Prince Andrew is stripped of his Prince title and his home

Warrigal said:
You beat me to it.

Remember the sentence "a wombat is an animal that eats roots and leaves". So different to "a wombat is an animal that eats, roots and leaves". All that is different is the comma.
Click to expand...
we used to get that sentence as an example in Shorthand and typing in school...
 

timoc said:
I wonder if he'll grow a beard, wear huge dark glasses and adopt a strong regional accent? ;)
Click to expand...

and.... and.... and....

Will he forego all the fancy, posh cars, get a bicycle, join a working mens club and nurse a pint of beer at the bar while playing bingo?
Oh yes, there is so much fun ahead of this geezer. 😊
 

timoc said:
and.... and.... and....

Will he forego all the fancy, posh cars, get a bicycle, join a working mens club and nurse a pint of beer at the bar while playing bingo?
Oh yes, there is so much fun ahead of this geezer. 😊
Click to expand...
His life will not change radically, that's the actual truth of it. In fact now at his age.. he'll be happier not having to trot around the globe representing the royal family.
Now he can just wait for invitations from the high and mighty, to their parties, and sporting events..and never have to be nice to the Hoi Poiloi

There's no question that Charles will not ensure whatever home Andrew ends up in, it will be furnsihed to the highest standard ...
 
I don't understand how they could take the title "Prince" away from him. He is the son of the Queen. Take everything else away but I don't get the loss of the title.
 
If I had a say I would take all away from him and just let members of the family who still care for him throw him titbits - but remember to some extent they are still attempting to set good examples to all the incoming children and that won't always be easy - "who is dear uncle Andrew and what did he do that was so awful?"
 
mrstime said:
I don't understand how they could take the title "Prince" away from him. He is the son of the Queen. Take everything else away but I don't get the loss of the title.
Click to expand...

It's complicated.

There are two sides to the Monarchy. There is the side that is independent of Parliament (our elected officials). Then there is the side that is, ultimately, controlled by Parliament. Removal of a title, such as Prince, is the former. It is a matter for the crown, and not parliament. In essence, royals get to decide by something known as the "royal prerogative".

When it comes to whether he is still in line for hereditary succession, then Parliament needs to be involved.
 
Well, well...This will be interesting to see how this pans out !


Headlines in the media tonight



Former Prince Andrew is ordered to appear before US Congress hearing to explain his links to paedophile Jeffrey Epstein​



Andrew Mountbatten Windsor has been ordered to appear in front of Congress to explain his links to paedophile Jeffrey Epstein.

Democratic members of the House Oversight Committee sent the disgraced royal a letter on Thursday saying they believe he possesses important information about people with links to the late financier's crimes.

It read: 'The Oversight Committee will investigate allegations of abuse by Mountbatten Windsor, and will seek information on Epstein's operations, network, and associates based on the men's longstanding and well-documented friendship
Robert Garcia, the most senior Democratic figure on the committee, added: 'Rich and powerful men have evaded justice for far too long.

'Now, former Prince Andrew has the opportunity to come clean and provide justice for the survivors.'

Buckingham Palace announced last week that the former Duke of York, 65, will now only be known as Andrew Mountbatten Windsor.

In a bombshell statement, the Palace coldly announced the 'censures [were] deemed necessary' amid the growing controversy surrounding his relationship with paedophile financier Epstein, with whom Andrew lied about cutting ties.

Andrew ordered to appear at Congress to explain links to Epstein
 
hollydolly said:
Well, well...This will be interesting to see how this pans out !
Click to expand...
Interesting timing. Any talk about Charles perhaps having been given a heads up about it before cutting his brother off as he did? If he'd still be "Prince" while going through the Congressional questioning, it would sure pull the royal family through the mud even more. But that's just me thinking aloud... no idea if it's right.
 
CallMeKate said:
Interesting timing. Any talk about Charles perhaps having been given a heads up about it before cutting his brother off as he did? If he'd still be "Prince" while going through the Congressional questioning, it would sure pull the royal family through the mud even more. But that's just me thinking aloud... no idea if it's right.
Click to expand...
If he'd still been a member of the Royal Family no American court could demand his appearance... now he's just plain Andrew Winsdsor -Mountbatten, they probably can...

However I'm thinking if he were to appear .. he will doubtless be well schooled by the Royal family lawyers as what to say and what not to say.. so it's seems like it either won't happen or it will, and it will be a waste of everyone's time..

Personally much as I absolutely believe he should be held accountable, I think the American courts should be looking more closely at home at their own ex Presidents, judges, and rich Magnates all connected with Epstein.. before trying to cast their net over the pond
 
Last edited:
hollydolly said:
Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor has 'no moral boundaries' and exploited his role as Trade Envoy to 'line his pockets' and chase women, royal historian Andrew Lownie tells a new Daily Mail podcast.

Speaking to Deep Dive: The Fall of the House of York, Lownie claims that during one taxpayer-funded trip to Thailand, the disgraced former prince had 40 prostitutes brought to his five-star hotel over just four days.

Lownie is author of the unauthorised biography, Entitled: The Rise and Fall of the House of York, which chronicles Andrew's spectacular fall from grace.
Click to expand...
I just finished that book. "Utterly shocking" is a massive understatement. And there isn't an intense enough word to describe how anger-inducing it was to read how much of your taxes covered that twit's extravagance and absolute wastefulness, and supported all the despicable and even treasonous stuff he did...and you paid for covering it all up! And paid all his legal advisors.

I think if it weren't for William, British royalty would probly end soon.
 
Murrmurr said:
I just finished that book. "Utterly shocking" is a massive understatement. And there isn't an intense enough word to describe how anger-inducing it was to read how much of your taxes covered that twit's extravagance and absolute wastefulness, and supported all the despicable and even treasonous stuff he did...and you paid for covering it all up! And paid all his legal advisors.

I think if it weren't for William, British royalty would probly end soon.
Click to expand...
I actually think it will come to an end after William's reign.... the vast majority of people are now sick and tired of paying to keep this shower and all their shenigans
 
smiley said:
he's brought great shame to his family - but no court of law has found him guilty yet surely?
Click to expand...
According to the unauthorized biography of Andrew and Sarah Ferguson, a book called Entitled: The Rise and Fall of the House of York, by Andrew Lownie, Mr. Mountbatten has way more to answer for in a British court than an American one.

And, imo, before the US justice system burdens itself with the costs, which will be high, I think the US should ask Britain if he's going to be indited over there at some point (reasonably soon). Along with the women and girls he abused, British taxpayers deserve justice.
 

You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top