Andrew's had it, hasn't he?

It's amazing he is tolerated at all after Weinstein et al. It shows that the do-nothing royal family still has the UK in its thrall for...doing nothing.

Even Koo Stark won’t return his calls.

M.F.

Maybe he should apply for a TV sitcom

[quote] Maybe he should apply for a TV sitcom

What should it be called?

R5 Postmodern Royal Family

Postmortem Royal Family

This was Prince Harry's enchanted future.

The dipshit younger brother with poor decision-making skills and zero relevance to anything going on ever.

Yet everyone is mad at him for leaving it behind.

I don't get it.

[quote]Yet everyone is mad at him for leaving it behind. I don't get it.

they're mad because he said he wanted peace and privacy yet he's constantly seeking and getting attention and MONEY in America, just because of who he is. He has no talent. He's very ordinary.

Aw, maybe Megs and Harry will make room for him on their bench.

The Americans will cool on him eventually. They're very effervescent. He's new there. They can turn off people (& things) REAL FAST.

I've found it over the years on DL. When they go off or get bored with someone they'll just ignore you if you try to talk about them. BOOM. OVER.

sorry that was about Harry not Andrew.

[quote] Yet everyone is mad at him for leaving it behind.

People aren’t mad at Harry for leaving it behind. They are mad at the way he is doing it. Going scorched earth and trying to destroy the system and hurting your elderly grandparents in the process is why everyone is mad.

I'm surprised he still had any. His fall from grace must be going on 2 years ago. I guess they were holding out for another royal to take over but there's just not enough to go round at the moment.

Harry is close to Andrew. He took Sparkles to meet the Queen at Andrew's house. These two champions of women's empowerment have never said a bad word about Andrew.

Meanwhile, what's the latest on Fergie? The Americans lurved her.

I've said it before, but it bears repeating -- Harry took a good hard look at Andrew and Aunt Margot and realized that the "spare" has no place in the modern monarchy. There's no value when it's not likely that the heir will die when he enjoys robust health and has children. Charles has been seeking to slim down the monarchy for a while, and Harry saw the writing on the wall. Just because he doesn't want the exposure of being a royal doesn't mean he can't pursue other high profile projects.

[quote] Just because he doesn't want the exposure of being a royal doesn't mean he can't pursue other high profile projects.

based on him being royal

he's, otherwise, so dreary

The only thing Andrew had going for him was his youthful beauty as QE2 favorite son. Now that is all gone and he is just an old toad like the rest of them.

If it wasn't for QEII and her advanced age, he'd have been fully removed from all patronages and the official BRF years ago. Charles tolerates him personally, but despises how he's conducted his private and professional life. William has no use for him.

Because he fills TQ's soft spot he's been given an easier time than he would have been given. After her passing, watch for him to disappear from public life and all BRF mentions completely and forever.

I must say, he was the prettiest of her sons, in the day.

[quote]After her passing, watch for him to disappear from public life and all BRF mentions completely and forever.

Interesting.

Andrew seems to be the only one of the lot who has kept his hair. I wonder how he managed that.

How do people know Andrew is Elizabeth's favorite child? That's just gross to me.

Has she publicly announced "Andrew is my favorite and I prefer him to the other three" - or does she talk about it among her family and staff. Oh yes, Charles, Anne and Edward, I like Andrew better than you. Suck it up!"

....

[quote]After her passing, watch for him to disappear from public life and all BRF mentions completely and forever.

It's been a sort of known fact for years - maybe because he was so handsome when he was young.

[quote] How do people know Andrew is Elizabeth's favorite child? That's just gross to me.

Oh honey, don't you watch The Crown? This is old news that everyone knows, especially those in her queendom.

Well, first, she should be ashamed. And second, maybe her coddling and preference is the reason he's such a fuck-up.

[quote] maybe her coddling and preference is the reason he's such a fuck-up.

Something went very wrong. I was shocked by that interview....most people were.

Why is the article linked at R21 also linked at R25?

[quote]Why is the article linked at [R21] also linked at [R25]?

I don't know.

^^^Ask Muriel, it's her site that doesn't work proper.

R1 He's not tolerated. His popularity in the UK is something like 2%. He is hated and I suspect the minute Charles is King he (along with his ex-wife and two daughters) will be set adrift. It should also be noted that the only Royals Harry and Meghan are still on speaking terms with allegedly, are the Yorks. So, clearly Andrew's associations don't bother those two.

R24 She has never stated anything of the sort. The idea that Andrew is her favourite has been built up by "insiders" for years. The truth is, she is closer to Andrew and Edward because she was more involved in their upbringing than with Charles and Anne. She was older and more settled in her role as Queen.

I suspect why the Queen is so fond of Andrew and Harry despite everything is that they remind her of her sister. Being the spare seems to turn those royals into troubled, spoiled and unstable individuals. You start off life super important but then by midlife, you're totally irrelevant.

Remember the Queen wasn't going to be Queen until she was 10 years old. Her parents were the Yorks, were they not and she was the equivalent of Andrew and Fergie's kids.

I think I dislike Harry because he whines about his past life in interviews but conveniently forgets that no one would be interviewing him but for his past life. He sees only what he doesn't have or didn't get and can nurse a grudge ad infinitum. Even now, he's rewarded for obvious insights that others put into his mouth.

Andrew is a toad and belongs under a rock.

"Harry is close to Andrew."

Betcha they've had some fun parties together! And BTW, I wonder if Harry's term in the military kept him from spending too much time with Uncle Andrew and his pals, and saved him from yet another scandal?

And BTW nobody with sense thinks that Harry was wrong to leave the life of being a royal spare, they think he's being an idiot for moving to SoCal and trying to live the life of a Hollywood celebrity. Which is lame enough on its own, but becomes borderline contemptible when you realize that his wife is the one who always wanted to live like a big TV star. He had a chance to live an admirable life, but let his wife push him into money-grubbing in Montecito.

R36 The anger in the UK is mostly because Harry's narrative keeps changing. First he and Meghan wanted to be part-time royals. Then when the Queen said no, the story changed to we wanted a private life, now it's changed to I never wanted to be a royal. The inconsistencies in their story and the impression they are monetizing their titles while slinging mud at the institution that actually holds those titles is what is causing it. E.g. we didn't look for commercial deals until we were cut off, now we know they were looking for deals since 2018. Meghan wrote a book about Archie and Harry, now we know she was trying to sells this book to publishers in the UK before Archie was even born. Archie won't be a Prince, when he was born they stated they didn't want him to have a title etc. I think they're doing better in America because until earlier this year, they weren't well known and Americans don't have all the backstory. I think if they had moved the US and got with the charity work they were claiming they were going to do, people in the UK would've just moved on. I don't think anyone truly begruges Harry the right to leave the royals. When William and Catherine's kids grew up, Harry and Meghan were going to second class royals anyways.

[quote] I think they're doing better in America because until earlier this year, they weren't well known and Americans don't have all the backstory.

The Americans will get very bored of them once the novelty has worn off.

Harry's loving the attention and American "friendliness". He's even developing an American style of speech. He doesn't realise how quickly they can go cold...and they will.

