Does Prince Andrew have to become plain Andrew Windsor?

[Noras]

I am a Royalist and firmly believe in a constitutional monarchy. I think that a CM creates stability and is better than a President etc

It seems to me that Andrew ( guilty or not) has done huge amounts of damage to the brand and I think that he needs to become plain Andrew Windsor.

I can’t see any other option if they want to get ahead of the curve.

This thing is growing legs and the ripples could implicate the entire family. It seems to me that even the late Queen’s involvement is being looked at eg Andrew Lownie
discussions on security logs on the relevant night ( non sweat dance / Pizza Hut!) and how they ( PA and SF ) remained at Windsor to avoid being served papers.

Andrew needs to walk the streets as a plain mister or get out there demand a trial and clear his name.

He is destroying the Royal Family brick by brick.

Am I wrong?

The OP wants to have their cake and eat it.

The Andrew affair is always going to be a risk (if not certainty) if you choose to have a monarchy. It's the very definition of the price you pay.

Now if we had an elected head of state then would could remove them from the role and replace them with someone who isn't a paedophile or have a paedophile for a brother - or a friend.

He should be put in front of parliament and his titles stripped formally. All of them.

Nah. A much better idea is to remove the monarchy from our constitution and never have to worry about inherited privilege again.

That would be nice. But the first step would be showing that parliament has the balls to do this.

The nature of monarchy is such that you get whoever fate decrees to be a Head of State or the family members in line to the throne. It is only an accident of fate that Andrew is not King; ponder that. Anyone who supports monarchy has to accept that it is only a matter of time until we get a wholly unsuitable person as Head of State, with no way of removing them.

Anyone who supports monarchy has to accept that it is only a matter of time until we get a wholly unsuitable person as Head of State, with no way of removing them.

Rather puts the "President Blair" trope into perspective.

I think if we had a King Andrew there would be a revolt.

The ones on the throne knew that they are now under intense scrutiny.

However the Prince Andrew saga has opened up the debate and we are on the eve of a catastrophic monarchy constitutional crisis unless they shut this down with something dramatic. A few lost titles doesn’t cut it.

I really want to see Andrew and Sarah publicly called to account and I’m a constitutional monarchist!

I never want to see them again on a public occasion or hear that they’ve attended one.

To me this is more important than their titles, but I’d happily see them lose those.

No - these people can’t cope with the constraints of actually being the monarch. Look at Edward VII and Harry/Meghan. These people are just silly prats rather than utterly disgusting like Andrew, but…it’s a tough gig and you do need dedication and to believe in what you’re doing for the rest of your life.

Edward VIII….apols.

I’ve never bowed to any of them! I live close to Sandringham and have watched them on Christmas Day leave church. Have shaken hands with our future King, he and his beautiful wife were very natural and all smiles. Didn’t think to bow, it would have been odd, I’ve seen the younger royals on the beach near Sandringham, when I’ve been dog walking, lots of us locals ‘know’ them by sight, and keep our distance out of respect. I certainly wouldn’t bow to Andrew under any circumstances , he’s not ‘royal’ any more than I am!

Not a chance I would bow to any of them, they are no better than anyone else.

We very nearly did get a wholly unsuitable monarch with Edward VIII. One who would have been a Nazi sympathiser during WWII. He did even actually become King briefly but fortunately he abdicated fairly quickly to marry Wallis Simpson.

If he hadn't abdicated in favour of marrying Wallis then I suspect it could still have been forced on him by act of parliament as his leanings became clear. Better than having a Nazi sympathiser monarch.

I've always had a certain interest in our constitutional monarchy even though I no longer have strong opinions about keeping them or not. I love the historical side of it but it wouldn't really affect my life if they weren't there as far as I can tell.

Would I bow or curtsey to any of them? Not at all. I'd nod and be polite as I would to anyone else. I think it's ridiculous that they apparently bow and curtsey to each other. I'd have hated having to do that to my parents or sibling.

Andrew should lose all of his titles and Royal Lodge too. It should be done by officially stripping him of them, not just by some mutual agreement. Parliament or Letters Patent (or is it both?) should also be used to remove his inherited Prince title. I think it can be done and it should be. He's done so much damage, and his mother did too (albeit perhaps unintentionally) by making him her golden child and backing him far too much.

