Meet the Other Phone. Protection built in.

Meet the Other Phone.
Protection built in.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

The royal family

Andrew to lose Duke of York title (part 2)

332 replies

elprup · 19/10/2025 14:01

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

OP posts:
Thread gallery
7
MrsLeonFarrell · 20/10/2025 08:57

The whole saga does make me question the narrative that the palace is all powerful and able to quash all consequences and bend the press to their will. Andrew is the only client facing any at the moment, and yes he isn't facing many but he is at least having some.

daisychain01 · 20/10/2025 09:06

canklesmctacotits · 19/10/2025 14:36

I’ve been reflecting on all the steps the late QE2 and KC3 haven’t taken since all this kicked off. Even now, Charles has let Andrew dictate what happens. Who’s running the show here? Is this family just a massive grifting opportunity for a family of four siblings? I don’t think that seems fair to Anne, or maybe Edward. To ensure he’s a reliable custodian of the monarchy William is going to take drastic measures. Charles’s generation seem like an anachronism. I guess he hasn’t exactly had time to set a tone given how long his mum reigned - but really, his inability to get a grip (let his advisors tell him how to take a stand) is pitiful.

I'm no KCIII apologist, but let's remember that he has come to the throne at a very late stage in his life and has hardly had time to "get a grip". The detailed revelations now flooding out of the media agencies are at a faster pace than the lumbering machine that is the Palace that without fail does a good ostrich impression.

KC is bound by loyalty to his late mother and all the expectations she will have loaded onto the family. He is also bound to the blood ties he personally has with AW, blood is thicker than water, whatever we the proletariat wish to believe.

KC is also having to balance the above with the existential threat to the UK Monarchy, and get the balance right. Who'd want that burden at nearly 80 years old!

Last and by no means least, KC has been treated for cancer for the past 18 months, almost since he ascended the throne. How can we forget that he is a human being, with all this on his shoulders with failing health and including the stress of his much loved DIL undergoing her own cancer treatment.

what we should be asking is why didn't QEII step down to enable her son to take the throne when he was much younger and in a better position to have exerted his royal power many years ago, at least since the mid-2000s when sufficient was known about AWs antics with Epstein and to have taken firm action. QEII would never have stepped down, we know that, but she really ought to have!

RecoIIectionsMayVary · 20/10/2025 09:08

MrsLeonFarrell · 20/10/2025 08:57

The whole saga does make me question the narrative that the palace is all powerful and able to quash all consequences and bend the press to their will. Andrew is the only client facing any at the moment, and yes he isn't facing many but he is at least having some.

I think that is the biggest question - who is really pulling through strings.

Why after all the years did Epstein suddenly become called to account. Same with P.Diddy. There is a massive cover up, someone decided that Epstein was no longer worth protecting.

Why is it only Andrew being named? He is likely a user not the supplier (to use drug reference)

MrsLeonFarrell · 20/10/2025 09:11

RecoIIectionsMayVary · 20/10/2025 09:08

I think that is the biggest question - who is really pulling through strings.

Why after all the years did Epstein suddenly become called to account. Same with P.Diddy. There is a massive cover up, someone decided that Epstein was no longer worth protecting.

Why is it only Andrew being named? He is likely a user not the supplier (to use drug reference)

Exactly. I'm happy to see Andrew face consequences but I am increasingly of the belief that he is all over the media because he is the smallest fish, not the biggest.

CrimsonStoat · 20/10/2025 10:01

I do feel a bit for Charles. In his 70s he finally becomes King, and his entire tenure has involved him having cancer, Catherine having cancer, and Andrew's shenanigans.

He was probably hoping to really do something he felt was worthwhile, but has been on the backfoot almost from the start.

As it is, he feels like an interim king who isn't going to reign very long before his son takes over.

That being said, taking decisive action against Andrew by physically removing all titles either himself or through parliament should have been done right at the start, and he wouldn't be having to deal with it as much now. And I mean removing not Andrew just agreeing not to use them.

ThePoshUns · 20/10/2025 10:07

MrsLeonFarrell · 20/10/2025 09:11

Exactly. I'm happy to see Andrew face consequences but I am increasingly of the belief that he is all over the media because he is the smallest fish, not the biggest.

I think you’re right. He seems to be the scape goat, not that I have any sympathy for him for that but yes this runs far deeper than a dickhead Prince.