Yeah I think what some Americans don't realize that for the royal family it wasn't so much about Harry and Meghan leaving, it was about their desire to use their titles to seek commercial opportunities. The Queen, Charles and William allegedly felt if they wanted to go the commercial route it might place them in a conflict of interest that could damage the monarchy (see Prince Andrew) & that the British people probably wouldn't go for it...and they were right. It was never about them leaving, it was never about the family being jealous about how popular Meghan was (at her peak she was only slightly more popular than Camilla). H&M also understood that if they left the royal family, the British government would not pay for their security (also the Canadian refused to pay for their security when polls showed over 80% of Canadians didn't want to give them taxpayer funded security nor did they even want them living in Canada).

I'm always surprised that people say the Queen ascended the throne by some sort of "accident." From her birth in 1926 she was already third in line to the throne. By the time her grandfather, King George V, celebrated his silver jubilee Uncle David was already 41 and unmarried. Not unheard of to start a family, but the odds were getting longer. Even when he became King in 1936 it seemed unlikely that it would ever happen. Didn't George V have a diary entry or say to a courtier that he hoped nothing came between Lillibet and the throne?

Interesting to see what would have happened if her father's death date remain unchanged (1952) as well as that of the Duke of Windsor (1972). She would have been 46 when she came to the throne and would have been a more visible presence in her children's lives.

Did anyone else notice how fast this thread was turned into an anti Sussex thread. No wonder people think the Brf is using the Sussex to shield Andrew. This thread and the comments being diverted to the Sussex is now being discussed on twitter.

They're discussing THIS thread on Twitter?

[quote] They're discussing THIS thread on Twitter?

They got tired of discussing the nude barber in Atlanta and his happy ending clientele.

[quote]How do people know Andrew is Elizabeth's favorite child?

Speculation is that Liz had Charles and Anne at the start of reign a queen, when she was new to her regal duties. She was totally preoccupied with her role as a new queen and didn't have much time for her two eldest children. There is almost a 10-year difference between Charles and Andrew. By the time Andrew came along in 1960, Liz had been on the throne for eight years. She was more settled into the job. The birth of Andrew and then Edward was almost like having a new family at a time when Liz was more comfortable with her job as queen and mother. Andrew was the first of this "new" family, and so Liz always had a deeper fondness for Andrew and that never changed throughout his life. It may change under Charles, but for all these years, Andrew has been the golden boy with his mother, and you cannot change a mother's love or affinity toward her children especially one deemed to be the favorite no matter what he or she does.

Lol r41, do you really think that DL is part of a conspiracy by the royal family? The reason the discussion switches from Andrew is because in truth there isn't much to say about him.

R24, the "Andrew is the Queen's favourite child" is just some dumb thing that gets repeated with no source. Considering that when Andrew was born she already had two children aged around 10 and 12, with whom she would already have developed strong bonds, I find it hard to believe that he would suddenly have displaced them in the Queen's emotions.

Yes, r40. The whole "the Queen never forgave her uncle Edward for forcing her father to become king" is nonsense, given that Albert (aka George VI) was already the heir to the throne, Lilibet was born in direct succession to the throne and no one believed that Edward was suddenly going to find a suitable bride.

R44, Charles and Anne were born while their grandfather George VI was still alive, before their mother became Queen.

[quote] She was totally preoccupied with her role as a new queen and didn't have much time for her two eldest children.

Was cutting ribbons and waving at passers by really that difficult? It wasn’t like she was cooking for 100 people at a state dinner.

R40. Good assessment . I always thought the same thing. It certainly seemed that Elizabeth was headed to the throne from an early age. She was the eldest heir, and her Uncle David (ultimately the Duke of Windsor) was unmarried at the time. He assumed the throne as King Edward and was single and had no children. He then marries a twice divorced American who also has no children (they wouldn't be in the succession line anyway). And then when he abdicates and marries Wallis, they still never had any children.

What was the big surprise about Elizabeth becoming queen? She was destined to ascend to the throne. The only difference is that she ascended when she was around 26 since her father died fairly young. Life for her would have been very different had she ascended to the throne in middle age if her father had died in his 70s or 80s rather than in his 50s. Elizabeth becoming queen was never a surprise. Was the royal family not preparing her for the throne at least somewhat similar to preparing William now?

[quote] He then marries a twice divorced American who also has no children (they wouldn't be in the succession line anyway). And then when he abdicates and marries Wallis

Abdication first then marriage to Wallis.

R47. No one is saying the monarch's role is substantive; it's largely ceremonial. However, it's more than cutting ribbons and waving at crowds. As we have become aware even more this past year, the royal family especially the queen makes hundred of appearances on behalf of charitable organizations through the country. She is head of state of the UK and Commonwealth, and she meet with the prime minister regularly.

It's a job whatever we may think of it. It takes up time and you've got to show up and learn how to be diplomatic. There are millions of dollars at stake when raising money for the hundreds of organizations which she and other members of the royal represent.

We tend to question the role of the royal family and its members, but there are plenty of corporate executives who serve as "consultants or ambassadors" or have vague roles within an organization where we are not quite sure what they do--and yet they have jobs, offices, staff and serve the organization even if we don't think their role is worth it. What does the vice president of the U.S. do? Sometimes the vice president works on very important issues, but sometimes the role is vague and nondescript, but yet we wouldn't want to be without vice president especially now with the animosity between our two political parties.

If the Duke of Windsor stayed on as King and didn't have any children, Queen Elizabeth wouldn't have taken the throne until he died in 1972.

Many believe that he did not want it, and he used Wallis as an excuse to abdicate. He was a lazy, spoiled man. Tawdry as well. Then the was his affection and approval of Nazi Germany and Hitler. Members of trf, and Andrew in particular, have associations with very nefarious people and money and favors take place frequently. The rich get richer by any means available. Wallis allegedly treated him with utter contempt. What a shallow, meaningless life they lead. Harry is well on his way to the same. Idiot.

Andrew and Sarah will remarry while the queen is still alive. If Charles puts Andrew out to pasture, his not going to wander aimlessly. He will have an official and legal companion to live out his senior years as the official Duke and Duchess of York. Charles married the homewrecker Camilla and everyone begrudgingly adjusted. Sarah is a basically a good person and doesn't even come close to the tawdry Camilla Parker Bowles. The Yorks will enjoy their growing family and grandchildren together, and Charles can't stop that.

He should not have given that interview. It made things twice as bad. No sweat glands? He sounded deranged.

That's what happens when you're surrounded by yes-men and yes-women. Nobody will tell you when something is a bad idea. In fact, if they might let you walk into it, knowing it's a bad idea.

What about Royal Lodge, isn't that where he lives? Who officially owns that huge property? It would be funny if PC kicked his fat, corrupt ass to the curve. He is very abusive to staff.

[quote]Andrew and Sarah will remarry while the queen is still alive.

No.

It didn't work and will never work. They know this if they know nothing else.

I agree. But I also think the UK media has such a close relationship with the Brf that Andrew thought he had it in the bag. I really think he thought that they would be working together.

[quote]He should not have given that interview. It made things twice as bad.

Just twice? Tell me about it!

I remember the shocked look on his face immediately after he spoke to a reporter. I do not know what he saw, if anyone said anything that that we couldn't hear, but I do remember wondering what had surprised him at that moment.

"the official Duke and Duchess of York" - Just so you know r53, being a duke or duchess isn't a specific job nor does it involve doing anything really, it's just a title, it's not an official anything. It's not the same as being a senior royal with official duties.

R57, the royal family has a difficult relationship with the UK media, as do most public figures. The UK media is hardcore, only out of stupidity could Andrew have thought such an interview would help him. In his mind by agreeing to an interview he probably thought he was being transparent and honest.

