BREAKING - Prince Andrew STRIPPED Of His Royal Titles

We don't know her.

About fucking time.

He's still a Duke, just not a HRH.

Shouldn’t she strip her own HRH while she’s at it considering her tax dodging / abuse of privilege for political favours / covering for her sons’ crimes?

Good, it’s a start. He is a boorish knob, always demanding special treatment and intimidating people with “don’t you know who I am” threats. His arrogance was bound to kick him in the arse some time.

I feel sorry for the Queen. What a year—losing her husband of so many years, failing health and having to deal with the fact that your favourite (God knows why) child is actually a pedophilic monster.

I'm actually kind of shocked at this as I figured any move like this would occur after QEII's death. Shit must really look grim for Andrew if the BRF finally took this step.

Sad to say, but after this, I don't see Liz lasting much longer. Whatever he is, she's made him that person & now it's all unraveling.

He's been stripped of his military appointments and his charitable patronages but he still holds his royal status and royal titles. However this message from the Queen is HUGELY significant in royal terms, this is basically saying Andrew no longer has anything to do with the working of the monarchy. Basically this is a "we don't know her" by the wider royal family. I suspect this was the result of pressure from Charles and William. William has allegedly been pushing for Andrew to be cast a drift.

Hopefully this means Harry is next on the chopping block.

Just wanted to add that it's being reported that Andrew has agreed to not use his HRH any longer, but he still holds it.

Is his ex-wife still hoping to remarry him?

survival! Survival! SURVIVAL!

Someone in a Prince Harry thread commented that the Queen couldn't take the dukedom from him without Parliament.

Try as you might to make Harry just as bad as Andrew, you will fall sweetie r9

I don't watch The Crown but does this shit come up on there at all?

I think it’s quite possible he’ll kill himself. But would he do it before or after his mum’s Jubilee celebrations?

R14 I agree that Andrew is the bigger problem for the monarchy BUT I will bet you money that in 20 years time, Harry will have completely blown up his life like his Uncle Andrew. He seems to have inherited the Windsor dumbness and arrogance and fallen under the spell of a woman who is in it for the money.

Quite sad how the Klan Grannies insist on interjecting the Sussexes into threads where they are not relevant.

Awwww, Major Pedo is now merely Mr. Pedo!

It's absolutely hilarious if he indeed lost his royal title. Andrew was among those who chose to pile on when Diana was cast into the wilderness, and he supported her losing her royal status despite being mother of the future King of England.

R18 is the same person posting about Harry.

The statement is very terse.

R17 whatever his reasons, his "scandal" is nothing compared to his uncle, or even his great great uncle, the Nazi lover who abdicated. Granted if he had chosen someone less conniving (or not conniving enough?) as a wife who would've just accepted royal life for what it is and just know her place, that's another debate. But it's really ridiculous that every thread about Andrew's crimes becomes a vehicle to associate with Harry as being just as bad. He's not!

[quote] Shouldn’t she strip her own HRH while she’s at it considering her tax dodging / abuse of privilege for political favours / covering for her sons’ crimes?

She's not HRH. She's HM.

I wonder what dirt they got on him to make her take this step. This is big. I also wonder how much Charles was in her ear to do this.

One point of clarification:

Like Prince Harry, Andrew can no longer use the style HRH in an official capacity, but it wasn't stripped from him like Diana and Sarah.

Bwhaaaaaaaaaaaa.

He's is a and always was a douche.

And take that cow/ hooker/ influence peddler Fergie with you.

She should have stripped both sons, named Will heir and put this whole messy generation to rest.

R24 It's because this thing is going to court and no matter what Andrew does now (even if her settles out of court) he looks like he's guilty as fuck. For the sake of the monarchy, they had to cut all ties with him. It's been known for a while that both Charles and William have been pushing for Andrew to be cast a drift, but the Queen as mother has been reluctant to do so (mostly because I think she believes he's innocent...most mother's probably would be in denial too). The truth is, that for the Windsors, survival of the monarchy is far more important the family relationships.

Prince Andrew enjoys being stripped.

Charles is clearly gaining in power, as is William, and neither of them have any time for Randy Andy. He's only going to be ostracised further as time goes on, which doesn't bode well for the York sisters or their mother, either.

He’s still an HRH, he just won’t be CALLED an HRH, like Harry.

This puts him at the same level as the Sussexes.

I am really tired of seeing this mistake repeated again and again and again so could somebody please ask if she's OK?

If they have enough dirt on Andrew for this to occur then you can bet Dershowitz is just about shitting his britches right about now.

[quote] I don't watch The Crown but does this shit come up on there at all?

Yes. in the fourth season, the Queen meets privately with all of her children in 1982 when Philip tells her she has a favorite child and she doesn't believe him, and wants to see which of her children is her favorite (we find out at the end of the episode Philip meant Andrew). When she has lunch with Andrew, he behaves like a lout, and lands his military helicopter at Windsor to meet with her. At lunch he goes on about dating Koo Stark, and describes salaciously a movie she made where she's an innocent underage thing who is molested by older wealthy men. The Queen later tells Philip in horror that she is worried Andrew is "lost."

Peter Morgan, the show runner, has said that he deliberately put that in to comment on the current Prince Andrew scandal, but that he is not going far enough up in time to present Andrew's legal difficulties today. He has been consistently firm the series will not go further forward chronologically than about 15-20 years ago--most people are thinking he will end the sixth season either with the Queen's Golden Jubilee (2002) or the wedding of Charles and Camilla (2005).

[quote] Hopefully this means Harry is next on the chopping block.

Yeah, because moving to Santa Barbara is totally on par with fucking 17-year-old sex trafficked victims. 🙄

Yea, I'm not so comfortable that all it takes is an accusation.

That is not how it should be and if people don't realize this then they are sheep.

First Principles. Always, First Principles.

Good, but he should lose his dukedom as well.

I feel sorry for his daughters, they must be mortified by his behaviour.

The BBC Radio 1 announcement began, "And now for some breaking news from Buckingham Palace..." and I really did think for a moment that Betty herself had finally snuffed it.

R28, it's "cast adrift," not "a drift."

The Royal honorary military titles are hilarious to me. It’s so funny to see Princess Anne and Price Edward at the Trooping with their dozens of medals, especially as the latter pussed out during basic training.

[quote]Sad to say, but after this, I don't see Liz lasting much longer. Whatever he is, she's made him that person & now it's all unraveling.