If they aren't able to fully strip him of these privileges and keep a paedophile brother/uncle out of the public eye for good then I will wonder what is the point of having them as the royals. If they can and they do then I'll have much more respect.

I suspect I am not alone.

They’re very murky when it comes to money, especially charity monies! So I’ll continue thank you!

Surely the problem is that stripping Andrew of anything at this point will just look like an acknowledgement of his guilt? And that can only make things worse. Presumably there was some haggling: Andrew gives up some titles voluntarily; in exchange he gets to keep the name Prince.

And that throws shade on late Queen was she at pains to cover up anything that might injure the family firm? I can understand why she might have wanted to hide information that could lead people to conclude her son was guilty of shocking and ugly crimes. In the same way she didn’t want the truth revealed about Diana’s life and death.

Personally I’d like to see Andrew de-Princed, and a full and frank disclosure from the Crown regarding all factual information they found that supports or refutes questions of Andrew’s guilt and any pay-offs or political “levers” they used to deter a possible US extradition of Andrew to face charges. I believe the Queen may have rationalised that since she is above the law; her son being in line to the throne could also benefit from her protection; morally reprehensible and certainly not in the spirit of the law if so. But rich powerful people are used to “getting away with it” which is exactly what causes these situations in the first place.

Part of the problem is that PA has not actually been tried or found guilty of anything. Yes, there is some alleged evidence in the public domain but it has not been tested in court.

Trial by media, social media, Mumsnet etc. is not the same as a proper court case.

The voluntarily relinquishing all titles etc. except Prince, is a sensible approach in the circumstances.

PA is permitted, just like anyone not in prison or subject to a restraining order, to attend church services, christenings, weddings and funerals etc. of family members. He is also entitled to lease a property.

I would personally prefer a proper trial where all the evidence is presented, but I question whether or not it is possible for anyone to get a fair trial in the circumstances.

I also would like to see a thorough inquiry into Epstein and all that happened but that is never going to happen. There are too many rich powerful people who have a vested interest in the truth remaining confidential.

The Duke of York, and other titles, will revert back to the crown when PA dies. It is highly likely that in future titles will be given for a lifetime not as hereditary titles. This is a change KC made which I think was sensible.

Great summary, HarrassedEvictee.

I think I perhaps need to read the Lownie book for clarity, but I can’t recall why Andrew never went to court ok the US? I remember there was a flurry of news stories but can’t recall the details … does anyone know?

Surely the problem is that stripping Andrew of anything at this point will just look like an acknowledgement of his guilt?

I would have thought that paying 12 million out to a woman you've never met was more of an admission of guilt!

This.

I don't like trial by media for anyone, no matter how unpleasant they are.

And it is noticeable that the many other rich and powerful men involved have not faced scrutiny- even those (especially those?) in the USA who were available for questioning.

I wouldnt bow to any of them. They're not superior to the rest of us.

Donald Trump seems to be under a lot of scrutiny ?

He is at the moment because the infamous 'birthday book' came out. But the investigators in the USA have had several years to question him, Clinton etc etc, but haven't.

The trial of Ghislaine Maxwell showed that many girls were abused, by many men. But there doesn't seem to be any further charges, or investigation, into the men who the girls were trafficked to.

I thought it was like this - Duckdoms need act of parliment - but Prince/Princess was letter Patent - but so many posters seem to think it's the other way round or just one way for both.

I did read William likes the idea of titles only being used by working royals and even his kids and younger royals in future having titles held in abeyance till they become working royals. No idea how true that is of his wishes but I think it would be a good way forward.

Lownie also goes into detail about how ABC allegedly sat on the story of Virginia Giuffre's accusations against Andrew for three years before the news broke elsewhere. The original ABC journalist, Amy Robach, claims that no one would air the story despite solid documentation because "The Palace" had preemptively threatened to block access to the (current) POWs if they did. Omid Scobie has claimed that multiple Palace representatives actively disincentivised journalists from covering the story, including via threats and - he implies - bribes, over a period of at least four years.

If this is true then whoever ordered these actions, plus any other Royals who knew about them and tacitly consented, have used the power of the monarchy against the best interests of the British people and in the service of classism and misogyny. They are (again, if the accusations are true) in the wrong ethically, possibly financially, and almost certainly legally and should be exposed. Note: this would be a problem EVEN IF ANDREW WERE COMPLETELY INNOCENT. I'm really not seeing any angels here.