I think Charles will leave Andrew at Royal Lodge. It's out of London and pretty well obscure. It's a comfortable place for Andrew to remain in internal exile and see out his days, with occasion outings to the Balmoral and Sandringham estate houses like Craigowan Lodge and Wood Farm. He could move Andrew out to one of those places and give William Royal Lodge I suppose, but Wills seems happy at KP and Angmer Hall.

[quote] It didn't work and will never work. They know this if they know nothing else

I thought they were still friends. It could just be a business arrangement that helps both of them out, in numerous ways. (and they could do whatever they liked on the side)

Why buy the cow when you can get the milk for free?

I think Andrew realized it was cheaper to keep her, lol. Sarah gets into trouble on her own. Financial trouble. Supposedly this is why Andrew was associated with Epstein. He paid off Sarah's debt.

r55 and r62: Andrew has a very long lifelease on Royal Lodge, something like 99 years. No one, including Charles, can kick him out or move him elsewhere. After he dies, his daughters will inherit said lease and share the property until the lease ends.

R66 AHH thank you. I couldn't see him moving out. It's quite discreet, yet plush enough for a prince to end his days in. Has he got many staff there or are him and Sarah fairly self sufficient there nowadays?

I'm sure he has staff r67 but how many? Not certain nowadays, as he's making little extra income beyond what his mother gives him or he gets from trust income.

I wondered if his business interests paid for a few retainers.

Can they take his title away? Not that they will, but is it possible?

R70, going by precedent from the last century, Parliament would have to act.

R70 Only Parliament can take away his royal titles by the precedent set after the first world war when all royals who sided with Germany were stripped of their British titles. However Andrew (and other royals) can relinquish titles voluntarily. They would still exist but in agreement with the Crown he would never use them again.

Andrew is a Prince of the blood. He is the Son of the Queen, and in the near future. the brother of the King. So he will always be HRH Prince Andrew. Can't strip him. And his mother created him Duke of York. But he will never get anything else and stripping him of his patronages was a warning shot: Andrew was hoping that being Mummy's favorite, and living at Windsor so close to her he could importune his way into a more prominent role. But Charles is sending him a message. No way will he ever get anymore than he has and in fact will get much less. Stripping him of the patronages is just the beginning. He will be giving no interviews and he will be on very short leash. IF he values his income, he will crawl back into his cave. He over played it when he spoke to the Press after Philip died.

I hope William and Kate are already preparing Charlotte and Louis to find a suitable occupations or at least the understanding that their lives are their own to control. If the past is anything to go by, it’s the growing up feeling entitled to a cushy royal future that dooms the spares from the start. By raising them to consider a future outside the RF, they’ll avoid the painful jolt of reality as adults. In these days of modern medicine and low child mortality, the whole “spare” concept seems pretty outdated.

r70-r73: Come of folks. We've discussed this here a thousand times: only the monarch can grant and strip the HRH honorific and Prince/Princess titles. They are given at the behest of the monarch, via earlier Letters Patent; they can also be taken away by the monarch at anytime, for any reason, with no legal recourse from the target of the removal.

I like many wish that the Queen would do something about Harry's (and by extension, Meghan's) HRH and princely ranks. But its unlikely at this point. We'll see what Charles will do. Remember: what they do to Harry, they are going to be pressured to do to Andrew as well. The current Queen is very unlikely to want to strip Andrew of anything. Charles is another story though.

Re royal dukedoms: those are a fuzzier grey area in terms of potential removal. Some say that Parliament would need to approve a removal, others have said they would defer to the current monarch.

Come of folks should read "Come on folks" above in r75.

[quote] Charles has been seeking to slim down the monarchy for a while, and Harry saw the writing on the wall.

Every description of Charles' slimmed-down monarchy included a place for Harry. It was Andrew's daughters who were on the way out.

Charlotte is safe. She'll be Princess Royal at some point, it's Louis that will need a talking to, when the time comes.

I don’t see what the problem is, they were just friends!

"I hope William and Kate are already preparing Charlotte and Louis to find a suitable occupations or at least the understanding that their lives are their own to control."

They should be spending a lot of time with great-aunt Anne. She'll tell them that they have to develop interests other than shopping and partying, she'll tell them that the status and fame of being a spare royal are worthless aside from the philanthropy, and she'll give them riding lessons and make them brush down the ponies and muck out the stables.

It'll be as close at those kids ever get to real work.

Louis can join the military. That's always a good alternative.

Worked for me r81!

[quote]Charlotte is safe. She'll be Princess Royal at some point, it's Louis that will need a talking to, when the time comes.

Princess Royal is simple a title, not a job or function. No child is safe. The world will only get more complicated, and the monarchy will be more highly scrutinized in the years ahead. You either like public service or you don't, and if you don't be prepared to step down and get a job unless you're independently wealthy and you don't have to work. Don't think you can make the monarchy your job. There are more than enough charitable organizations to help; however, there just simply not enough official roles to fill if you're looking for some sort royal official administrative function. It simply doesn't exist.

The military isn't a good option for a royal family member unless he or she plans to make it a career and have it be your lifelong job. On the other hand, if you join the military as the "spare" or you're one of the peripheral royal family members at 20 year old and then leave the military at perhaps 30, then you're doomed because you have prepared yourself pretty much nothing as we've seen with Andrew and Harry. They left the military at age 30 or so and found that when they returned home they were even further down the line of succession than when they left. You have to be happy having some sort of job that interests you and don't mind always playing second fiddle.

Personally, if I were Andrew or Harry, I wouldn't want to work at all and be out of the spotlight, but maybe that's frowned upon in the royal family and with the public if they see you doing nothing but staying home, hanging out and traveling.

R78 No she won't.

Andrew should never have given that interview.  It was an insane decision.  Andrew has no foresight.  I remember watching television in the U.S. and a commercial came on publicizing Andrews interview: "Tune in Saturday night.".  I immediately thought, "Is he out of his mind?"

The interview was the dumbest decision ever. Why didn't someone stop it before Andrew agreed to do it? If we think back to that time period, there was some pressure on him to say something about Jeffrey Epstein, but given the royal family he could have just avoided it and said nothing--as he has done since then.  From the very first announcement with that TV commercial, I thought Andrew has lost his mind.  Come to find out he had very little counseling on the matter.  Sarah was out of town when he made the decision and went forward.  Sarah is a lot more media savvy, and I'm guessing she would never have allowed an interview like that that to go forward. Andrew is too arrogant to think he could outfox a skilled television interviewer on such a delicate subject matter.

Dissolute, creepy face. He should have been dragged over to the U.S. by subpoena to testify about his pal Epstein. What a privileged jerk.

The View cuntess is not happy.

John McCain's daughter has boundaries.

[R17], Meghan fed that bullshit to Harry. He's too fucking stupid to be anything but a vertriloquist's dummy.

Sometimes I watch Andrew’s train wreck interview just for fun.

After reading that Vanity Fair article I can see that the BRF covered up a lot of Andrew’s shit.

[quote] Andrew dined with Nursultan Nazarbayev, the corrupt president of Kazakhstan, whose son-in-law subsequently bought Andrew’s white-elephant mansion, Sunninghill Park, for $25 million, $4.9 million more than the asking price. (Buckingham Palace denied that there was any impropriety involved in the sale.)