What an ridiculous statement. You blame your mommy for everything, don't you?

Well that's some good news.

Andrew is reputed to be the Queen's favorite because his father was reputed to have been Lord Porchester, the Queen's racing manager. Andrew looks like Porchester.

He doesn't lose the dukedom and neither he loses his HRH (albeit he won't be referred to as HRH in the future).

BUT he has been stripped of ALL his military patronages etc.

This is really significant - and it's just good.

And it's about time, but at least and at last E2R has reacted, I'll give her that.

I suppose I should be applying at ASDA now.

Heading out this morning into the sun

Riding on the diamond waves, little darlin' one

Warm wind caress him

His lover it seems

Oh, Andy

Dreamboat Andy, my little ship of dreams

[quote]Good, but he should lose his dukedom as well.

That would be extremely unlikely.

This move does not affect Beatrice and Eugenie (since it is voluntary, and only involves him not using his HRH title), but if the Queen stripped his dukedom from him (which would require issuing Letters Patent), they would no longer be princesses of York, since those titles emanate from their relationship to him. They would then be punished for their father's malfeasance.

Who gets his military affiliations?

Fergie'll have to write more books about helicopters now.

As usual, the Americans get it wrong. He's not been stripped of any royal titles. He's still an HRH, he just won't use it anymore, not that it was being used in reference to him anyway.

He had pretty much already been stripped of his military patronages.

The only reason for this is so that he can fight this case as a private citizen, nothing else.

So, R43, the OP is wrong and just misreporting the facts.

Facts. Do they even exist anymore?

Yes, r42, we fondly remember Porchie from The Crown!

just to clarify: The Queen can strip any member of her family of their HRH title through Letters Patent, however, the Duke of York title can only be removed by an Act of Parliament.

So he hasn't been stripped of his title, just can't use it? Can't see much of a difference.

R15 = stupid frau

I thought Harry had also been stripped of HRH but then used it on Lilibet's birth certificate.

[R45] wow that's a generous bush

R55, he's known to be an idiot. He's a lot like Uncle Andy, you know. Being a dick must be some kind of the spare's curse.

R47 other members of the royal family will take on these titles in the coming weeks. Likely the will be distributed between Charles, William, Anne and Edward. Maybe Catherine and Camilla too.

[quote] interjecting the Sussexes into threads where they are not relevant.

It’s very relevant. There’s been a lot of conjecture about what could be done to deal with Harry and Meghan’s vile behavior. Seeing what’s possible or not through Andrew’s experience helps to show whether or not the Sussexes can also be properly punished for all the bad things they have done.

It's as close to taking it all away from him as can be done without an act of Parliament. It is a huge humiliation for him, publicly and within the royal family. The Duke of Windsor abdicated and he still kept some semblance of styles and titles. This is enormous. As far as she could go. Respectful of the public perception without appearing to be run by opinion poll. And it must sadden her deeply but all of sudden it seems like Queen Mary's 'the crown must win, must always win' seems like there was more truth than fiction to it. This is understanding your privilege and so doing your duty. Kind of epic.

He’s basically Countess Luann now.

R59, also: they're birds of a feather now. Discredited by their own behaviour, discarded by the system. They are peers, just in a different way.

It seems like Charles and William are taking over from the Queen. I think their plan is to downsize the Royal Family. Everybody but the core group will be out.

Markle also listed her occupation as a "Princess of the UK" on Archie's birth certificate, even though... she is not. Anyway, back to the subject at hand, didn't mean to derail.

It shows how the Queen, and her successors, put their realm and service to their subjects above everything else, including above family.

[QUOTE] especially as the latter pussed out during basic training.

I know, it’s hysterical to see Edward in full Admiral or Colonel regalia when he bailed out of basic training because he couldn’t handle the brutality and physicalness of it, and ran off to the theater instead.

He should be embarrassed.

[quote] Markle also listed her occupation as a "Princess of the UK" on Archie's birth certificate, even though... she is not.

Middleton did the same.

R64: You you did, Klan Granny. Kill yourself. Death to All Klan Grannies on this thread. GET. OUT!

Middleton's up to the job.

R58 Edward? Unlikely? But Sophie might get one, depending on the particular cause.

I guess Catherine and Camilla getting some of these patronages is a safe bet.

Take your meds, R68.

Off with his head!

R65 when this came out, and the RF knew that it was true about sex with a trafficked girl, the Queen decided to go riding with Andrew. The RF basically tried to make this go away until Andrew’s horrible interview. So this says, you can be as vile as you want to people as long as it doesn’t cause a stink in the press. If not for that interview I wonder I doubt the Queen would have done shit.

I bet the staff in his little Windsor palace will still have to bow and call him an HRH (still his title) so this changes next to nothing for Andrew’s life since he wasn’t socializing all that much these past few months.

R71: LOL. So you admit to being a racist Klan Granny who is hijacking this thread to attack that evil colored for stealing Harry form ever touching your dusty virgin mussy. Way to tell on yourself, dipshit.

Megaloon at R68 is back in da house!

R68 Girl, pour yourself another glass and sit down already.

R68 go back to Celebitchy and seethe with the other fat frauen.

He shall henceforth be known as Randy Andy of York.

Do with think William and Harry are as hairy "down there" as their dear old Uncle Andrew?

R67. Because that is her job. Meghan gave up that job and lambasted the institution that gave the job to her. Just a schemer as always.

R68 is lowering the bar for DL and that's saying something!

I think someone should ask if R68 is OK. I mean, the answer's obvious but whoopdeloopdedoo! I hear ankle bracelets can cut off circulation.

Was the teen pussy worth it Andrew?

[quote] Middleton's up to the job.

Kate Middleton doesn’t have Princess of The UK on George’s birth certificate because she’s up to the job. She has it for the same reason Meghan did on Archie’s: because they were told to.

I doubt Sarah has any interest in Andrew’s tarnished goods now. He can’t do much for her anymore, he’s lost influence. Once Charles succeeds Andrew will be meaningless. Princess Michael of Kent will probably be a bigger blip on Charles’ radar than his own brother, which isn’t saying much. Sarah don’t play that, she’s in it for the money and whatever else Andrew could get for her.

I feel really bad for Beatrice and Eugenie. They must be horrified.

R84: These retarded Klan Grannies ruin everything. There will never be a thread about the RF ever again here that won't be hijacked by these disgusting lunatics.

