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

There’s so much third-hand flannel and gobshittery talked on these boards about what Parliament has to do and not do and what the King can do and not do, re titles.

The best legal opinion I’ve ever read on these matters was written about Harry, but one can replace his name with ‘Andrew’, by Emeritus Professor Master Graham Zellick. It is very instructive, and suggests the monarch has all the powers already at his disposal to remove everything - all titles and styles - from an errant prince and royal duke.

https://middletemplar.org.uk/to-strip-or-not-to-strip-prince-harrys-titles/

I've included the parliamentary link for people who are not agreeing with me.

You will see that it is entitled 'Incidental criticism'. The text is clear that for each of the groups involved (more than just the royal family) criticism is allowed when formally debated, just not allowed incidentally in other discussion.

I suspect the origin was probably so that it would not distract from the sibject of another debate.

Incidental criticism of conduct of certain persons not permitted

What the public and press should do, until the titles are formally revoked- is to just not use the titles. Refer to him as Andrew.

They can’t make the press call him a Prince. They certainly can’t force the public.
In a similar vein, others too in the RF should be referred to just as their name and nothing else.

We as the public, do not have to accept anyone as a Prince of the United Kingdom whom we do not want.

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

yes, and none more strange than him staying there for 4 days when he went to ‘break up’ with him.

That's interesting @TheAutumnCrow - I've just been watching a YouTube vide by a historian who says the opposite (with reasoning from history), i.e. that the King can remove the title of Prince but not the peerage.

I will read your link with interest. The YouTube link is here if you are interested.

I was hoping the amount she received would be disclosed, sounds like it isn’t included in the book, I think that is another important factor in the efforts the RF made in trying to put a lid on it. There is no reason to keep it secret now, unless it is more than the rumoured 12 million which has been reported.

I agree with others, it is disquieting how she has been reticent about naming others. When she received the payment from Andrew, Alan Dershowitz publicly said he was suing her and would claim every penny of the money she got from the RF, a few months later she said she was mistaken about him and apologised.

I feel dreadfully sorry for her, even her final years were traumatic, she was estranged from her kids, amid rumours of a marriage marred by DV.

It is a whole murky underworld that it is difficult for the average person to even begin to comprehend.

If there's confusion amongst us as to who can do what, they might think that works in their favour.

We only have to look at Andrew and his supposedly revoked titles, which turn out to be him agreeing not to use them.

The RF and parliament haven't actually DONE anything.

And most of us are being bamboozled into thinking the king can't do X, and parliament can't do Y, so Andrew agreeing not to use titles is the best that can happen.

Of course they should be appreciated and thanked!

But the Duke of Gloucester is 81 and Duke of Kent 90.

This idea of lifelong "service" needs to be knocked on its head.

I think parliament should be demanding the unsealing of the files pertaining to his time as a trade envoy, that must be extremely interesting.

I think all the attention is going to Lownie’s head a bit!

If he has any evidence, he should take it to the proper authorities and hope that it doesn’t get suppressed!

That’s exactly what I just said before seeing your post! I think he’s getting carried away with himself. Perhaps he ought to be watching his back… There’s clearly much more efficient ‘operators’ lying low on this unlike the hapless Andrew!

She did have boyfriends I think but I don’t recall him with a girlfriend after Sarah? I did think it was strange?

Perhaps that’s for them to decide?

Given the number of people in KC’s orbit, and given the further context of the age, I don’t think it’s surprising that some of them were paedophiles.

And isn’t hindsight a wonderful thing!

I agree 💯

No. If the RF is being slimlined, they're the obvious first choices to stop.

They form no part of the monarch, heir and close family structure that is supposedly what William wants, and Charles was also supposedly on board with slimlining.

So I haven’t read the whole thread and I think the answer to this is obvious but it just doesn’t seem to be being explicitly stated in the news - but if Andrew was asking aides to dig on Virginia before/during the time they met, surely that disproves his claims of having never met her? Just doesn’t seem to be being called out in this way in the news pieces I have read. Only the fact that the police are investigating this.

No I think it’s more that he was told of the accusation in advance, then asked his PPO to investigate his accuser (VG) and dig up dirt. The scandalous part, obviously not even considering the horrors of what he did to Virginia, is the asking the PPO which is all sorts of fucked up legally. It’s using the PPO for personal and nefarious means, and the PPO was funded by taxpayers. All just really gross.

You're absolutely right, bluegreygreen, but as shown in a previous pieece I posted (I'll try to find it again) the Speaker gets to decide what's a substantive motion and what's not, and there's no appeal

In other news, it's just been on the news that the palace want folk to concentrate on Charles's work a "not get distracted" by Andrew.
I bet they do but find it rather disturbing that they see fit to tell us what we should discuss ... yet more pretence about what they "can't do" coming right up, I expect

The 'narrative' of Prince William saying he'd want Andrew barred from his Coronation... is there something we don't know? I realise KC's health has been a bit rough lately but surely any Coronation might be a good many years away, so this isn't much of a threat? Or, like the late Queen's health and imminent death, is this something we are not supposed to know about?

It gets worse ... Ed Miliband has now said "the government will be guided by the royal family on any decision to formally strip Prince Andrew of his titles amid “deeply concerning allegations” the former duke wanted to launch a smear campaign against his sexual assault accuser"

In a constitutional monarchy the direction is supposed to be the other way round, and doubtless this is why he used "guidance" instead, but could it possibly be more obvious that parliament has sold us all out to this unelected bunch?

https://www.standard.co.uk/news/uk/ed-miliband-government-eugenie-york-king-b1253692.html

He has cancer, it's not gone away.

He could live with it for a few years, but he won't be blessed with anything like his parents' longevity.

I do wonder about him openly praying with the Pope. I think he'd have wanted to do it anyway, but it feels rather poignant.

This is just ridiculous!

Please, Gen Z and Gen Alpha, save us from this nonsense when your time comes.

Oh dear why?

Was it because sex on demand with enslaved, agentless, compliant and submissive young women was not a service offered at the consulate?

Tsk tsk, you just can't get good service anywhere these days! He was forced to stay at the mansion.

😒

This has to be a joke.

Women really aren't worth shit are they? Sold out indeed. A Prince can get his jollies off with trafficked young girls and Parliament which is meant to represent us on some level, being elected and all that, will be guided by the Palace?

I used to object to the term 'rape culture'

I don't anymore. It's basically legal to rape young women if you're rich and privileged.

Ok got that memo. Glad I don't have young daughters to explain this to.