The buyer never actually moved in and let the house become (even more) derelict. Seven years later it was demolished and a new, even larger home was built on the 5 acre site which is also under the flight path for Heathrow.

OP- Andrew is GAY himself.

What exactly did the royal family cover up, r92? It's the UK government that made Andrew a trade envoy, thus giving him access to all the Nazarbayev types.

Has it ever been revealed which Russian billionaire oligarch accommodated the Harkles in his mansion in Canada?

Since we're on the subject, the member of the royal family that Harry most takes after is his Uncle Andrew. Both are the second son, after the heir, privileged, aggrieved, entitled, unable to take a good look at themselves, thinking they can break out on their own and do something different to make a name for themselves, with a terrible judgement all round.

R95- Both are whores who can be bought by any nefarious group no matter how harmful those people are to the monocracy or democracy. They are a real danger to their country and now ours. Dirty, amoral, sellout whores who will take from anyone.

It's bizarre how a thread ostensibly about Prince Andrew is actually another thread to bash on Meghan and Harry. Don't you people have enough in your other threads?

The parallels between Andrew and Harry are very strong, r97. Given that Harry is constantly putting himself in the news with his regular public appearances and deluded notion that we should all be listening to his wise words, it's hard not to think of him when considering the errors of judgement of his uncle. History is unfortunately repeating itself.

How dare Harry not cease to exist!

Look. Talking about Andrew, no way, is Harry anything like his pompous, corrupt, sleazy uncle. Harry & Meghan were well aware that the staff was using them to distract from Uncle Andrew. And Andrew and Fergie have been unrelenting in their own role in smearing Harry, who is probably not appreciating how underhanded Andrew can be. I like Harry and I like Meghan. But they lack judgement, and honestly, this grievance thing is wearing thin. Do they want to be known for charity and good works, or do they want to be a soundbite with dirt on the Royal Family? Because who ever is advising them needs to tell them to stop with the bullshit. They were very foolish not to really appreciate that the tabloid press and negative press etc. would follow them where ever they went. And they keep feeding it. They need to step back, and Harry needs to work hard to rebuild his relationships with his father and his bother. It seems that ight now you have both Meghan and Hay feeding each other's paranoia.

Why does Harry need to work hard to rebuild his relationships? He's better off without smarmy Wills and his father. Perhaps THEY can make an attempt.

Whoo Harry sure escaped this fate.

I thought this was a thread about Andrew? Turned out to be another stealth Sussex thread.

Harry should stop being a disgusting hypocrite. You do not like your family or the monocracy, then stop using the titles that family bestowed upon you and live your privileged live in private. No one gives a flying fuck about your constant whinging and victim seeking agenda. We all suffer , and some much worse without money for endless therapy, mental health services, or even the financial resources to move to another country to escape our fucked up families. Stfo you over privileged hypocrites. Go away! Maybe try France. I hear it is lovely this time of year.

Yes r103, the last few posts have been from Megstans talking about Harry.

You can't block them completely because they have so many different accounts. To be this devoted to two useless grifters they must have empty, boring lives.

R97 I think the issue is that pretty much everyone agrees Andrew is a piece of shit. I don't believe you'd be willing to find anyone who'd counter that opinion. The main difference is that Andrew is effectively in hiding. We've only officially seen him at his father's funeral but there has not been a peep out of him otherwise. Harry & Meghan are constantly in the news typically of their own making and then the press (on both sides of the Atlantic) jumps on it because it sells paper.

Don't be so sure OP. Andrew has been written off before, only to come roaring back.

It's totally fair to compare Harry to Andrew, because Harry seems to be doing his best to become Andrew 2.0. Or Edward 2.0, there isn't that much difference.

I suppose Harry thought that leaving "the Firm" could stop him from turning into another Andrew, but he's making the same crucial mistake - getting in bed with the sleazy rich to maintain his luxury lifestyle. It'll probably end the same way, having a relationship with the worst sort of sleaze becoming public, and a scandal ruining whatever reputation he has left. But Harry won't have the BRF to hush up the press, call off the legal system, and find him a luxurious burrow to crawl into.

I don't equate whatever idiocy Meghan gets up to with hanging out with Epstein and the other trash Andrew has consorted with, R109. I'm not saying she and Harry can't still land in a puddle of sleaze, but up until now "tacky and solipsistic" has been as far as it's gone.

I wouldn't be surprised if the palace isn't suggesting to Downing Street that a bill before Parliament would be in order to reform the monarchy. One of the reforms would be removal of titles of nobility from the Dukes of York and Sussex, as part of a pared-down monarchy. If they get stripped of their noble titles together, it can plausibly be denied that either was being singled out for special attention. Others might be put in that category to be stripped at the same time; or power to strip others at a future date could be reserved to the Privy Council.

R110 The only royals that Harry and Meghan are allegedly still on speaking terms with are Andrew, Fergie, Beatrice and Eugenie and their PR is done by the Sunshine Sachs the same people who did Harvey Weinstein's during his trail ........ The Sussexes may be falling into the trap of going where the money is.

[quote] The Sussexes may be falling into the trap of going where the money is.

Are they following Andrew's lead to oblivion?

So no one actually has comment on Andrew? Just see everything through the lens of their two obsessions, Harry and Meghan?

R114 He's a piece of shit.

[quote]So no one actually has comment on Andrew? Just see everything through the lens of their two obsessions, Harry and Meghan?

Plenty have. Go back to the beginning of the thread.

Andrew is a whore. A spoiled, greedy, abusive whore who will lay down with scum to get money and favors from those with money, and he doesn't care if that money is tainted with the blood of innocents.

[quote] It'll be as close at those kids ever get to real work.

Prince Edward developed a career for himself.

r116 I give you a grade D- for the effort.

I wish I could have left my family while receiving millions from them.

R120--Right? I feel so damn deprived .

R120 I wish I was 37, worth at least $40 million & about to inherit another $25 million from my great-grandmother's estate when I turn 40, and able to go on television from my 13 bedroom mansion and whine about my dad cutting me off and win the adulation of millions in the US. All the while still being on speaking terms with the other great milker of my family who hangs out with pedos and still gets to live free of charge at Windsor.

R122-- Don't forget the damn Polo ponies. He needs to live in poverty for couple of years.

R123 They might have to find smaller accommodations.

"I wish I could have left my family while receiving millions from them."

Sadly, R120, the internet killed the profession of "remittance man". That is, the black sheep of a wealthy family, who was given a reasonable allowance as long as he went to a colony like Australia or Kenya, and did all his partying and/or self-destruction away from the people who mattered.

An ideal career for our gay bretheren of the last couple of centuries, but now with the internet and social media nobody can vanish any more. Although hopefully they'll try to make Andrew get as close as possible.

Klan Grannies really jumped the shark with this post! Qanon levels of conspiracy crap.

"She and her mother are said to be at a ranch in Santa Barbara, he is said to be at Soho House. Presumably Markus is back at Soho House. No word re: Merchie."

I am not defending Andrew, Harry or even Prince Michael. However, after all these thousands of years, the British royal family has still not figured out how to treat and accommodate the senior or prominent royals who are not in line for succession to the throne. If they had been a system in place allowing these people to work and earn a salary without besmirching the monarchy, they wouldn't have these "spare" royals prepared for nothing with nothing to do--but yet expected to do something to earn money.