To those melting down about the Sussex references... deal with it. They're a punch line now. They have joined Mrs. Patsy Ramsey, concerned your-team-goes-here Mom, Buck, Cheryl, etc. etc. etc.

They're gonna pop up. They're a punchline. That's not our fault.

[quote]Just wanted to add that it's being reported that Andrew has agreed to not use his HRH any longer, but he still holds it.

For r8/r31: he no longer holds the HRH at all, if the Queen has stated so. She holds full control of the HRH application and usage, and can give or take it away at anytime, at the minimum by simply stating so.

Sharp eyes will notice there was no mention in official palace statements re the HRH, but they (the palace, and TQ) clearly referred to Andrew as the "Duke of York" only, and not "HRH the Duke of York". Very telling. Let that be your guide on this topic.

R84 Meghan's spawn was born in the US. In the US we don't have anybody whose first name is "His Royal Highness" - somebody needs to tell dimwitted Harry.

R85 nobody's interested in Fergie. She can't do better than Andrew. And Andrew originally met with Epstein so Epstein would pay off some of Fergie's debts.

I agree, Sarah has become such an unattractive hag. She was never a raving beauty but she looks awful now, especially without makeup. She can’t do better than Andrew, she’s on her own now.

Only a disgusting lunatic would use the word "retarded." Way to tell on yourself, Megaloon.

I have live footage of R68 / R86... go play with your kids or something. Load the dishwasher.

R42 - The family name is Herbert.

The current 8th Earl of Carnarvon is Lord Porchester's son. "Lord Porchester" , QEII's bloodstock & racing manager, became the 7th Earl of Carnarvon on his father's death.

[quote] Middleton's up to the job.

Catherine has earned the privilege by her good deeds and noble service to the country.

R91 Are Lipstick Alley and Celebitchy sites down? I fail to understand why the Megaloon/Klan Granny Troll haunts the DL. She's a homophobic, obese old cow.

R86 displays an intimate understanding of lunacy.

My guess is the sex stuff is the tabloid angle but behind the scenes there is evidence of very real financial crimes - easily provable - committed while he was a “roving trade ambassador.” The sex is the smokescreen, although of course everyone from the Queen on down knows the sex allegations are 100% true and probably worse.

Nothing says BRF like squeezing out a litter of inbreds

PRINCESS MICHAEL OF KENT!

Yas Kween!

R97 if Andrew is Porchie's son, he isn't inbred. The Queen and Porchie weren't related at all.

The only one being retarded in here is you, R86.

Harry and Andrew are still HRHs.

They have both “agreed not to use them”.

Thank you for defending me R68.

Going to argue some subtext from three points in The Telegraph story:

"He will continue to defend his sexual abuse case as a “private citizen,” declaring it a “marathon not a sprint.”

So one or maybe two things. Wonder if he told them I refuse to give up the right, and so they took this step to wall him off. On the other hand, could be a diversionary tactic to say to her lawyers there's only so much money to be settled here, so have a chat with your client about reconciling expectation with reality.

"A royal source said all of the Duke’s roles had been handed back to the Queen with immediate effect for redistribution to other members of the Royal Family. They will not be returned to the Duke."

I bet that's Charles and William buying cover for the long term. It was announced in 2022 that....

"Prince Andrew, 61, will no longer use the style “His Royal Highness” in any official capacity."

So he keeps the status privately within the family.

He should go on Ellen. That's always a fast train to restoring your dignity.

[quote]I feel really bad for Beatrice and Eugenie. They must be horrified.

They’re married off now and and put in an appearance at Kate’s piano recital. They’re grown women pushing 40 and will be fine.

There's no way arrogant Andy would give up ANYTHING willingly or even suggest the prospect so this is pretty big news.

Arrogant Andy didn't have a choice. That's Mom's area.

R105, they are WHORES

STRIPPED!

[quote]My guess is the sex stuff is the tabloid angle but behind the scenes there is evidence of very real financial crimes - easily provable - committed while he was a “roving trade ambassador.” The sex is the smokescreen, although of course everyone from the Queen on down knows the sex allegations are 100% true and probably worse.

Interesting; it does appear that he has way more $$ going out than he has coming in. In addition to bankrolling Fergie, news articles indicate that he's still supporting his daughters in the lifestyle to which they have become accustomed.

No surprise but from The Times: "The decision signals that the Queen has finally lost patience with her second son, who is frequently described as her favourite. The humiliation parallels her decision that Prince Harry should also have to give back his military titles after moving to California.

It is understood that the decision was taken after discussions among members of the royal family, including the Prince of Wales and Duke of Cambridge."

This is usual. She gives things every opportunity to resolve successfully, doesn't act in haste but when she acts, she knows what she's going to do and she doesn't fuck around. Diana's divorce letter, the much loved Californians, now this. She didn't just wake up and decide this. It's been an option for some time, I'd guess, and the moment arrived it had to be done.

[quote]Arrogant Andy didn't have a choice. That's Mom's area.

That's exactly what I meant. People suggesting he offered it up are wrong.

over 100 replies in just two hoursy

[quote]they are WHORES

You basing this on what, R108?

Receipts, or you’re just talking out of your ass.

[quote]My guess is the sex stuff is the tabloid angle but behind the scenes there is evidence of very real financial crimes - easily provable - committed while he was a “roving trade ambassador.”

He hasn't been trade ambassador for ten years. Would you let ten years pass to advance the easily provable?

I feel less sorry for Eug who seems to be a bit of a famewhore.

I do feel sorry for Bea though. She seems to be a good gal, laid-back, not that interested in attention-whoring, witty, and also being able to take the piss. I do appreciate she gave away the weird pretzel fascinator (the one she wore for William's wedding) for charity to be auctioned. She even made self-deprecating jokes about her wearing that hat.

Wrong r101. They are only HRH still if The Queen herself says they are. It's not a permanent, given form of address. She can remove it at her leisure or whim.

She has "mothballed", if not outright temporarily removed Harry's HRH when he and the Mrs. moved to Canada. He (and by extension, his wife) cannot use it, because it has been (temporarily) removed.

The same has now happened to Andrew. It's gone, until the Queen (or subsequent monarch) says it's back.

An "HRH" is not a permanent, lifetime right. It's present at birth to certain individuals as laid out by the standing Letters Patent of 1917. But that can be overruled at anytime, by the sitting monarch, for ANY reason.

Plus, those teeth.

The recipients of an "HRH" rank do NOT have any say on whether they get to "use" or outright keep that rank or form of address. The right to it and its usage lies solely with the monarch.

