Here we go … Andrew to leave Royal Lodge and lose title

[Flixon]

Headlined in The Times just now …. About bloody time …

Me too 😔

That is quite a statement. I wonder if more incriminating evidence is about to come out?

Sky Roberts is Virginia's younger brother. How on earth could he have stopped his sister from being abused as a child?

I can't belive that you are blaming VG's younger brother while claiming that Andrew was exploited and groomed.

Undoubtedly there is more. And i imagine Charles knows some of it

And when more shit bits the fan, Andrew will be hidden away and no more can be done

I can't belive that you are blaming VG's younger brother while claiming that Andrew was exploited and groomed

As if! Even when Epstein was uncovered Andrew insisted in his interview that he had no regrets and he'd been very useful to know. That's not the mark of a 'groomed' man. He was 60 FFS!

You might believe the royal family has an all reaching power but they don’t. Charles can take stuff away from his brother, but what to you expect him to do about all the other men who may or may not be named in the Epstein files. What reach do you think Charles has to punish them? Or even to read the files!

@AliceMaforethought "OFFS shut up about Harry. This thread is about a PEDOPHILE and you are still moaning on about Harry and Meghan. I'm not a fan of either of them but their poor behaviour absolutely is insignificant compared to Andrew's crimes."

Be careful what you are accusing him of. To call him a paedophile with absolutely no proof , is slanderous. Virginia was 17 and over the age of consent in the UK which is where the alleged meetings took place. Andrew is yet another example of an entitled and lecherous older man, but that does not make him a paedo. As far as "Crimes" are concerned, he has not been found guilty of any crime either, no matter how odious he is.

Although he is a foreigner I think Elon Musk might contradict your take on the power of the wealthy

Sky Robert’s is also the name of her father. I assume that poster has confused the two of them. I think asking where her parents were when she was being trafficked is a valid question.

It’s a very separate question from Andrew’s behaviour though, and I’m not sure why that poster is trying to excuse what he did.

A very valid point, jumpingthehighjump

As so many of us have said Andrew's been an extremely useful lightning rod, and with him apparently gone I wonder what else will be used as a "look over there!!"

That seems rather harsh on Beatrice & Eugenie - what have they done wrong?
Not sure they should suffer for their father’s sins?

To call him a paedophile with absolutely no proof , is slanderous. Virginia was 17 and over the age of consent in the UK which is where the alleged meetings took place

I have probably said this about 20 times on here

If you have been trafficked age is irrelevant

There were 3 meetings. One was on Epstein's island where she was under the age of consent but it does not matter, she was trafficked

He isn't a paedophile.

They knew a lot of his activities. They took huge amounts of money from dodgy middle eastern people
I imagine they have been involved in subbing him through Middle Eastern contacts as they have spent a great amount of time there lately

Apparently it's because William wants to get rid of more distant titles, and keep P and P just for monarch's kids.

All part of his apparent slimming down once he's in the top job.

But who knows really.

I never said that you had said that he did; I just explained to you the difference between what Mountbatten did and what Mandelson did.

Someone said Andrew Lownie is writing about H and M next.

I'd think less of him if he did.

He'd be better off joining forces with that other writer who tried to investigate Mountbatten.

Together they could ride on the coattails of this publicity and show the secrecy and blocking that surrounds an actual alleged paedophile.

They might get somewhere if the blocks they've both encountered are publicised more. It also keeps the heat on the RF.

Does that mean Harry, Archie and Lilibet are for the chop when he's king?

Sky Robert’s is also the name of her father. I assume that poster has confused the two of them. I think asking where her parents were when she was being trafficked is a valid question.

Virginia also alleges in her book that her father and one of his friends repeatedly raped her as a teenager, so that probably answers that.

Compared to Andrew and Sarah, H&M are purring kittens. Annoying as hell, yes, ridiculous, yes, but they haven't been involved in a proper scandal other than being a bit big for their boots and very Jeremy Kyle show like. Work place bullying is so common place these days (have been at receiving end twice) it wouldn't amount to a scandal if it was found that Meghan is mean. The RF needs to learn from this and remove H&M's and their dc's titles so they can't exploit them like the Yorks did. Run a very tight ship

I think Harry would retain his title (because he was the son of the Prince of Wales when he was born) but Archie and Lilibet would no longer hold the titles. In the same way that George, Charlotte and Louis are Prince/Princess for life but only George’s children (assuming he has any) would then be titled Prince/Princess going forward.

Which all links in to Edward being given the title Duke of Edinburgh for life only, rather than to pass onto his son. Apply these rules and there will only be a small pool of people holding “Royal” titles.

Agree. He's apparently arrogant, sleazy, entitled, predatory and corrupt, but not, on this evidence, a paedophile.

No @LunarLights1 He is NOT an 'alleged pedophile' and it is slanderous to suggest that he is. Virginia Guiffre was 17 at the time of their alleged meetings in London and thus above the age of consent: Paedophiles are attracted to pre pubescent young children. Andrew may be an odious, entitled fool, but for now he's not been found guilty of any crime.

I imagine William would want to remove Archie and Lillibet's P and P. I think he'll remove the grandchildren of the monarch having them in letters patent. That may just be going forward rather than being retrospective.

When A and L grow up would their children be entitled to any titles?

Whilst I completely agree on your point about looking at the tax of the wealthy, I really don't understand why can't you see an alternative to the monarchy?? [the group called Republic have some interesting ideas on their site worth looking at]. There's a huge number of other countries that have got rid of their monarchy and managed extremely well without them! The point I was making in giving the money we spend to the NHS was purely illustrative, in that there are a huge number of far more deserving causes to spend our taxes on than the Royal family. But if the good folk of the UK are are happy to continue to pay their taxes to a group of a people who have inherited wealth and property of eye-watering proportions, a group of animal abusing spongers who swan around the country followed by ridiculous royalist "well wishers" then that's fine, we live in a democracy. But let's at least have a vote on whether we should either keep, change, or get rid of this system.
There is absolutely no comparison between Brexit and the abolishment of the monarchy, other than your point that this would need to be managed correctly.
One more thing, I live near Sandringham and we don't want him there either.

I can see lots of potential alternatives but I have yet to see one which enough people agree on and which contains details of how power would be handed over and where it would end up, together with the financial implications of that move. Brexit is a good parallel because it was something that was voted on with no detail as to how it would actually work and what the financial implications would be.