Prince Andrew to give up all honours and titles

Maybe it is time to fully open our eyes and not only see the pomp and splendor of royalty but see them as people with faults, same as everyone else. The only difference is that they have the means and funds to keep a notorious event quiet. It’s always amazed me how people project themselves into believing they “know” royalty – they are always so nice, well behaved. This is what they are trained to do. And when unsavory news gets out, lots of people are shocked and feel let down. Sigh
 
I think the bigger problem is what will happen when everyone associated with Epstein is revealed.

Andrew is clearly............ a flawed human being. His title of Prince is at the discretion of the King and only has meaning in the wider world in the context of what others allow him. Meaning, countries and governments can effectively alienate him without the King doing anything. Of course, they're brothers.

Beyond posturing for the public, what would it take for you to disown your sibling?

Epstein's power, such as it was, was wealth. He mingled with the very wealthy. The very wealthy are, by default, influential. So we have the rich and the influential. AKA: The elite. Are we surprised that the people with a power to change something (wealth) change things and control the direction we all go?

From what I know, the Prince is reprehensible. But his privilege can't be removed. There are also other privileged people who are going under the radar.
 
Irishdude said:
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?
Click to expand...
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
 
Irishdude said:
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?
Click to expand...

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.
 
VaughanJB said:
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.
Click to expand...
💯 - Absolutely! I was just going to post similar but, you said it better. (y)
 
jujube said:
Well, there was Billy Carter, brother of President Jimmy Carter. Billy was a buffoon, a mild embarrassment, but except for once urinating on a runway in view of reporters, he seemed somewhat harmless.
Click to expand...
There was Don Nixon, LBJ's brother, the Bush Brothers, and heaven knows how many others. We just kept our dirty laundry in the hamper where it belonged. There will be others for sure.
 
hollydolly said:
Duke and Duchess of Pork.
Click to expand...

A little Google searching helped refresh my memory. I actually "liked" Fergie at the time the tabloids were blasting her, maybe it was her wild child image..
:unsure:

hollydolly said:
The nation , as a generality Love Prince William and his beautiful wife Catherine.... ...for now !...
Click to expand...
Glad to hear that, especially since I've recently become aware of a part of my ancestry that is of Welsh origin.
 
Nathan said:
A little Google searching helped refresh my memory. I actually "liked" Fergie at the time the tabloids were blasting her, maybe it was her wild child image..
:unsure:


Glad to hear that, especially since I've recently become aware of a part of my ancestry that is of Welsh origin.
Click to expand...

The United Kingdom is just that, just as the Untied States is just that.

The problem with Fergie, and for that matter Andrew and many "lesser" royals, is that they are, fundamentally, normal people with a title thrust upon them. Fergie, for example, is so very ordinary.

Still, personally speaking, anti-royals in the UK (I'm talking English, and other UK residents) are silly celebrity chasers. The Royal family are so much more. Shame on them for flushing out heritage down the toilet. Being British means a lot more than a birthright. We should accept we are who we are because of what we were.

How are you British, without an acceptance of how we got here? Give it up, and we're just another someone.
 
Irishdude said:
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?
Click to expand...

being Australian and therefore one of the "commonwealth folk" - I think most people here are largely apathetic to it

I dislike the way the media focus o n things like their weight and names like Duchess of Pork and I dislike the vitriol sometimes directed at Meghan in particular - and I would rather Australia were not under a monarchy, titular though it is
 
In tonight's Media headlines

Epstein secretly bankrolled Sarah Ferguson for 15 years, astonishing new emails claim.

The convicted paedophile complained to friends about the disgraced duchess's scrounging ways in messages that suggest his financial support went far beyond the £15,000 she admitted taking from him.

In the previously unseen emails, Epstein reveals Fergie was so desperate to cosy up to him that 'she was the first to celebrate' his release from jail 'with her two daughters in tow'. Princess Beatrice would have been 20 at the time and Eugenie 19, the same age as many of his victims.
The shocking claims are contained in a huge tranche of documents under review by the US Congress. They are set to be released once they have been redacted to protect the identity of hundreds of young girls Epstein raped and sexually abused.

The sordid nature of Fergie's relationship with the paedophile and the chummy tone of their correspondence makes sickening reading that will repulse the sex offender's many victims.

Emails seen by The Mail on Sunday show:

  • Fergie begged to borrow $50,000 to $100,000 to help with 'small bills';
  • She asked to visit Epstein's private island, joking whether her financial woes made it 'unavailable to bankrupts?'
  • Epstein paid off debts the duchess owed a former employee but became angry when she failed to pay him back as promised;
  • While disavowing Epstein in public, Fergie kept up contact and let him help set up a charity for her;
  • Epstein brazenly gave Fergie 'talking points' before she was interviewed by Oprah Winfrey.
Emails from Jeffrey Epstein reveal Fergie was so desperate to cosy up to him that 'she was the first to celebrate' his release from jail 'with her two daughters in tow'.
Tonight a well-placed source said: 'Sarah and Prince Andrew have always maintained they distanced themselves from Epstein after his conviction for child prostitution. In fact, it was Epstein who ended up dumping them. He got sick and tired of Sarah constantly asking him for money.