R117, the Queen has not said that they are not HRH. Actually removing that title from them is a much bigger deal.

[quote]Hopefully this means Harry is next on the chopping block.

I hope that you're right R9.

Nutmeg already chopped off the Ginger's balls, so this wouldn't hurt him a bit.

R120 she has probably said this, behind closed doors to her staff and courtiers. She doesn't have to stand on the BP balcony and declare it.

Note the statements put out today, how Andrew is referred. They called him simply, "Duke of York" and not "HRH The Duke of York". It's all right there in the statement, she doesn't need to make any other declaration.

What will Randy Andy do for money now?

Better late than never, I suppose.

But those calling him a commoner now are wrong. He is still Prince of the Blood, he's still Dukw of York, and not using HRH is not the same as having it removed

In fact, this is exactly what the Queen did to Harry: left him his ducal title, suspended but did not strip him of his HRH, and stripped him of his military appointments and royal patronages.

Andrew and Harry are now on exactly the same footing

It looks good, but it's still too little. Everyone knows they've got those HRHs, are still Prince this and Duke That.

She should have taken the ducal titles from both.

It's worse for Andrew because this is still his home, Harry is far away.

It's glossy but insufficient in my view for both men.

R124 So it's a semantic slight-of-hand by the old Girl--she is merely suspending the HRH honorific, not, as they are saying, "stripping"?

[quote] But that can be overruled at anytime, by the sitting monarch, for ANY reason.

A fit of pique?

So amusing is it to compare Andrew to Henry.

An abuser of victims of sex trafficking, a friend of the world's worst despots, a compulsive liar and grifter, rude and arrogant to any he perceives below him - a disgusting amoral creature.

Harry - a fool who left behind royal duties for his woman. Hmmm....

Aren’t you cute R127?

Bless your heart.

R128 You are an exhausting troll with the same responses. Time to banish you as well!

How many threads do you need on this? Don’t you feel like you’re being greedy with the rest of the board? Taking up the whole front page? There are 9 Andrew threads on the front page.

Have some consideration for others. This was once an expected trait.

[quote]But those calling him a commoner now are wrong. He is still Prince of the Blood, he's still Dukw of York, and not using HRH is not the same as having it removed...In fact, this is exactly what the Queen did to Harry: left him his ducal title, suspended but did not strip him of his HRH, and stripped him of his military appointments and royal patronages.

You aren't paying attention. "Not using the HRH" by order of HM The Queen is basically the same as its removal. If she said not to use it, it's no longer there, no longer attached to the subject.

You need to understand that there is no official mechanism to "strip" a BRF member of their princely status or HRH usage. There is the word of the monarch as Fount of all Honour, and it is final. The monarch can use a variety of means to convey their decision. By putting out a statement on Andrew today, referring to him as simply "Duke of York" (much as she did to Harry a while back), she has conveyed her wishes.

Andrew (and Harry) are not at the current moment Their Royal Highnesses.

I would be very curious as to how palace staff are addressing Andrew as of today. "Sir" will be used of course, but "your Royal Highness" is no longer in play.

R129 It must pain you so to realize your beloved Yorkie girls will also be banished. They will NEVER be seen or heard from once grandma dies. William does not care for them - I would be cautious with them as well, given their genetic inheritance. He will never allow them near his wife and children, much less his person. They are tainted work-shy idiots.

r132 let's not get carried away. William doesn't dislike his York cousins, they will continue to be received as family members by the wider BRF. As will Andrew, at least in private only.

William may have no use for the girls as working BRF members, much like his father. But he (and Charles) don't loathe them and won't take out their anger at their father, on them.

What's the source for the claim that William and Charles were the ones who pushed for this? I'm not disputing it (sounds entirely plausible to me), just wondering where it came from.

Please refer to the Duke of York as Your Randiness.

This seems like solely a way to distance the Royal family from direct participation in Andrew’s civil suit. Doesn’t mean he won’t be getting money from some other place, and he probably won’t face any consequences besides paying off Virginia - Ghislaine was on a criminal trial, and that’s where you get sentenced.

And after all we’ve meant to each other R129.

Somehow, I will find the strength to carry on.

I am busy today, but I will cry tomorrow.

R115 - Have you heard of a scheme called "Pitch at the Palace" which Andrew skimmed off of for years?

[quote]What's the source for the claim that William and Charles were the ones who pushed for this? I'm not disputing it (sounds entirely plausible to me), just wondering where it came from.

I think many of the UK media outlets, including the better ones such as the Times and BBC, are quoting palace sources as stating they were behind the push.

I have no doubt its true. The Queen has never been able to clearly and decisively handle Andrew on her own. She is now in her final years and Charles is making many major decision, with his father deceased he's the de facto male "head of the family" and has taken on decisions that affect the wider BRF privately and publicly. This decision today has his fingerprints (and William's) all over it.

In fact, I wouldn't be shocked in the least if it later was discovered that TQ agreed to the requests to strip Andrew down today, and completely remove him from public life, in exchange for some support of private leniency (and financial assistance) for him from other BRF members. This is how the Windsors operate.

R67, Meghan IS a princess of the UK, though. If you're married to a British prince, you're a princess of the UK. Meghan is HRH the Princess Henry, Kate is HRH the Princess William, Sophie is HRH the Princess Edward, and so on.

R131 - A non-Royal Duke is addressed as "Your Grace".

R134, the Times, Telegraph, and Maul all reference discussion with senior members of the royal family. The judge ruled on this on Wednesday. There's no way this course of action was decided in 24 hours. I'd bet money this plan is one of many and a decision would be made once the ruling came down. You have to wonder, if the judge ruled the agreement did protect Andrew if this would have happened, or happened in whole (i.e. kept the HRH use). Who can say? There would have been a plan for every contingency. If the Californians taught them anything, it's to be prepared rather than surprised, I'd bet.

R141... the reporting is consistent: "Prince Andrew, 61, will no longer use the style “His Royal Highness” in any official capacity."

Anything other than official duties, which he hasn't done for a long time, he would be addressed as HRH/YRH. I mean, the half dozen people still speaking to him outside his relations would use it anyway.

[quote]then you can bet Dershowitz is just about shitting his britches right about now.

Right about now? R33’s a bit late to the game.

R143 - I agree with you 100%. I was just informing the uninformed and making the point that a non-Royal Duke was addressed as "Your Grace".