Of course their "idle lives" are going to get into trouble. It seems that the BRF wants them around for all sorts of charitable patronages, but yet they're not supposed to do anything else so they have to invent a purpose in life for themselves, hope that it's okay with the monarchy and still have money if they don't want to do charitable work, or are excluded from being a senior member or have to make a living for rent and kids' college tuition. It's a real Catch-22 for some of these royals who want something substantive in their lives but yet are stuck with nothing but ceremonial duties and going to fundraising gatherings.

[quote]The only royals that Harry and Meghan are allegedly still on speaking terms with are Andrew, Fergie, Beatrice and Eugenie

R112. How do we know this?

R128 we don't. There's no confirmation of Andrew having any allies besides his mother and his daughters.

Andrew's had it, hasn't he?

[quote]Andrew and Fergie have been unrelenting in their own role in smearing Harry, who is probably not appreciating how underhanded Andrew can be.

R110. What have the Yorks done to smear Harry unrelentingly? I haven't heard or read about them saying anything. Andrew has been lying low and doesn't say saying anything to anyone. And the only statement Sarah issued recently was last week when news of Markle's book, "The Bench," made headlines. Markle was taking heat about something regarding the book, and Sarah issued a statement saying, "We should respect anyone who writes a book and encourages children to read." I can't stand Markle, but I actually thought Sarah's statement was kind of nice considering she didn't have to say anything.

"If they had been a system in place allowing these people to work and earn a salary without besmirching the monarchy, they wouldn't have these "spare" royals prepared for nothing with nothing to do"

R127, I thought that for the last 50-100 years at least, the "spare" royals have been free to study hard and go to good academic colleges, and to enter the professions and work if they wanted to. Royals in other countries have done that, but if none of the royal Brits have... I don't think they're being stopped, I don't think they want to work that hard. I can't really blame them for that, how many of us would work hard if they didn't have to?

Now that said, the one Brit royal I know of who actually put in some hard work and mastered a field was Princess Anne, who was a good horsewoman in her day and who made the Olympic team. And Edward I think was willing to try, he wanted to be an actor, but who wants to hire a novice actor who's too famous to vanish into a character? But the likes of Bea and Eugenie? It's been clear from their birth that they wouldn't be important to the BRF and they'd better make lives for themselves outside royal duties, but it's not like they're bright or hard-working.

R132. Beatrice and Eugenie are fine. They seem like nice girls, and there has never been any scandal about them at all. They have led decent lives. They have been willing to step in and serve the monarchy when asked, but Charles keep blocking them because he doesn't like Andrew (even before Andrew's current troubles.) However, Bea and Eug, went to college, partied a bit, traveled a bit, like any young person their age, and then they went to work. They are married now and quite respectable and still participate in serve a few charities.

Yes, Bea and Eugenie are basically fine as people, but they aren't careerists or academic superstars. I mean nobody said they had to be, but if they aren't, it's not because the BRF is stopping them from studying or working.

Where does this idea that Charles has blocked Beatrice and Eugenie from doing anything come from? They were never going to have official roles representing the royal family/the state. If they want to have patronages and support charities that's fine and they do. But they were never going to meet foreign dignitaries, officially open hospitals, bestow honours or represent the UK abroad.

Charles will have to use Beatrice and Eugenie in the coming years. There is simply too much work, too many appearances and too many charities for just a few people to handle especially if Harry and Markle truly are gone for good and Andrew won't be used.

Bea and Eugenie were regularly slammed in the media for their frequent holidays when they were in their 20s. I think it was Bea who seemed to have a new job every year and then every month or two, she would be photographed in the Caribbean. None of them are very bright or talented and if they do manage to succeed in some endeavor, like Anne, they need to have a very tough skin. Reporters loved to photograph her falling off her horse; every failure was front page news.

Andrew was the worst of the lot.

Andrew deserves to be in prison.

R128 This comes from the reports that after Prince Philip died it was the Yorks (specifically Princess Eugenie) who reached out to Harry and were basically the go-between the Queen and other royals.

Maybe Andrew's girls partied with Harry and became real friends, and affection remains, despite Meghan trying to overshadow one of their weddings by showing off her bump and announcing her pregnancy in the middle of the wedding week (can't remember which one - Beatrice or Eugenie.)

If they do care about him, they're probably worried about him, off in America, married to that woman. I'm looking forward to the divorce festivities when she's had enough of the red-headed dum dum.

Meghan and Eugenie already knew one another before Harry. Eugenie was always close to the two boys. So was Beatrice. Now. Fergie is a schemer and a leaker. She has been leaking to the tabloids and "cooperating" with them for years. Andrew has always had a keen interest in publicity, and being more famous than Charles. He and Fergie remain close because they ae both grifters of the highest order. They are the absolute sleaze in the family.

They've always pushed their girls forward and attempted to exploit the Queen's affection for them. The Yorks have always resented Charles' sons getting more play than they did or their daughters. Beatrice and Eugenie hate that shit. They have been very agile about dodging the bullshit Fergie and Andrew fling, and generally refuse to be manipulated or participate in most of their machinations.

Both William and Harry as well as Meghan and Kate were repelled and disgusted by Andrew/Epstein and refused to do Christmas with the Queen because Andrew would be there. Yes. Now. The Palace staff decided to throw Meghan and Harry to the tabloids in order to distract from Andrew. It was a strategy. It was deliberate and it was something Andrew and Fergie both agreed with. In fact they whole heatedly embraced it.

Andrew and Fergie liked this especially since Harry had the kind of temperament and he was emotional, and would react. Meghan disregarded the advice of those at the palace who advised her to "dial it back." She thought they were being racist. Well, they were. But they would have said the same thing to Diana, probably did.

Charles was dealing with the Andrew Scandal from an entirely different perspective, trying to run the general shit his mother gave him to do, etc. and he hoped...as he had done with Diana, that if Harry & Meghan would just stay silent and ride it out, things would calm down. Meanwhile Harry and Meghan felt unsupported...and actually they wee. Of course Andrew was "nice " to Harry after Phillip died. Why wouldn't he be. LOL! Harry was doing himself in with the Press.

Andrew is scum. And the public who is dumb enough to take the bait from the tabloid media is dumber than dogshit. Harry's words continue to be twisted and taken out of context, and the tabloids continue to paint this picture of "Saint Katherine" and evil manipulative Meghan. Katherine is a decent person. Meghan is too. Neither deserves this bullshit.

Harry is not a dumb ass. He just lacks judgement about how to handle the press and he has to smarten up because he is a public figure. Meanwhile the most recent development that had any significance is the "departure" of a key member of William and Katherine's staff. He was a double dealing little piggy who was leaking to the tabloids, and he finally got bounced. Quietly. Because Harry was right. The Palace cooperates with the tabloids and feeds the beast egulaly. Has done for years.

R141 Wow! You should write a novel because that's a great piece of fiction. The only truth there is Andrew is scum.

Next we will hear that Harry is brilliant and benign. 🙄

r141 your statement makes sense to me. People are way to invested in this visceral hatred of Harry and Meghan that they've turned the other players in this game into saints. Will and Kate's PR guy was double dealing with the tabloids. There was clearly an inside link spreading a lot of negative PR about Harry and Meghan. We can debate if it was true but it was turned up a notch after Andrew's failed interview.

The fact that the guys departure has been ignored by the BRF obsessed member of DL speaks volumes. A lot of people have their blinders on. No one is saying Harry and Meghan are saints or innocent of also playing a ton of games, but come on, the BRF are just as much in the mud.