Charlenedickens · 20/10/2025 10:07

CrimsonStoat · 20/10/2025 10:01

I do feel a bit for Charles. In his 70s he finally becomes King, and his entire tenure has involved him having cancer, Catherine having cancer, and Andrew's shenanigans.

He was probably hoping to really do something he felt was worthwhile, but has been on the backfoot almost from the start.

As it is, he feels like an interim king who isn't going to reign very long before his son takes over.

That being said, taking decisive action against Andrew by physically removing all titles either himself or through parliament should have been done right at the start, and he wouldn't be having to deal with it as much now. And I mean removing not Andrew just agreeing not to use them.

Edited

And don’t forget the mess that is Harry and Megan.

anyway the palace obvs knew more was coming out on andrew so they acted to try to mitigate in advance, by him stepping down on his titles.

so far I can see is he lied on his interview as he did have further contact with Epstein, as was Sarah.

one of those emails he wrote they would play again, which looks dodgy as fuck considering it’s to a convicted paedo.

sarah had been taking lots of money from epstein

there is likely another second trafficked girl andrew had sex with.

andrew tried to use the met to dig up dirt on Virginia

it’s all so bloody grubby.

bluegreygreen · 20/10/2025 10:09

MrsLeonFarrell · 20/10/2025 08:57

The whole saga does make me question the narrative that the palace is all powerful and able to quash all consequences and bend the press to their will. Andrew is the only client facing any at the moment, and yes he isn't facing many but he is at least having some.

Exactly - I've just been saying something very similar on the other thread

Exactly - Andrew is a convenient scapegoat.
Presumably among those powerful men are newspaper editors who don't want their journalists asking the right questions.
I am not defending Andrew in any way. I am pointing out that this blanket coverage of him, while ignoring all the other names on lists, is very convenient, especially as he has not been found guilty of any crimes.

I know the Palace has a good PR team (they must be earning their money at the minute) but I've never believed they interfere with press freedom.

CrimsonStoat · 20/10/2025 10:37

This from the article on the BBC:

"The government, by long-standing convention, does not concern itself in matters concerning the Royal Family," she said.

This is in response to two MPs requesting that Andrew has his titles stripped, and the process for doing so made easier.

The whole thing is rotton from top to bottom.

AtIusvue · 20/10/2025 10:41

The thing is with titles, Prince Andrew, Lord Mandelson, Baroness Mone - have all presented the government with a problem. To remove the Dukedom/peerage …it’s not straightforward. But it’s because there are multiple people that the public expect to be stripped because of their seedy dealings, that I think there will be a mechanism introduced by parliament that will make it easier to remove a title. I mean I don’t think that will be tomorrow, but I can see it happening within the next 5 years.

KC I think will upset that Andrew is taking the headlines and his work (I think he is trying to cement his legacy because his ill health) is being overshadowed. Therefore I think the ball will start rolling under KC but it won’t be until William is King, that things will start happening.

RhododendronFlowers · 20/10/2025 11:28

I agree, @AtIusvue , and I think some members of the government would support this. It's well overdue.

Eyesopenwideawake · 20/10/2025 11:33

I think there's a massive elephant in the room. It's inconceivable that Charles did not have first hand knowledge of events that happened at the time, and was probably asked for his thoughts on the cover up. What happens when those questions are asked?

RhododendronFlowers · 20/10/2025 11:36

Eyesopenwideawake · 20/10/2025 11:33

I think there's a massive elephant in the room. It's inconceivable that Charles did not have first hand knowledge of events that happened at the time, and was probably asked for his thoughts on the cover up. What happens when those questions are asked?

I wonder if he did, though? They never got on and didn't particularly spend too much time together. Who knows, though.
I hope it all comes out.

jumpingthehighjump · 20/10/2025 11:37

This is good to see but I fear nothing will come of it

Pressure is also building within parliament, with some members pushing for greater powers to hold royals accountable.