Don’t look now, R28, but R38’s amockin’ you.

This also sets up things nicely for Charles. If he wishes to remove the HRH from both Harry and Andrew permanently in the future, he can: The public will already be used to the idea that they are not HRH Royals anymore. The Queen can do it if she lives long enough that circumstances dictate.

The Sussexes were protected from losing their titles by the soft treatment of Andrew. That time has ended. If Harry's autobio is as inflammatory as rumored, he's fucked as far as titles go. Parliament may be the deciding factor in whether Royal dukedoms get pulled, but they've already signaled that they will back the Crown on this.

Gross pervert. The monarchy should be abolished. A bunch of inbred parasites.

Piers Morgan feels bad for the Queen.

Not much love lost for Eugenie tbe Leaker.

Assuming neither one of them have fucked up again, even if Charles is King in the next year, what benefit does crushing them do? Andrew (so far) hasn't been convicted of anything criminal, as sordid as his shit is, and Harry just as asshole who ran away to be a cuckold. I read two things in a reliable source recently. First, the feeling was prosecutors went after Maxwell because she was the strongest case and that the expectation of any further criminal charges was highly unlikely. Second, whatever they make of his misdeeds there is still loyalty to him as family. They are humans too, sometimes. I am not defending Andrew in any way but I would add as easy as it is to believe he is guilty of all things and several he probably didn't do, nothing's been proven yet. The presumption of innocence is another factor here.

An act as dramatic as stripping them of the HRH and princely status is big time. Where's the upside to act in the absence of a compelling reason? These people understand the long game and God knows they know how to out wait the emotions of the public. Diana should have destroyed them. Very nearly did. This is ugly, but no Diana. More to the point, Diana's still dead and Camilla's probably going to become Queen. They know how to ride out any storm. Today was about as much dramatic action as they'll take, I'd guess, unless something else forces their hands. They don't act rashly. That's one of the strengths of the whole thing.

But can he sweat now?

Misogynists complaining of homophobia are amusing, R94.

R125 - Well, I wouldn't call it "sleight of hand", precisely. It is a humiliation, a comedown, especially the removal of honorary military appointments. That's real and hurts, just as it did Harry, because the connection to the military was real as both served in active duty. For men of their status, that's a real blow.

But it is sleight of hand where "being royal" is concerned. Everyone knows they're still Princes, still royal Dukes, they just aren't being called that.

Andrew still Prince Andrew, Duke of York, just as Harry is still Prince Harry, Duke of Sussex.

It's nearly impossible to do away with the "Prince" bit, as both were born to that. But the ducal titles were her gift to each on his wedding day, in return for what was to be expected as a lifetime of service to the nation and the monarchy as serving royals upholding the monarchy - instead of besmirching it, which both men did in different ways.

Both men dishonoured that commitment, and both men should have been stripped of their ducal titles. I get that it would have been harder, messier, and require Parliament to sign on the dotted line if the Queen requested it, but, still.

They're still Prince/Duke and they have the HRH even if they can't use it.

And Harry is monetising and marketing his, whilst trashing the people and institution that gave it to him.

What she's done is the bare minimum she has to do to keep the institution distanced from Andrew.

But he's no commoner, make no mistake. He and Harry are still, technically, royal dukes and princes of the blood.

Andrew, however, here in Britain, his daughters, his grandchildren, his Crown Estate home . . .

I wonder if this will generate an even stronger bond between Eugenie and the Sussexes, now that the Queen has treated her father exactly the way she treated Harry.

I wonder if they ever found witnesses of him enjoying himself at the Pizza Express in Woking.

R140 is correct. A royal duchess title carries the rank of Princess, even if the custom is to use the ducal rather than princely title. That's why Kate's passport says, in the Occupation slot, "Princess of the United Kingdom of Great Britain . . ."

If the Queen takes Harry's ducal title, Meghan will merely start calling herself Princess Henry, and the American news media will start calling her, erroneously, Princess Meghan, just the way they called Diana, erroneously, Princess Diana all her life. You're only Princess with your first name after it if you've been born to it, a Princess of the Blood.

What is more interesting about all this is the Queen publicly declaring that she isn't going to help Andrew with his legal fees, that is he on his own here.

I think that's rather more telling of the seriousness of the distancing that she is trying to achieve.

If neither of them fucks up again, the Queen, or later Charles, will likely stay their hand. What this move does is leave them with options if Andrew or Harry DO decide to pull more shenanigans. Nobody can say at that point that the Crown hasn't been patient.

R122, are you really this dense? It's not a private title. To be removed, this needs to be stated publicly. He is not referred to as HRH because he is not going to be referred to officially as HRH. That doesn't mean he has been stripped of the title. You need to understand the difference. "HRH" isn't even used as much as you think it is, only in the third person to avoid saying "he" or "she" or "they", it's not automatically injected everywhere.

R134 - It does sound eminently plausible, because Charles needs his reprobate brother hanging around his reign when (and if) it opens, and William, one step behind, also wants the monarchy cleansed quickly because it's his patrimony as well as that of his children.

Ordinarily, I'd have asked, then why weren't they (especially Charles, who likely pushed for leniency for his own son) equally pushy about Harry losing his shit?

Except, of course, Harry did lose his shit at exactly the same level as Andrew.

So, the real question is, is William, particularly, keen to see that Harry loses more, including HRHs for his two kids when the Queen is raptured?

^*because Charles DOESN'T need his reprobate brother . . .

Off mit his head!

Andrew is royally fucked now.

Beatrice and Eugenie's husbands don't have any money. They're hustlers. In particular Eugenie's dingbat husband who was photographed frolicking on a yacht with a bunch of topless women in Italy. They probably thought marrying those two was the key to Big Pounds. Uh-oh.

So are Eugenie and Bea at an even lower ranking now? Must suck to have a pervy sad-sack dad and a grifter money-grubbing mom.

If he is fighting the accusation as a private citizen who is paying his legal bills now.

Can he be extradited to the US if it comes to that or is that no longer on the table?

So just skip past the 'innocent until proven guilty'. Quite an admission to strip titles before any real court action occurs

The Yorkies will have decent trust funds from the Queen Mother's estate.

Their style and title stays the same under the 1917 Letters Patent.

"Prince Andrew's daughters, Princess Beatrice and Princess Eugenie, have royal titles because their father is a son of the monarch, constitutional expert Craig Prescott told MailOnline. "

R164 Please read the posts. The case is CIVIL not CRIMINAL.