Fanfic from R141.

The thing is , R144- Those people are not publicly trashing their family and the country that has supported them all if their lives. They know they live a rarified live of unimaginable luxury and they aren't whinging about their lot in life, especially during a global pandemic.

R144, angry staffers may well have felt mistreated by Meghan and Harry and released information about them to the press, but there is no indication that was part of a nefarious plot to distract the public from Andrew. Nothing is happening with Andrew. That may be a scandal, but it is a permanent situation, not an unfolding story. The FBI has no jurisdiction in the UK. Andrew cannot be compelled to give evidence against himself, nor can he be extradited—most countries never extradite their own citizens to a foreign country. It’s a seemingly permanent stalemate.

The princesses and their mother are very appreciative of the fact that Meghan and Harry are a huge distraction from Andrew who should be legally labeled a sex offender, shunned for the rest of his life and spend at least 15 years in jail.

He supplies them with a lot of money provided by his mummy. Megs was a year of Christmases handed to the BRF.

Wasn't Andrew widely condemned for wanting to wear an admiral's uniform that he wasn't entitled to to his father's funeral? And thus, none of the men were allowed to wear uniforms. So I wouldn't say his foibles have been completely whitewashed now there's a new black sheep. I think I read that 2% of the British public approve of Andrew (maybe read it here). In any case, Harry being a shit doesn't improve Andrew's rep. He's worse - probably always will be, unless Harry starts diddling teens.

So why couldn't the other men wear their uniforms? What did they do that was so shameful? So that Andrew could save face? The Queen should have said Fuck that perv!

I think Harry was wanting to wear a uniform that he wasn't entitled to, as well.

The BRF are like petty, naughty high school kids, good grief.

The two men who had actually served in war zones objected to not being able to wear their military uniforms while Charles and William who've never served in wars zones wore theirs. Pretty reasonable.

Kate and Wills are both academic enough to get a degree so Charlotte may go to university and then get a job in an acceptable industry such as publishing. All tho other royal pairings had a dunce thrown in, such as Charles and Diana. He went to Cambridge and she failed her O levels. I hope George and Louis steer clear of the military.

When the Queen dies, Andrew will disappear forever. Charles hates him.

Andrew was a genuine Royal Navy fighter pilot in the Falklands; not for him the military PR machine or protection behind the lines. Uniforms were not worn at PP's funeral, partly to save embarrassing Harry.

R155 is right.

Sorry, the argument about Charles allegedly throwing Harry & Meghan to deflect from Andrew is complete rubbish! And before I get accused of being some mad Meghan hater, I am a rare breed of Brit in that I hate every royal except the Queen. I'm guessing people who are talking about Harry & Meghan being made to take the hit for Andrew are American because Andrew has not mattered in the UK for ages and has been unpopular for decades now and his friendship with Epstein and giving that TRAIN WRECK of an interview just sealed the deal on what most of us already felt. Andrew was not going to bring down the monarchy, he just didn't matter enough to be honest. If it weren't for the press bringing the story back up I think most people would have forgotten he even existed at this point. The minute the Queen is dead Andrew will be shipped off into royal oblivion by Charles and William.

Personally, I think Charles is an idiot too but deliberately making members of the royal family look bad would be a ridiculous PR strategy. Harry & Meghan's bad press was mostly of their own doing. Yes there were some bad actors in the tabloids but that's the case for everyone. The virtue signalling, the costly renovations at Frogmore (which was not even where they were originally meant to live), the whining about their lives during a trip to Africa, taking private jets, Meghan's wardrobe costs etc. Honestly, the Meghan hate is probably less than 5% of the country. She became unpopular because 'Americanisms' just don't sell in the UK. The royals are meant to be boring, apolitical figures, who go around cutting ribbons, inspecting military regiments, and doing non-controversial charity work.

R157, interesting perspective. Clearly Andrew matters to some people. His mess with Epstein mattered to Charles and his mother because a Herculean effort had to be made on the diplomatic front to smooth things over and downplay Andrew's role in a criminal investigation. Epstein's death did not make everything "go away." Even though there may no longer be a criminal investigation of Epstein, where Andrew could have been pressured to testify or at least sit for a deposition, or an interview, there are still civil lawsuits and interviews with victims of these crimes. And so the embarrassment continues. I'm sure Charles would like that to go away too. He seems not to want to deal with any mess. Especially not with something as sordid as what Andrew was involved in.

The publicity and the public pressure on Andrew tainted the RF image whether he "matters" to some people or not. The public here in the USA, and in the UK may not care that much about the RF, but everyone loves a sex scandal. Public opinion is important. Embarrassment is important. I agree with you. Cutting ribbons, non controversial charity work, etc. has historically been the role of the modern monarchy. (Modern since George VI ) Andrew wasn't three steps removed. He wasn't some random cousin. He was and remains the son of the Monarch. So yeah, when he steps in shit it matters to some.

The RF and their supporters fret about the future of the monarchy in modern times, and I believe some can see the end in sight at least as it currently exists. Scandal and embarrassment does not make the case favoring the monarchy stronger. I believe Charles must loath him and that has been the case for many years.

As for Harry, yes he does lack judgement and some of his problems arise from self inflicted wounds. But I agree with you, I don't believe Charles "served up" Harry & Meghan for the tabloids to chew on, but I do believe Charles essentially did nothing and downplayed it, and felt it would all eventually fade away. I can see where Harry and Meghan, being in the midst of it, would not share his view.

I think there were indeed people on the staff who felt that Harry and Meghan were a welcome distraction form Andrew. They fed the high level of media curiosity in negative ways to distinguish her from Katherine, even decided to promote a feud between the two duchesses whether one existed or not. The Tabloids spewing out the latest gossip real or invented about Meghan and Harry must be very profitable for them because they keep at it and we all know how reliable the information is that appears in the Sun and the Mail. The tabloids are very often prone to being less than honest. Yes. One might even say they lie. (gasp.)

40 year old Meghan is a due-eyed ingenue in your eyes, right Megloon R158?

R159 Meghan is actually 39 although some claims (including her sister) that she was actually born in 78.

[quote]When the Queen dies, Andrew will disappear forever. Charles hates him.

Charlotte, you must learn a little discretion when posting on the internet, you'll be Queen one day!

R160 how exactly did she magically make 4 years disappear off her life when her life has been well-documented? Yearbooks, classmate interviews. Least of which the soap crusade she went on at 11. How many 15 year olds do you know who look 11? Please come back to reality.

R161 No she won't.

I know a 29-year-old who claimed to be 15!!! In the UK.

OMFG!! Andrew gave a sick puppy to his mom and now it just died. That will be too much for the Queen. Did he try to traumatize her intentionally? Thoughts and prayers.

Precisely r157, the only people who go on about Andrew are Americans. Andrew is simply irrelevant, he doesn't matter as a member of the royal family, he plays no role. Americans have some weird idea that every member of the royal family equates with the monarch or those in direct succession to the monarch. Also, only in the US is 17 "underage", and even then only in just a few states.

R165 not only that, but us Americans should be careful about complaining too much about Andrew not getting his, when we haven't even held our own people accountable so far (doubt we ever will). The BRF not addressing Epstein and Andrew (their blood relative) isn't that crazy, when how many of our political leaders were involved? How many wealthy American elites at this point?

