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

That's a good point, I really can't see Andrew choosing to assist justice at the expense of his own interests.

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

Yet another fair point, @MrsLeonFarrell, except that as said so often Andrew's a very useful lightning rod, and while the attention's focused on him the rest get a break

Certainly his activities reflect dreadfully on the institution, but we've no way of knowing whether - should others be investigated instead - it might look even worse

He is deflecting attention but I think more from others who associated with Epstein rather than the rest of his family. I don't see a limit in the press to the number of Royal scandals they are willing to cover at one time.

A bit of a tangent

I have worked in safeguarding and have seen at first hand how many families and friends struggle to connect such depraved behaviour with someone they love and respect. I would not be at all surprised if the late Queen believed Andrew's version, I've seen it happen again and again, even in the face of facts and convictions. I don't know if Charles would be in the same bind but William is definitely someone who can face the facts and act appropriately where his uncle is concerned. Andrew is lucky Charles is taking the lead.

I'm not saying that the late Queen shouldn't acted sooner and stronger just that it is far easier to see what to do when you are not emotionally connected to the person concerned.

Agree again @MrsLeonFarrell, having worked in similar fields

Why? They work hard, are loyal to the Sovereign and have always behaved well, without scandal. They should be thanked (and I'm sure the King does appreciate them).

Why?!

Ageism?

He is deflecting attention but I think more from others who associated with Epstein rather than the rest of his family. I don't see a limit in the press to the number of Royal scandals they are willing to cover at one time

I sincerely hope you're right, @MrsLeonFarrell
You're certainly correct about the media's appetite for scandal, but it does worry me that others in the family have a lot more to lose than the already trashed Andrew, and have a lot more influence where it counts than him

As for a PP's Guardian link about MPs being pressured to address the scandals among this family, I have to wonder how they're meant to do that when discussion about it isn't even allowed

I would have assumed that this is exactly the sort of situation that is allowed in parliament under Erskine May (someone posted the guidance recently). The fact that the government are deflecting makes me wonder why.

Are they pressed for time?
Are they worried that it will rebound on them politically?
Are they aware of others that could be implicated if it were discussed in a place where you can't be sued for libel?

I'm going to guess it's the latter.

The government spokesperson said it was by longstanding convention that they didn't get involved, not that they couldn't legally.

I think it's beyond time when the RF were held accountable by more than just the government.

I think there’s a lot more people culpable of that and it’s being disgraceful that they are getting away with it scotfree!!! As the saying goes, Andrew was among the crows, so he is rightly getting shot at, but what about all the other guilty bastards?

I would like to see them all held to account no matter how powerful!

I think William was deeply angered by that display and think it hardened his resolve. I don’t blame him. The two of them were an absolute disgrace and at a funeral of all places! No respect for the Duchess of Kent or her family!

Right with you on that, MrsLF, but once again we're seeing the "convenience" of parliament's ability to dodge addressing what doesn't suit

Not unlike the RF in fact ...

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

There is no rule barring MPs asking questions about the Royal Family, assuming he is referring to Erskine May.

The fact that the government hasn't yet decided it wants to do so doesn't mean there isn't a mechanism to do it. Erskine May simply says it must be done in a proper manner.

I quoted the relevant paragraph on a previous thread - here it is again:

'As indicated at para 20.10, unless the discussion is based upon a substantive motion, drawn in proper terms, reflections must not be cast in debate upon the conduct of the Sovereign, the heir to the throne, or other members of the royal family.1 The same principle applies to the Lord Chancellor,2 the Governor-General of an independent territory,3 and judges of the superior courts of the United Kingdom4 (including persons holding the position of a judge, such as circuit judges and their deputies, as well as recorders).'

Just thinking out loud - perhaps threads like this one will stop the “but Andrew” brigade in their tracks!! Posters are every bit as willing to discuss him when there’s something to discuss!

I am not sure why the likes of Andrew and Maxwell, and VG for that matter, didn’t and don’t sing like canaries? It has to be fear of ‘consequences’ of some kind? Which makes me wonder again about Epstein’s demise?

The Vintage Read show on YouTube had Lownie on yesterday. He actually said that he knows who killed Epsten but did not reveal the name. He is putting out an updated paperback in, I think, August.

I think he would be very unwise to reveal the name in his paperback.

It goes to show how inept and naive Andrew is, thinking he would always be above the law, fraternising with the lowest form of human life that was Epstein, living his entitled and privileged life seemingly clueless that there are people out there ready to shaft him and throw him under the bus.

His behaviour at the DofK's funeral is yet more evidence that he has no social filter or conscience because he has been indulged his entire life. He should be a broken man but he resolutely denies all knowledge and has lied by omission. Wishing for Prince William to take affirmative action (which there is no doubt he would if he were King), unfortunately would mean the demise of KC.

I've seen Lownie interviewed a lot over the past few days. I think he is in danger of letting the attention go to his head and seems to be moving beyond facts into speculation. He needs to be careful or he is going to undermine the research he did for his book.

So it can be discussed. After all it's hardly casting reflections if the family itself is trying to remove Andrew.

the weird nature of Andrew and Sarah’s relationship bugs me. Ex husband//wives simply don’t continue to live together. It seems as though theyre back together and neither have had any other relationship in recent years. So if they’re back together why not come out and say it and remarry quietly and privately, away from cameras? It’s bloody weird.

He said he saw FBI folders.

reflections must not be cast in debate upon the conduct of the Sovereign, the heir to the throne, or other members of the royal family

My point exactly.

no questions of a negative nature

Read the previous clause

unless the discussion is based upon a substantive motion

You can discuss these things as long as they are properly brought in a substantive motion

I linked it before but here it is again and it explains it much better than I can.

It shows what sort of questions can be asked and what sort can't and there is a lot of the can't

www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2025/oct/19/mps-urged-to-confront-royal-family-over-prince-andrews-epstein-links