R165. You think Andrew's security team didn't provide their Queen and future Kings the dirt on Andrew? Oh they have evidence indeed.

[quote] I bet the staff in his little Windsor palace will still have to bow and call him an HRH (still his title) so this changes next to nothing for Andrew’s life

You're making an unproven supposition, and then using that supposition as evidence to make another point.

You need to take Logic 101.

165, having a royal title is a privilege, not a right. This isn't the same thing as putting someone in jail with no evidence. Try again.

R164 - Beatrice and Eugenie are unaffected. They were both born Princesses of the Blood and HRHs. They are royal because they are grandchildren of the Sovereign in the male line, not because their father was created Duke of York.

The only step that would affect them is if Andrew were removed from the line of succession, and all that would do is bump each one of them up the line one place.

He is still royal; so are his daughters.

All the Queen has stripped him of any consequence are his military honours and his ability to work for the Crown and thus get money from the Sovereign Grant.

The rest is a superficial if humiliating removal of the trappings but not the essence of his royal identity.

He should have been cut off years ago. He is notorious for his close financial ties with the Kazakh dictatorship. When he was supposed to be acting as an unofficial ambassador for UK business, he was lining his pockets. The sale of his dilapidated former home for millions above the market price is just one example. The house has now been demolished. He managed to piss a lot of people off with his frequent no shows at business events because he was playing golf. He was also appallingly rude to people.

He also misused the Queen’s Flight by using its helicopters to fly very short instances because he wanted to play golf. The cost of this must have been astronomical, but nobody dared complain.

R153 apparently thinks she is posting on a Woke Black Woman's Website as opposed to on a site for gay men. Fuck off.

R84 get a fucking life

Now Fergie will marry Jason Momoa.

R163 - Actually, that's not true. Bea's husband is from a wealthy family, he has been moving in her social circle all his life. His mother owns a very stately place indeed in the English countryside, which is where the couple sat out the lockdown. He may not have the kind of money the Queen or Charles or William have, but he's no pauper.

Brooksbank also comes from a well to do family., and he's descended from the aristocracy. He's actually distantly related to Eugenie through the 2nd Earl of Leicester; his greast-grandfather was attached to the court of George VI and QEII

He's not quite the hustler you describe and I think is in line for a baronetcy at some point.

What their actual finances are, I don't know, but neither are penniless nor are they as "common" as they appear.

[quote] Whatever he is, she's made him that person

You’re an idiot.

[quote] Sad to say, but after this, I don't see Liz lasting much longer.

Oh Christ, she is 95 years old, I don't see her lasting much longer with this or without this.

R84 - It's on their kids' fucking birth certificates because it's who they were when their kids were born. Why the fuck would Prince George's birth certificate carry his father's title and not his mother's?!

Mother's married name, mother's maiden name; it's on my birth certificate, too.

R177 LMAO - You beat me to it!

[quote] Piers Morgan feels bad for the Queen.

I feel bad for anyone related to Piers Morgan.

Any sympathy I may have had for the Queen dried up instantly when aides revealed that they had begged Andrew to cut ties with Epstein for years, when he refused, they tried to around him to the Queen - but she always backed him up.

She is partly responsible for the impact this will have on her beloved monarchy.

R175. Let's see - Mozzi's dad, what does he do? What palace does he live in, with his huge fortune. Oh that's right. There is no fortune, and Daddy Mozzi is living modestly in France. Mozzi's firm makes about 4-5 million/year, hardly a "wealthy man", at least no to certain standards.

BTW Mozzi only got to move among his betters when his mom remarried a rich old guy. And the rich old gay is leaving his fortune to his bio kids.

Daddy Brooksbank has a title but zero fortune, that is quite common no? No fortune and working hard to afford a modest upper middle class life for his family. He works because he MUST. And his boy, just tragic for his wife. Very limited earning potential and very little inheritance from his very hard working Baronet father.

R181 I still admire and like the Queen but I will agree that her biggest failing has always been turning a blind eye to troubles within the family. Repeatedly, she has failed to respond to crisis until the damage has been done. Now, I get that as a mother, she should not be accountable for her children's actions but as head of the monarchy, the buck stops with her. I don't think she should be completely responsible for her children's failings (of which there are many) as they should be held to account for their own actions, but her failure to put her foot down until forced to behind the scenes, has caused the monarchy reputational damage.

The Queen has been a paragon in terms of her performance as monarch and she has more than earned the respect she is given and while she is on the throne, the monarchy is some what shielded but the fact that all this is happening at the end of her life is bad for the long-term survival of the institution as a whole. In truth, Andrew should have been cast adrift when his connections to Epstein came out.

True r181. Andrew was warned for years by Palace officials that Epstein was scum and to sever all ties with him but Andrew, arrogant ass that he is, refused to listen. He created his own mess.

[quote] I feel sorry for his daughters, they must be mortified by his behaviour.

even if a sex tape comes out, Fergie and the daughters will still stand by Andrew, no matter what. Nothing he could do will have those three lose faith in Andrew

So if this trial is in the USA but Andrew is in the UK, how they can they get money from him if he is found liable?

Well, I guess someone will have to begin signing his last name on his checks.

[quote]If you're married to a British prince, you're a princess of the UK. Meghan is HRH the Princess Henry,

No. At the moment she is plain Princess Henry. She has no right to the HRH, as her husband, Harry currently does not have use of this honorific.

[quote]It's nearly impossible to do away with the "Prince" bit, as both were born to that. But the ducal titles were her gift to each on his wedding day, in return for what was to be expected as a lifetime of service to the nation and the monarchy as serving royals upholding the monarchy - instead of besmirching it, which both men did in different ways....They're still Prince/Duke and they have the HRH even if they can't use it.

No, it is NOT impossible to do away with the "Prince" bit. Not at all. The monarch may remove that rank at his/her discretion, at any time, for any reason. Same as the HRH honorific. If the monarch says they are no longer an HRH - or, similarly, states they are "not to use it" - then it can be said that they currently don't have right or use of the honorific.

It's NOT a legal right to have. As stated upthread its a privilege, upheld and protected by the sitting monarch who has full authority as to its usage. It's not like a last name - if you're born in most western countries for example, you mostly have a legal right to use your noted father's last name, even if he doesn't want you to use it. This is simply not the case with the HRH or princely rank.

The LP of 1917 only lays out the current general outline of who is bestowed what rank/titles/honorifics AT BIRTH. This can be overruled, however, by the sitting monarch at any time.