The Labour peer George Foulkes has written to the Lords and Commons clerks asking them to review the rule barring peers and MPs from asking questions about the royals

RhododendronFlowers · 20/10/2025 11:44

Good news. The more pressure, the better. Plus, if there are royals with nothing to hide, they will welcome it. Who wants to be tarred with the same brush as Andrew?

jumpingthehighjump · 20/10/2025 11:44

This is the review of Virginia's book. It sounds heartbreaking

www.theguardian.com/books/2025/oct/20/nobodys-girl-by-virginia-roberts-giuffre-review-a-devastating-expose-of-power-corruption-and-abuse

RhododendronFlowers · 20/10/2025 11:48

Thank you for the link, @jumpingthehighjump .
Absolutely appalling.
What a heart rending story. Only Melinda Gates questioned what was going on? So many people are culpable.
I'd like to know who the minister is who choked her. Vile man.

Charlenedickens · 20/10/2025 11:54

Eyesopenwideawake · 20/10/2025 11:33

I think there's a massive elephant in the room. It's inconceivable that Charles did not have first hand knowledge of events that happened at the time, and was probably asked for his thoughts on the cover up. What happens when those questions are asked?

I really doubt very much Charles was privy to this level of detail on Andrew’s and fergies activies. I would one hundred percent assume he didn’t know and andrew also lied to him as he apparently did the queen. I mean why would he know. It is hugely unlikely andrew was saying to Charles by the way I’m off to shag some under age girl at Epstein island. Or I lied on newsnight.

i think it is more likely Charles and the rest were unaware, and andrew lied. And when it was told to them last week more revelations, Charles acted, reports are saying even then andrew is exclaiming his innocence, like right now he is saying he is innocent, so trying to blame Charles for me is a bit much,

RhododendronFlowers · 20/10/2025 11:54

@Charlenedickens - yes, I think you're right.

Eyesopenwideawake · 20/10/2025 12:10

I don't think QE2 would have shelled out £12m without any discussion with KC. This was not just a family matter, it was a grave threat to the Firm and, as the incoming CEO, Charles would have to be consulted.

I'm not 'blaming' him for anything other than turning a blind eye. But maybe if he – and his mother – hadn't, Virginia Giuffre would still be alive.

RhododendronFlowers · 20/10/2025 12:15

Eyesopenwideawake · 20/10/2025 12:10

I don't think QE2 would have shelled out £12m without any discussion with KC. This was not just a family matter, it was a grave threat to the Firm and, as the incoming CEO, Charles would have to be consulted.

I'm not 'blaming' him for anything other than turning a blind eye. But maybe if he – and his mother – hadn't, Virginia Giuffre would still be alive.

Interesting - there's actually no evidence she shelled out £12m, or even anything. I've read that didn't actually happen.
Anyway, I hope the truth will come out.

RhododendronFlowers · 20/10/2025 12:31

I've just been watching footage of Andrew at the DoK funeral, parading himself up and down like that! Extraordinary. Everyone else is just having quiet word and waiting for their cars. Him and Ferguson are laughing and acting like it's their event!

jumpingthehighjump · 20/10/2025 12:45

Charlenedickens · 20/10/2025 11:54

I really doubt very much Charles was privy to this level of detail on Andrew’s and fergies activies. I would one hundred percent assume he didn’t know and andrew also lied to him as he apparently did the queen. I mean why would he know. It is hugely unlikely andrew was saying to Charles by the way I’m off to shag some under age girl at Epstein island. Or I lied on newsnight.

i think it is more likely Charles and the rest were unaware, and andrew lied. And when it was told to them last week more revelations, Charles acted, reports are saying even then andrew is exclaiming his innocence, like right now he is saying he is innocent, so trying to blame Charles for me is a bit much,

I don't agree with that. A member of the royal family cannot just go off anywhere without personal protection officers people booking their flights, arrangements where to stay etc

Andrew repeatedly turned down staying at the consulate in New York but instead wanted to stay at epstein's New York mansion

QE2 new some of what was going on but she enabled him. I doubt Charles knew nothing either

Puzzledandpissedoff · 20/10/2025 12:46

MrsLeonFarrell · 20/10/2025 08:36

In the US names are being redacted from the documents released as well. If Andrew had any brains he'd stop letting people hide in his shadow and name some names.

As always you make a fair point, MrsLF, but might that not affect Andrew's income stream if it caused the sort of people he takes money from to become nervous?

Such people think only of themselves and I can't see it doing a lot for the wretched man's interests if he went out on a limb by blabbing

Andrew repeatedly turned down staying at the consulate in New York but instead wanted to stay at epstein's New York mansion

Edited to add of course he did, @jumpingthehighjump
I doubt the consulate had quite the same sort of ... errr ... entertainment on offer Hmm