'She borrowed far more money off him than has ever come out. In public she said one thing but in private she was always holding out the begging bowl.'

Last month, the MoS revealed how Fergie wrote to Epstein calling him a 'supreme friend', just weeks after giving an interview claiming she would 'never have anything to do with' the sex offender ever again – reviving the scandal that saw her and Andrew relinquish their titles on Friday.
More here...
Epstein 'bankrolled Fergie for 15 years'
 
hollydolly said:
yes but if the public had been paying their salaries, as we do the Royals you would have been entitled to know
Click to expand...
What salaries, Holly? We are talking free loaders whose political families keep demanding higher wages to keep all this quiet. Once in awhile something slips out, but it is quashed quickly. Corruption is thy name here.
 
Lewkat said:
What salaries, Holly? We are talking free loaders whose political families keep demanding higher wages to keep all this quiet. Once in awhile something slips out, but it is quashed quickly. Corruption is thy name here.
Click to expand...
We the british public pay for the salaries of all the working royal family... that's comes directly out of our taxes
 
hollydolly said:
In tonight's Media headlines

Epstein secretly bankrolled Sarah Ferguson for 15 years, astonishing new emails claim.

The convicted paedophile complained to friends about the disgraced duchess's scrounging ways in messages that suggest his financial support went far beyond the £15,000 she admitted taking from him.

In the previously unseen emails, Epstein reveals Fergie was so desperate to cosy up to him that 'she was the first to celebrate' his release from jail 'with her two daughters in tow'. Princess Beatrice would have been 20 at the time and Eugenie 19, the same age as many of his victims.
The shocking claims are contained in a huge tranche of documents under review by the US Congress. They are set to be released once they have been redacted to protect the identity of hundreds of young girls Epstein raped and sexually abused.

The sordid nature of Fergie's relationship with the pedophile and the chummy tone of their correspondence makes sickening reading that will repulse the sex offender's many victims.

Emails seen by The Mail on Sunday show:

  • Fergie begged to borrow $50,000 to $100,000 to help with 'small bills';
  • She asked to visit Epstein's private island, joking whether her financial woes made it 'unavailable to bankrupts?'
  • Epstein paid off debts the duchess owed a former employee but became angry when she failed to pay him back as promised;
  • While disavowing Epstein in public, Fergie kept up contact and let him help set up a charity for her;
  • Epstein brazenly gave Fergie 'talking points' before she was interviewed by Oprah Winfrey.
Emails from Jeffrey Epstein reveal Fergie was so desperate to cosy up to him that 'she was the first to celebrate' his release from jail 'with her two daughters in tow'.
Tonight a well-placed source said: 'Sarah and Prince Andrew have always maintained they distanced themselves from Epstein after his conviction for child prostitution. In fact, it was Epstein who ended up dumping them. He got sick and tired of Sarah constantly asking him for money.

'She borrowed far more money off him than has ever come out. In public she said one thing but in private she was always holding out the begging bowl.'

Last month, the MoS revealed how Fergie wrote to Epstein calling him a 'supreme friend', just weeks after giving an interview claiming she would 'never have anything to do with' the sex offender ever again – reviving the scandal that saw her and Andrew relinquish their titles on Friday.
More here...
Epstein 'bankrolled Fergie for 15 years'
Click to expand...
Well that does it, no longer a Fergie fan. It seems anyone and everyone associated with Epstein has got the pedophile stain on them.
 
Lewkat said:
We pay the politicians salaries, Holly, not their ne'er do well relatives who do not work for a living.
Click to expand...
yes but that's my point Lois... we DO pay the Royals ne'er do well relations, this is why we have a right to know what they're doing..in their private lives when they're breaking laws while living high on the hog on the taxpayers money ...like King Charles brother... Prince Andrew and his feckless x wife...
 
But, by raising the wages of our politicians, we do pay for their useless lives so that their relatives can keep them living comfortably. Frankly, I am tired of this entire thread, since it really pertains to one country.
 
Irishdude said:
This is an honest question for all Brits and Commonwealth folks. Is the royal family considered an asset or just an embarrassing relic of the past?
Click to expand...
Speaking personally as an Australian I am neutral about the monarchy. Constitutionally Australia is a monarchy but in reality we are a parliamentary democracy.

Our state and federal governors are not elected. They are appointed to represent the King (or Queen) but cost very little. Their roles are purely ceremonial, opening Parliament, signing legislation, welcoming foreign dignitaries. They do have the power to dissolve parliament should the government be unable to pass legislation.

The impasse is then broken by every member and senator having to face the voters. This happens very rarely. The last time it happened was over a supply bill that was stalled in the Senate. It was very controversial but in the end, the voters had the final say. The then monarch, Elizabeth II, had no say at all in that process but as Head of the Commonwealth she was informed by her representative, the Governor of Australia.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top