Note: the *royal ducal titles* are a DIFFERENT story and may or may not require extra intervention, beyond the monarch's wishes, to revoke. That's another post.

R172 and the Klan Grannies think they're posting on parler

[quote]are you really this dense? It's not a private title. To be removed, this needs to be stated publicly.

And you don't believe that the statements or orders of Her Majesty The Queen made to her staff, in her offices at Windsor or at Buckingham Palace, aren't statements 'made publicly'?

It doesn't need to be posted to the pillars of the palace or shouted from the rooftops. She simply has to make her wishes known, to those that MATTER and can promulgate these thoughts..

And re Andrew, they were indeed promulgated today.

He is now His Royal Heinous

Oh do STFU with the Klan Granny shit already R189.

What an atrocious little pig you must be IRL

R186... I don't have a link there is an article in the Daily Beast that says one of Andrew's options is just not defend the suit. Then VG's claims become the record and a judgment against him given and then it's supposed to be paid, but country to country is tricky enough and then you get into all the other complications of who he's related to.

I hope people are doing their level best to F&F this sad sack.

“Klan Granny” is all the sad little person has, sitting in its bedsit in Balham, drinking cheap gin and plotting its next move to make “Klan Granny” happen.

[quote] n the Daily Beast that says one of Andrew's options is just not defend the suit. Then VG's claims become the record and a judgment against him given and then it's supposed to be paid, but country to country is tricky enough and then you get into all the other complications of who he's related to.

I think that is what Andrew should do - fire his legal team, let a judgement against him go forward and just move on with his life OUT of the spotlight. There is absolutely no way he can salvage his reputation, so he should get this over with and live a life away from the public

He is selling his chalet for $30 million, so that should be enough to live off of for the rest of his life.

And the joke is you know who wouldn't look down stepping over it.

He kept about 4 - 6M pounds, I read. It was not free and clear.

There's two messy things now: He's a Knight of the Garter - the highest order of chivalry - and he's a counsellor of state.

Apparently Judge Kaplan presiding over the Prince Andrew and Virginia Giuffre case has over 200 complaints still outstanding against him from fellow judges for alleged "impartiality and perversion of justice." It could be enough for Andrew's lawyers to have a new judge appointed. There is a rumor Andrew's people want to name Clinton (Kaplan was a Clinton appointee) as a witness..............

oooo new dirt from Russell Myers (Myers has good connections in the Cambridge camp), William met with the Queen prior to her meeting with Andrew and basically made it clear that she had to kick Andrew out for the sake of the monarchy.

sorry here is the link

I assume it wasn't his Royal Titles that he stripped while cavorting with those nubile girls.

I believe the Queen was “pressured” to remove the titles and patronages. The pressure came from Charles and William, primarily, and then from her advisers. It was put to her directly that the monarchy would be in jeopardy if she failed to act. The Queen would have let Andrew hide behind her skirts indefinitely, otherwise. Andrew has had multiple scandals both financial and otherwise and the Queen failed to censor him in any way, until now.

More like the Royal Titties, R203

The Queen’s blind spot for Andrew reminds me of Joan Rivers’ blind spot for Melissa-both kids are ugly, untalented, entitled pieces of shit.

So the Queen collapsed under the combined pressure of William and Charles? Did they raise fists or just shout her down? Some of you watch too much streaming.

[R40] Of course she’s responsible as is Phillip. I have two adult sons. Neither of them are arrogant, entitled and stupid. They do not treat people like shit.

[R207] You are naive if you think this has anything to do with a TV series. She’s a 95 year old widow who is facing the end of her life watching family members tear down all of her lifetime service. She has done nothing in the past but ignore Andrew’s boorish and scandalous behavior. Why change now?

We see you "Klan Granny" 'whiner, all over LSA complaining and crying.

Am I still The Duchess of York?

All those HRH folks are IMPOSTORS!!!

That's a gross over simplification of what she's done or not done. My point is so many of you people want her to move or not move like it's episodic. If you read enough you will find reports in The Times and the Telegraph that suggest, despite everything, there is still widespread familial loyalty to the odious Andrew. So this dramatic notion that Charles and Andrew are shaking the Queen up is nice fan fic, but likely not near reality. She has always moved slowly and deliberately, but when she moves, she moves decisively. Charles and Diana's divorce order, the rapid responses the week of Diana's funeral, the opening of Windsor to pay for the fire damage, the dethroning of the Californians and now Andrew. Yes, it's slow to outsiders, but they play a long game. That is why she consults William and Charles - they become the centre after her. But she is the centre. She decides. She is the last word. The family defers to the sovereign in all things. Always have, always will. I am not naive, I read - more than People.

[quote] Hopefully this means Harry is next on the chopping block.

Because marrying a half black American is WORSE THAN having sex with trafficked sex slaves!!!

[post redacted because linking to dailymail.co.uk clearly indicates that the poster is either a troll or an idiot (probably both, honestly.) Our advice is that you just ignore this poster but whatever you do, don't click on any link to this putrid rag.]

I really don't think Andrew's strategy in court will be to go into default judgment. No way. I think there will be a settlement for an undisclosed amount of money. The settlement contract will not allow VG to talk about the case / allegations / settlement amount any further. Tiger Woods settled at least one of his cases this way.

Although still a royal highness, he won't be using it. But, he's still a duke, so will he be "His Grace"? Not much grace about him, that's for sure.

I truly think this was done solely to prevent the royal family from any explicit legal ties to Randy Andy during his civil suit - smoke and mirrors. Virginia won't settle for peanuts, so this case will probably drag on for a while, and he's been stripped of military titles for time being.

Excellent news. The Klan Grannies are weeping and raging on every thread.

^^^Money is only part of the reazon, brainiac.

R138 he was even boasting about how successful that failed pitch @ palace scheme was DURING the disastrous interview in between questions about taping underage girls! it almost seemed like he was speaking in code except that he doesn’t seem bright enough to pull off anything that sophisticated. . .

You really need to find some new material, R219.

Now go put some more coins in your gas heating meter and pour yourself another highball of gin, sit on your single bed and light another menthol cigarette - Klan Granny still isn’t happening, except in your tiny little head.

Raping not taping (both perhaps?)

Prince H-rry, you’re next. Big Liz is cleaning house.

Oh good. Granny Loon aka R219 is back.

Try not to soak your Depends this go around.

