Prince Andrew to give up all honours and titles

As I recall...
The once 'Poster boy' of the media

Randy Andy (Prince Andrew and Sarah Ferguson) : r/agedlikemilk


has suffered from the consequences of the passing of time.

The media came up with the title "Randy Andy" taking advantage of the young Prince having an eye for the ladies and publicising if not promoting his virility.
Yeah, he's charming with a dash of ick..... IMO
 

Well exactly it pertains to the UK because the thread is about a British prince
Well exactly it pertains to the UK because the thread is about a British prince
Yes, and that is so sad. Now, history tells us that Andrew is far from the worst prince to come down the pike, but, in all the salacious chatter that has gone on with this. It is actually about his shady business deals with Epstein and others that is behind each scintilla of this story. There is so much more involved here, that he and Fergie would best fade into distance and let most of it die out. The same applies to the other 2 who see fit to besmirch both their families, which I find disgraceful.
 
Last edited:
It will vary from person to person.

For me - the royal family is part of our legacy. It's our heritage. It is part of being British. Many people around the globe only know the Royal family, and they represent our country.

Undermining the royal family is undermining the United Kingdom. The United Kingdom without the Royals is a misnomer.

The royals cost the UK public £510m a year. They bring in, including tourism etc, £1.76bn.

But more, they are part of our tradition. As such, they're vital.
Understood. A thoughtful answer, as usual. I think my point of view is closer to Hollydolly's but I see where you're coming from.
 

This is an honest question for all Brits and Commonwealth folks. Is the royal family considered an asset or just an embarassing relic of the past?

I think If you were to ask ten Brits this question, you would probably get twelve different answers.

Personally, I don’t see the Royal Family as a burden. Much of their businesses, property, and land were handed over to the government centuries ago. The government keeps the profits from that and finances the Royal Family with it. One example is Ascot Racecourse, founded by Queen Anne on land she owned in 1711.

The revenue from all of that goes to the "Crown Estate", which is surrendered to the government. A percentage of that goes into the "Sovereign Grant", which is used to pay the Royal Family. Last year, the Crown Estate made £1.15 billion in profits, and the Sovereign Grant paid £86.3 million to the royals.

Other costs exist too, such as security and local council expenses during royal visits. An anti-monarchy group has estimated the total cost of the Royal Family at £510 million per year, though this includes indirect and speculative expenses and is considered an exaggeration by others.

But even if we take that figure at face value, the Treasury receives £1.15 billion from the Crown Estate and pays out £0.51 billion (£510 million) to the royals. Financially, it seems to me that it's not a net loss to the country, far from it.

While I don’t see them as a burden, I do find some of them a national embarrassment -- perhaps even an international one in some circles.
 
Last edited:
This is an honest question for all Brits and Commonwealth folks. Is the royal family considered an asset or just an embarassing relic of the past?
&
I think since the death of Queen Elizabeth 2...the public at large would probably think that the Royal family as it was know as a working insitution died with her.... and generally I suspect that a great deal would not be concerned if we have no royal family after this King's reign is over ... ..

However when the possibility of doing away with the pomp and circumstance and the public expense of their salaries/trips, houses, palaces, castes, and basically everything else .. .. is raised then that old adage about it bringing in more revenue as a tourist attraction than it costs to keep them...is trotted out with monotonous regularity
Whilst MM QE2 was alive, there was a good degree of respect for her and the role she employed, holding PM's to account, someone if not liked, then respected all over the World whilst providing a focal point for the Home Nation. 🇬🇧

Her dedication in earlier days

1760880874581.png...1760880909398.png...1760880957362.png
  • and adherence to COVID direction in latter years - at her husbands funeral
1760881207718.png

Unlike a lot of Politicians - compying with that of her subjects, setting standards through actions
- however
Upon her passing, there has been a definite shift.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------0
 
Despite his best intentions an efforts to engage with other faiths, promote environmental concerns andopen criticism of Political leaders (though restrained) Charles was caught between the worlds of olde rule and duty, - and aspiration for change, such was 'the word' in the 1960's UK - allowing his male siblings a freedom to 'enjoy thie role with much more freedom than he had, and still unable to escape the tag of "Hippy Prince" and position or a lot more scrutiny


1760883285489.png ... 1760883305295.png

When Charles passes, and William takes the reins, will see - I believe - a much firmer shift of direction.

A much more modern Prince with the same in-touch with the people -a review of olde world pomp to a more statesperson and responsible attitude to living a life Royal, with clearear and accountability of actions.
 
From the BBC....

He will remain a prince - but will cease to be the Duke of York, a title received from his mother, the late Queen Elizabeth.

Prince Andrew had already ceased to be a "working royal" and had lost the use of his HRH title and no longer appeared at official royal events. His role now will be even more diminished.

He is expected to stay in his Windsor home, Royal Lodge, on which he has his own private lease which runs until 2078.

His ex-wife will be known as Sarah Ferguson and no longer Duchess of York, but their daughters will continue to have the title of princess.

Prince Andrew gives up his title as Duke of York
 
Prince Andrew could become the first royal to be caught up in a criminal probe in more than 20 years after the Metropolitan Police confirmed it was 'actively' probing claims he asked an officer to dig up dirt on his teenage sex accuser.

An email obtained by The Mail on Sunday exposes how Andrew asked his taxpayer-funded Met bodyguard to investigate Virginia Giuffre and passed him her date of birth and confidential social security number.

