Is Andrew moving out of Royal Lodge or not

[Viviennemary]

I keep reading conflicting stories. One said William has threatened ro remove Beatrice and Eugenie's titles if he doesnt. Has he even got the power to do that? Another said Fergie and Andrew have demanded enough money for each of them to buy a separate property. Its never ending.

The monarch can remove the title of 'Prince' by letters patent - most recently only done for treason such as fighting against the country in the first World War.

Removal of the title of Duke requires an Act of Parliament - historically so that the monarch had limited powers and couldn't easily remove the powers of others.

It is the job of parliament in a constitutional monarchy to hold those in power to account, be they ministers or royalty. Usually the government would be foremost in the role of holding royalty to account.

There is a mechanism in parliament for debating royal issues (separate to funding etc which are regularly debated in Treasury committees). This is laid out in the Erskine May rule which, contrary to many reports, does not prevent discussion of the Royal Family (or senior judges etc) but lays out how the discussion should happen (a properly drawn up substantive motion).

Currently the government has refused to allow time for a substantive motion to be debated.

My personal opinion is that this is on KC3's desk as monarch and that he should neither be blaming HMTLQ not putting things off for William.
I also think the government should have grasped the nettle months ago and held the debate. I am increasingly concerned that the reason they are not doing so is that there is a lot more to come out regarding powerful business, financial and political men who were involved with Epstein. I think Andrew (who is neither clever nor powerful) has been a convenient scapegoat.

@bluegreygreen Did you ever read that legal opinion by Master Graham Zellick on the removal of titles? This emeritus law professor makes a distinction between royal dukedoms, which come with no lands and property, and other dukedoms which do come with inherited lands and property.

The removal of the latter would require an Act of Parliament. The former, not necessarily so, as these are ‘merely’ ceremonial titles bestowed by the monarch as, for example, a wedding present.

Zellick uses Harry as his example, but the principle is the same as regards Andrew. He (Zellick) also points out that while the monarch has the power to remove what was given by the monarch i.e. titular gifts, there is always a risk of such a former royal duke mounting a pesky public legal challenge, which would need to be weighed up in PR terms. Where does public opinion sit? Timing is all on these tricky matters.

Yes, I did, thanks @TheAutumnCrow - though I'd forgotten about it just now.

I'm not sure I fully follow his argument about the differences between the dukedoms and hence the differences in removal but I will go back to it at some point (currently off sick and my ability to take in complex arguments is limited!)
Did you watch the YouTube video I linked?

Whether Zellick or the historian is correct, I think we both agree that KC3 and the government both have responsibilities here.

@bluegreygreen I’ll link mine again if you link yours again! 😄 I don’t think I watched the whole thing, no.

Then we can catch up on it all, hopefully. Thanks in advance.

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

@zipadeedodah
She bought the Belgravia house for £4.2m- and sold it for £3.8m

God, money just slips through her fingers, doesn't it?

There's been plenty more available to her. Its nothing short of total corruption.

Was the Belgravia house owned by her daughters and she benefitted from the rent?

The state should definitely not house SF.

I have heard or read that the daughters bought it for her, but where that came from I can't remember and it might not be true.

@TheAutumnCrow

Here's the link