Of course it'd be nice for him to get what he should, but it seems as if no one ever will. That opportunity further passed by with the "suicide".

[QUOTE] Also, only in the US is 17 "underage", and even then only in just a few states.

He raped sex trafficked girls, you lunatic pedo apologist.

So? Como feels the girls and no one cares. Unless you are racial no one cares. Gays have AIDS for 30 years and no vaccine but Covid in not a year.

Get used to being last.

I never understood why queen was riding with Andrew after his failed interview. It showed that she continued to support her son. After everything he’s done she supported him. Now, compare that the relatively minor mishaps (none of which were illegal) by Harry and Meghan and you can see that the tabloids were out for blood for the Sussexes but couldn’t be bothered to question the Queen’s judgment with regards to Andrew. I understand that she’s basically plays the role of Pope for the Church of England, but does she really have to cover for pedos like the real Pope?

Andrew should have been stripped of all patronage’s last year and sent into exile. If he serves no purpose then he has no business staying around in his palace in Windsor grounds. Use his alliance to send his ass far away.

Stop acting like Andrew isn’t at least a tad important because they allows him to answer some press questions during his father’s funeral. No gag order was in-place.

Long blog type posters -- go back to LSA where the eyes are glazed over permanently.

TL DR

Andrew isn't important. He could be found guilty of anything and it wouldn't make any difference. Harry and Meghan are deliberately trying to do all they can to destroy the royal family, which is a whole different story. For a few years more at least Harry will be higher up in the chain of things than Andrew, but at some point in the 2020s his status within the royal family will become about as relevant as Andrew's (i.e. not at all).

How would sending Andrew “into exile” work? Like, exile him to Switzerland or the Riviera like in the last century? Isn’t it better to keep him close and under wraps at Windsor?

His interview at Philip’s death is the first time anyone has seen him in a year (aside from a couple photos riding a horse on the grounds). Is he really in seclusion or does he go out and about and isn’t papped, like Kate isn’t papped when she’s out shopping in Knightsbridge due to the arrangement the BRF have with the press.

Andrew loves the perception that he is "close" to Mummy, living at Windsor, being seen riding. Notice how often he is "seen" riding. Yes, with the Queen that one time, but also just out riding at Windsor as if he is letting us know he is there and his rides sort of replicate the rides the Queen used to take on her own.

Andrew has always had supreme confidence in his ability to "get around" the Queen and get her to do special favors for him. But that has change with Charles. LOL! He is a pathetic piece of scum, and yes, he is being mostly ignored by the media, per the Palace's arrangements, but still manages to get snapped now and then.

The thing is, Andrew is on a very short leash and some of it is financial. He's obviously not a prisoner, restricted to the Crown properties, like Windsor, and his own estate, and he probably goes out of town, but stays at private residences now and then. Flies private planes...which is conveniently ignored by the tabloids.

But he is under restrictions that he may not do anything of a public nature. Period. He has completely "retired" from public life whether he admits it or not. The RF knows what a sick, disgusting pig he is. They do not want him to be prominent. He is the equivalent of a private citizen...with a castle.

R157 hit the nail on the head, Andrew just isn't that important in the UK. Really since the early 2000s, he was largely eclipsed by William and Harry. I think because the Epstein story is much larger in the US and rightfully so Andrew gets more attention there than here in the UK. I will also add this, I find it funny, actually, that Americans are so into bashing a few bad apples in the royal family. Maybe direct that energy towards your own bad players like the entire republican party and most of Hollywood?

"How would sending Andrew “into exile” work? Like, exile him to Switzerland or the Riviera like in the last century?"

Like I said in another thread, the internet and social media have killed the fine lucrative profession of "remittance man". Prominent families used to send their black sheep sons to places like the Continent, Australia, or Kenya, and give then a generous allowance as long as they didn't blot the escutcheon where the people who matter could see it.

With the internet, social media, and in Andrew's case the gutter press, there's no place he can be exiled. Wherever he goes, the media can find him, so they might as well keep him home, where they can pressure the media to hush up a few things if not all.

The reason why Andrew isn't important in the UK is that the Queen has been supporting him for years and it reflects horribly on her. And no Brit can think badly about her. She knew what was going on for years. She knew about his relationship with Epstein and all the unsavory things going on. This woman is told about all the carryings on of all her children. She has a staff which has informants everywhere and I'm sure the gossip in the palace about Andrew has been scathing for decades yet until fairly recently when everything exploded she fully supported his shitty behavior. And what about Jimmy Savile and knighting him? You mean she knew nothing about him and his diddling children for decades?

The Queen to Brits is like the Virgin Mary is to Catholics. She can do no wrong. Yet she has presided over a disaster of a family while giving all her children who WORK for her very lavish lifestyles despite they're sometimes sickening behavior with no reproaches. She is not a very nice person. But don't tell Brits that.

^^^hi Meg Markle.

R176, Andrew isn't that important in the UK because he isn't that important. Americans really need to get it into their heads that the members of the royal family are not all of equal status.

Oh, everyone in America knows that, R178!

Everyone except Meg Markle, anyway. She never seemed to get it.

I am trying to picture the scene in which her private secretary (or whomever) informs the Queen about the latest scandal about her favorite son. Vague allusions? Discreet pauses? Gestures? Or, “Ma’am his royal highness flew to NY last night to meet with a convicted sex offender who had previously lent him a lot of money and now their photograph is on the front page”. Does she read the newspapers?

I mean, presumably someone there with an ounce of intelligence advised him not to go.

[quote] Remember: what they do to Harry, they are going to be pressured to do to Andrew as well.

As well they should. Molesting underaged girls is a far greater offense than just being a whiny brat.

I'm terribly sorry, R178. To Americans, the British Royal Family members ARE of equal status.

i.e., antiquated pieces of shit who are completely irrelevant to political and social life.

[quote] I find it funny, actually, that Americans are so into bashing a few bad apples in the royal family. Maybe direct that energy towards your own bad players like the entire republican party and most of Hollywood?

Most of us do direct more energy toward Republicans, etc. I've never encountered anyone outside of some nutbags on DL who really care much about the BRF.

More than he deserved, all his life. But that's the life of a royal.

[quote] Americans really need to get it into their heads that the members of the royal family are not all of equal status.

Why? What difference does it make whether Americans have an accurate understanding of how the freaking royal family works?

Which underaged girls did Andrew molest, R181? Virginia Roberts was over the UK age of consent when she had sex with Andrew.

I’m absolutely not defending him - he’s sleazy and, based on the evidence, amoral. But no laws have been shown to be broken.

You do know that the age of consent in the UK isn’t necessarily the age of consent in the USA, right? Or indeed that the age of consent within the USA can differ state by state?

Probably not, based upon your post.

"Remember: what they do to Harry, they are going to be pressured to do to Andrew as well.

Well Harry *did* voluntarily surrender all the responsibilities that came with his title and Andrew had them taken away against his will... but yeah. If Andrew isn't providing any of the public services that are expected in return for his HRH and whatever public funds are spent on him, then he should absolutely never take another dime from the public.

As to pulling his titles, he's committed the same offense as Harry had, exploiting his title for personal financial gain. So to be fair the Queen pull the royal Dukedoms from both, but betcha she won't. Still, once Charles is crowned or becomes regent, betcha Andrew "voluntarily" surrenders his duke-ness...