Astonishingly, Andrew then told Ed Perkins, Queen Elizabeth's deputy press secretary, that he had asked one of his personal protection officers – part of the Met's elite SO14 Royalty Protection Group – to dig up information about Ms Giuffre.



He emailed Mr Perkins hours before this newspaper first published the infamous picture of the duke with 17-year-old Ms Giuffre, which would ultimately bring about his downfall.

'It would also seem she has a criminal record in the [United] States,' he wrote. 'I have given her DoB [date of birth] and social security number for investigation with XXX, the on duty ppo [personal protection officer].'

It is not suggested that the officer complied with the prince's request, while Ms Giuffre's family last night said she did not have a criminal record.

Her relatives said our revelations 'expose the lengths to which those implicated try to discredit and defame survivors. The truth will surface and there will be no shadows in which they can hide'.

A spokesperson for the Met Police confirmed today: 'We are aware of media reporting and are actively looking into the claims made.'

The prince could potentially face a criminal investigation in the US for sharing Ms Giuffre's social security number without her permission.

Although Andrew previously settled a civil sex assault case brought by Ms Giuffre in the US, this would be the first time in more than two decades where a Royal Family member has been caught up in a criminal probe.

 
I think If you were to ask ten Brits this question, you would probably get twelve different answers.

Personally, I don’t see the Royal Family as a burden. Much of their businesses, property, and land were handed over to the government centuries ago. The government keeps the profits from that and finances the Royal Family with it. One example is Ascot Racecourse, founded by Queen Anne on land she owned in 1711.

The revenue from all of that goes to the "Crown Estate", which is surrendered to the government. A percentage of that goes into the "Sovereign Grant", which is used to pay the Royal Family. Last year, the Crown Estate made £1.15 billion in profits, and the Sovereign Grant paid £86.3 million to the royals.

Other costs exist too, such as security and local council expenses during royal visits. An anti-monarchy group has estimated the total cost of the Royal Family at £510 million per year, though this includes indirect and speculative expenses and is considered an exaggeration by others.

But even if we take that figure at face value, the Treasury receives £1.15 billion from the Crown Estate and pays out £0.51 billion (£510 million) to the royals. Financially, it seems to me that it's not a net loss to the country, far from it.

While I don’t see them as a burden, I do find some of them a national embarrassment -- perhaps even an international one in some circles.
I don't see them as a burden.
But I have to be honest, as far as I am concerned the monarchy died with the late Queen.

I do not acknowledge Charles as King, I find him to be a traitor to the very instatution that he is the head of ( The Church of England)

He is not fit to rule and is lacking in testicular fortitude when it comes to making decisions regarding his wayward brat of a childman son.

This has nothing to do with Meghan Markle, I actually feel sorry for her, Harry told her so many lies and unfortunatly she fell for them.

He weaponised her to take down the RF and is still doing so.
He always wanted out of the family but didn't have the teticular fortitude to do so on his own.
 
I don't see them as a burden.
But I have to be honest, as far as I am concerned the monarchy died with the late Queen.
It’s much the same for me.

IMO it would have been much better for The Monarchy if Charles had stepped back and allowed William to be King.

I believe that William and his young family would have provided a refreshing ‘reboot’ for The Royal Family.
 
It’s much the same for me.

IMO it would have been much better for The Monarchy if Charles had stepped back and allowed William to be King.

I believe that William and his young family would have provided a refreshing ‘reboot’ for The Royal Family.
Imo, Charles has done William and his family a favour by giving him a longer time as a Prince. There has been so much pressure with Catherine’s health and the malicious press. Then there’s the jackass, Harry.
 
I don't see them as a burden.
But I have to be honest, as far as I am concerned the monarchy died with the late Queen.

I do not acknowledge Charles as King, I find him to be a traitor to the very instatution that he is the head of ( The Church of England)

He is not fit to rule and is lacking in testicular fortitude when it comes to making decisions regarding his wayward brat of a childman son.

This has nothing to do with Meghan Markle, I actually feel sorry for her, Harry told her so many lies and unfortunatly she fell for them.

He weaponised her to take down the RF and is still doing so.
He always wanted out of the family but didn't have the teticular fortitude to do so on his own.
Interesting perspective, there is so much 'back story' that is beyond my perception.
 
It will vary from person to person.

For me - the royal family is part of our legacy. It's our heritage. It is part of being British. Many people around the globe only know the Royal family, and they represent our country.

Undermining the royal family is undermining the United Kingdom. The United Kingdom without the Royals is a misnomer.

The royals cost the UK public £510m a year. They bring in, including tourism etc, £1.76bn.

But more, they are part of our tradition. As such, they're vital.
True. It's the monarchy itself which is important. The individual members of the Royal family are human after all and Princess Anne and Prince William do seem to resent the obligations they have. Prince Harry really should have given up all his titles when he chose to give up the royal life.
On the question of Prince Andrew, he had a reputation as a playboy and was part of the 'jet set'. Those girls were recruited to entertain him and the rest of his ilk. I'm sure they were thrilled to be part of the entertainment and no doubt were paid handsomely for their services. I don't condone the actions of the men but I have no sympathy whatever for the girls.
 
This Andrew person was born with all the privileges(and paid for by British tax payers), he didn't earn any of it. Throughout his entire life, he has made more damages to the royal family than honoring them. A piece of garbage in my opinion.
The Harry person is not much better either, but at least he had the gut to move out of UK, although it looks like he is crying his way back now. It is amazing that the UK tax payers are happy to pay for all these royal soap opera.
 
Last edited:

Back
Top