoyed at KC this morning, BBC banging on about his visit more important than the A allegations. I will decide if I am remotely interested in KC praying with the pope FFS. For me, praying is personal and private, it is not a public spectacle done for attention. So NO I do not give a feck, I am not interested thank you.

Totally agree with your comment regarding praying not being a public spectacle - the parable of the Pharisee and the publican springs to mind.

Having said that, it is a historical occasion and long-term will be much more relevant than a headline about Andrew.

The late Queen was prevented from praying with a previous Pope for fear of upsetting some factions in the Church of England. The King and the Pope publically praying together is enormously significant both in terms of internal church politics and as a public demonstration of reconciliation between the two denominations.

I think it's a good example of the ROLE of the monarch as HOS in International affairs.

That's what they are there for at home and abroad, not to sponsor an errant brother or other family members, not to amass wealth, not to bend legislation to their own benefit, not to have a sense of entitlement and so on.

Duty calls and that's all there is to it. Few other Heads of State prance around with ermine cloaks and crowns and golden carriages, and fire ink pens around in a temper!

I'm fine with the pen incident, it was an enormously difficult time in his life and he isn't perfect.

I mentioned this a couple of days ago, binkie163 - I was fuming at the time - and regard it as just another example of royal presumption around the peasants

I'd ask what they imagine entitles them to dictate what we should be concerned about, but there seems little point when they make it so clear that it extends to whatever they want to take

And sorry, but I see nothing to celebrate in one paedophile enabler associating with the head of an organisation stuffed with them

Same. I’m equally happy with the historic trappings of monarchy, it’s not like they were all purchased yesterday. I really wish someone would crack on and deal with Andrew properly, this is currently distracting from the inquiry into grooming gangs.

I understand that but reporting on it is sufficient, personally I find it distasteful of KC to want to be SEEN and wanting all the headlines for it but as I said I got out the wrong side of the bed today.
I grimace at H&M constantly pushing for headlines, the king should be above chasing the popularity competition. His stroppy I want the headlines not A it should be beneath him, obviously it isn't.
ETS. And yet they made TLQ entertain Adams & McGuiness who were involved in Mountbattens death, that was outrageous.

He was the same when his golden carriage did not arrive at precisely the right moment for his Coronation. I think he is a spoilt brat and has an awful temper that's largely hidden from public view but we get a glimpse of it now and then.

I accept it was a difficult time around QE2's death, but the rest of us have to maintain dignity in similar circumstances, and would never do something like that in public and on TV in full view of everyone. Camilla looked terrified during the pen throwing incident.

It's all about manners, breeding and upbringing, and they are all spoilt rotten IMV.

The release about refocusing on the King was a reflection on the press rather than the monarch. They'd rather focus on scandal than faith.

I don't think it is distasteful for Leaders of two historically estranged churches to publically signal a step forward in reconciliation by taking part in a service together. If they were filming the private prayers of two individuals that would be different.

I didn't think Camilla looked terrified, she did look a bit resigned and concerned.

I watched that ceremony live and the moment I saw the table I thought it looked tiny for everything that was on it. Considering all these arrangements had been planned for years I was surprised no one noticed the problems in advance. Charles was trying to sign an historic document on a tiny, cramped table with a leaky pen, after little sleep and under enormous emotional pressure. He was grumpy, big deal. I feel it is unfair to cast aspersions on his character under those circumstances.

Yes I'd like to see the Andrew problem dealt with effectively. I do believe the government should be doing something official. It would be much harder for him to wiggle his way around.

The cynic in me is beginning to wonde who else is involved with the Andrew issue. He was the UK trade envoy, are ex or current ministers involved?

I winced during the coronation when it was said TLQ cypher E11R would need unpicking on official robes/uniforms and replaced with CR111 with gold thread, my fingers bleed just thinking about it. Especially as it may not be finished before having to unpick again for William. Ouch. Sorry to derail.

Absolutely 👏
I'm not usually so grumpy but I just rolled my eyes at the tv I thought fuck you mate and your theatrical shenanigans.
I am on the whole pro monarchy but I got the arse this morning.

I am waiting to see if the cameras are going to be filming the King and the Pope praying together or if they are going to do so in a private way, no doubt with other people around. I wonder if there is a little service already arranged. I guess so, but not a eucharist!
Did the King make a public statement about this and if he did, was it very didactic? Or are people being indignant about the journalists' spin?

Actually, King and Pope, I think it's a good thing you're doing this. I once met an Italian who thought that being a Protestant was not being Christian. I suppose he hadn't been told much about the Reformation in his history lessons.

The release about refocusing on the King was a reflection on the press rather than the monarch. They'd rather focus on scandal than faith.

Agree - though did find it a bit of a PR mis-step to point it out.

(Listened to the podcast last night - agreed with your thoughts re the two viewpoints. Did agree with the journalist that the message would have been better as a BP press release, though)

@upinaballoon with the media who knows. However it was reported that the king said the focus should be on him and not Andrew, it put my back up. Obviously I don't know if it is direct quote from him but I can easily imagine him saying it.

The "suggestion" around what we should concern ourselves with came via the BBC, @upinaballoon, which being funded by a government-mandated licence fee is clearly subject to their interference

I'm aware of course of their claims of "independence", but since when was something whose income is controlled by government truly independent?