Well R185, you’re here on this thread, pontificating but not understanding, like so many of your countrymen. That’s one reason!

Wow, yeah, “dukeness”, “never take another dime”, “betcha” etc - you sound incredibly well-informed, R187.

R187. Don't be so sure about Charles having Andrew "voluntarily" surrender his title of duke. Charles has never shown much backbone. He's still trying to get Harry to behave and wants to work things out, all the while Harry continues to trash Charles with no accountability. Maybe William might feel more emboldened to have Andrew surrender his title of duke, but by then Andrew will be much older, the issue of Andrew and the underaged girl may be solved by then and whomever is king at the time might just let Andrew live out his senior years as a duke rather than rock the boat.

[quote] You do know that the age of consent in the UK isn’t necessarily the age of consent in the USA, right? Or indeed that the age of consent within the USA can differ state by state?

You do know that Pedophile Island, where one of the assaults took place, is a US territory, right? And that the age of consent in the US Virgin Islands is 18? And that Roberts alleges that Andrew molested her there as part of an orgy involving numerous other sex-trafficked girls, so it's highly unlikely she was the only teenager he diddled there?

It's not just that he was known to have fucked 1 trafficked 17-year-old girl, it's that he spent years as the guest of someone who was engaging in widespread trafficking of young girls.

So if anyone thinks that one girl was the only one, I've got this bridge in London I'd like to sell you.

Again - no laws have been shown to be broken. And if you’re looking at visitors to “Pedophile Island”, you might want to look closer to home. Clinton, for example.

If laws were broken there then why hasn’t your former President been charged.

Again, I am defending nobody, it’s just that when people like you R191 post highly emotional “information” but cannot back it up except with more emotion, your argument falls to pieces.

Yes, it’s sleazy. Yes, it’s amoral. But illegal? The only people shown to have broken the law are Epstein (dead) and Maxwell (imprisoned).

[R180], I believe they are advised not to undertake an endeavour that would more than likely reflect badly on TRF. It's just that they ignore it, and go ahead with it anyway.

Well I watched the Crown a few times and The Queen always had that personal Secretary guy and they were close and lasted for years. So I imagine that if she needed a heads up about some mess that personal Secretary guy would know how to tell her.

Andrew and Harry are not in the same boat. With Harry, he chose to leave and I think that while he really didn't fully appreciate all that he would have to give up, he is happier out than he was inside. I don't call him talking about his life as "trashing his father" and since we have no idea what kind of relationship they had o have I am not going to pile on. Harry likes the freedom America provides him compared to the restraints and constant nerve wracking bullshit of being part of the RF. So what if he's making money. I don't begrudge him. If he had stayed, maybe he would have ended up like Andrew, but I like to think Harry is a much better person than that pompous asshole.

R195 they're both pompous assholes

R195, we know what Harry says; we do not know what he actually thinks. What we can be sure of is that he did not "chose to leave." In the statement they issued on their "SussexRoyal" site, the Sussexes stated that they wanted to be a part of the RF while pursuing financial freedom elsewhere. They intended to continue making appearances on behalf of the Queen. That proposal was rejected.

R195 Guess what? “The Crown” was fiction, not a documentary.

Those were actors speaking from a script. Not the actual members of the British Royal Family.

“That personal secretary guy” - are you trying to sound stupid or does it just come naturally?

You are a perfect example of why Americans having an opinion on the British Royal Family are absolutely laughable.

Stop posting on DL Piers! We have as much right to our opinions about celebrities and public figures as anyone else.

Harry & Meghan were proceeding on misinformation. They were probably given different versions about what was possible. And a lot of options wee shot down by the staff. This is not familiar ground, it was a relatively new proposition and probably required research and discussion. So what they thought they could do, or wanted to do, was eventually pared down, revised, etc. to what was allowed by the Crown.

[quote] Again, I am defending nobody, it’s just that when people like you [R191] post highly emotional “information” but cannot back it up except with more emotion, your argument falls to pieces.

What is "emotional" about the information that Little Saint James (aka Pedo) Island is subject to US, not UK, laws and that the age of consent there is 18? If Andrew indeed molested a 17-year-old while on this island (as Roberts alleges), then, yes, a law was broken. Has it been proved that he did? No, and it never will be, since Andrew's not going to be extradited to the US to discuss it.

But then, my initial post on this subject never claimed it had been PROVED he molested underage girls and really, what does it matter? Nobody with an ounce of common sense would believe that Andrew never touched Epstein's "merchandise" and I doubt he concerned himself with the girls' ages. Even if, by happenstance or design, he never touched anyone who was under the legal age of consent, and in fact, no laws were broken, my point still stands: hanging out with Epstein and having sex with the girls/young women he trafficked (even those who may have been barely legal) is a far worse offense than whining to the media about your privileged upbringing.

^ PS, totally agree that Bill Clinton's possible participation in Epstein's activities should be subject to closer scrutiny. I did not bring him up because, guess what, he's not the subject of this thread.

Clinton? What about Trump?

Will add that Harry has cousins and relatives who have stepped away from royal duties and earn their own money. I believe where the problem arose is with Harry and Meghan wanting to be more activist and in fact express politically controversial opinions. That kind of freedom is not permitted in the role of a Royal, because it is interpreted as speaking for the Crown.

Harry was hoping to carve out some hybrid version that would allow him to remain a part of the RF but in the end he was denied and things went in a more conservative, traditional direction. Whatever. As it was said so well up thread: All the RF has to do is cut a few ribbons and visit charities and show up and keep things totally non controversial.

It's not that complicated if you're part of the RF. Harry and Meghan will be doing their charity work without the institutional support of the charities networks and operational support they would have had if they had remained.

[quote] Clinton? What about Trump?

Yes, Trump too, obviously. Need we list every man whose connections to Epstein merit further examination? What is up with the posters who invariably turn up in threads like these acting as though, if you confine your remarks to the misdeeds of the person who's the subject of the thread, you must not believe that anyone else did the same things?

The point is, R204, that if your countrymen, currently domiciled in the USA, such as Clinton, Wexler and Trump, haven’t been charged as a result of visiting Epstein’s island, doesn’t that tell you that Andrew hasn’t been charged as he has not broken any law? Otherwise why haven’t Clinton etc been hauled before the courts?

That’s the point.

"...doesn’t that tell you that Andrew hasn’t been charged as he has not broken any law?"

Oh honey, people break laws without being charged all the time!

So, sex with a 17 year old is pedophilia if it's in the US Virgin Islands but totally legitimate and between adults if it takes place in New York, in fact the vast majority of the US, and the British Virgin Islands.

R182, the views of Americans on the British royal family - very often incredibly misinformed, such as yours - are utterly irrelevant.

The monarch is the head of state and hence a fundamental part of British political life. That you can't comprehend this only reveals your ignorance, nothing else. There are dozens of royal families around the world. Are you saying that they're all pieces of shit?

What's antiquated is your typical colonial American view that you have the right to dictate to other countries what their constitution should be. What business is it of yours how the British, Danish, Spanish, Japanese, Nepali, Moroccan, etc. etc. constitutions select the head of state? Americans don't run the world, so bog off.

[quote] Otherwise why haven’t Clinton etc been hauled before the courts?

Why, obviously, r205, it absolutely MUST be that they didn't break any laws and couldn't possibly be because rich and/or powerful men often get away with breaking laws.

You missed the point R209 - no surprise there.