Some good colour from Camilla Tominey at The Telegraph. You may know her, R219, Klan Granny troll, as I recall it was your ilk threatened her and her children.

It should perhaps come as no surprise that it was Andrew’s ex-wife, the Duchess of York, who helped to persuade him that this was the only way forward as the Queen prepares to mark 70 years on the throne next month. For all her faults, “Fergie” has always been rather more in tune with hoi polloi than her rather high-and-mighty former husband.

I understand that discussions about the father-of-two cutting all ties with “The Firm” stepped up after a “brutal” court hearing in New York on January 4 when it first became clear that Judge Lewis Kaplan had no intention of dismissing Virginia Roberts Giuffre’s sexual assault lawsuit.

Matters finally came to a head with the Judge’s confirmation, on Wednesday, that the case would go to trial - with sources close to the Duke insisting that Buckingham Palace’s statement was a result of a “mutual” conversation.

With input from other members of the Royal Family, including the Prince of Wales and the Duke of Cambridge, it had already been decided that Andrew could play no part in the Platinum Jubilee events. But when it was confirmed he would be facing the prospect of either a civil trial or an out of court settlement, it was decided that he would have to participate as a “private citizen” rather than a prince of the realm.

The palace has always been a stickler for precedent, and the decision to allow Andrew to retain his Dukedom and to use his HRH in a private capacity echoes the treatment of Edward VIII following the abdication in 1936, and more recently, the Duke of Sussex.

Indeed, some could view the unequivocal and somewhat uncompromising nature of the announcement as a shot across the bows as Prince Harry prepares to release his autobiography in the autumn (It is said the Queen has already been consulting lawyers ahead of the eagerly-anticipated publication by Penguin Random House).

F&F R219

So he’s going to face the allegations as a private citizen who actually still has HRH status. Isn’t this announcement saying he basically is still privileged but is no longer expected to pretend to work for that privilege?

Andrew is broke. Everybody knows this and now Giuffre and her lawyer will have to face the fact that there aren't millions to extort from him. Queenie ain't gonna pay up.

R219, what is a Klan Granny?

DM is reporting he tried to bring his lawyer to his tête-à-tête with his mother! No dice. The lawyer had to sit outside waiting in the car.

Andrew brought along his attorney - nicknamed Good News Gary - as he always tells Andrew the best outcome. They refused the attorney access into Windsor. He remained in the car during the 90 minute meeting of the Queen and Andrew.

Will any of this be in The Crown? Creator/headwriter Peter Morgan is fucking annoying insisting that the series will end before Harry and Meghan.

I'm getting the impression from Tominey's piece at R226 that Andrew will still be HRH but that he won't be styled as such, and that had been my own understanding of the situation. However, other posters upthread said that Andrew is no longer HRH at all, simply because the Queen put out a message that didn't refer to him as such. Does anyone else have any light to shed on this?

R233 because idiots like you keep refusing to accept that. The show will almost certainly end near the deaths of Margaret and the Queen Mum.

R234, the official line is he will not make use of the title publicly. He is still an HRH and privately will presumably be addressed as such. Letters Patent would have to be changed otherwise.

R16 No, he would never do that. He is still certain he will be vindicated.

Penny Junor quite critical of the Queen: She added that the Queen previously thought it did not damage the monarchy because Andrew was an “irrelevant” part of the institution.

“But these titles, because they are in the Queen’s gift, means she is implicated, quite seriously, in how she disengages him from the family firm. And she failed to do that, ever since the Emily Maitlis interview, when charities got rid of him and he stepped back from public life. This should have been done then.”

The Times follows with this analysis:

Duke sees his mother’s tough side

The Queen has never liked confrontation. She has a record of avoiding difficult decisions and putting off tough calls for as long as possible (Valentine Low writes).

She also loves her family. Whether the Duke of York really is her favourite, as has long been alleged, is perhaps a moot point.

The most important thing for the Queen, however, is the preservation of the monarchy. She takes her role, and the concept of royal duty, incredibly seriously. She believes that she is there to serve the country and the rest of the royal family are there to back her up in this role. Nothing else matters.

To strip Andrew of his military affiliations and to tell him that he was no longer to use his HRH style “in any official capacity” was, therefore, a very hard decision for her to take.

She would know that Andrew, who served as a helicopter pilot in the Falklands conflict, took his military roles very seriously. He is also someone who does not hesitate to stand on his royal dignity. The putting aside, if not the actual loss, of his HRH would have come as a harsh blow.

The Queen, however, can take tough decisions when they can no longer be avoided. We have seen this when Andrew had to stand down from official royal duties after the debacle of his Newsnight interview with Emily Maitlis in 2019. We saw it too the next year when the Duke and Duchess of Sussex wanted to extract themselves from their official royal duties. They wanted to have a half-in, half-out arrangement. Not on, said the Queen. A year later she took the decision that Harry would have to hand back his military roles, which left Harry hugely upset.

The question is: how much does this achieve? It clearly answers some of the criticism of the royal family, that they were protecting Andrew at the cost of the dignity of the regiments that he represented. Yet it won’t stop the headlines. The court case lumbers on. There is nothing that the Queen can do about that. Whatever the court verdict, however, it is clear that barring miracles Andrew’s royal career over.

Since the royals don’t use a surname does he just become a man known as Andrew? Maybe he could flip it around and call himself Andrew Prince.

Like Liberace, r239.

I actually think Andrew will now remarry Fergie. It actually makes sense in a way.

It would be the best way for him to gain some Public Sympathy. What is the bet if he remarried people would be pushing to give them a chance?. They have been through so much etc. it would be good for both of them. She is 63 this year, this is the best chance she has. He needs this desperately.

Virginia can then be seen as money grabbing attention seeker wanting to destroy a couple’s second chance

Btw Andrew may not be officially have his HRH, but there is no doubt the servants etc will still call him Sir or your Royal Highness. That is not going to change. No servant is going risk their job by dropping that title. In private he will be addressed as such for the rest of his life. To me that is a given.

[quote] the official line is he will not make use of the title publicly. He is still an HRH and privately will presumably be addressed as such. Letters Patent would have to be changed otherwise.

No, Letters Patent do not need to be changed for the honorific use of HRH to be revoked. Again and again: the monarch as the Fount of all Honour can revoke this styling at anytime, at their whim, with or without creation of a new LP. Period.

The idea that Andrew is no longer to use the HRH publicly, but privately a few simpy courtiers and pliant servants will be addressing him as such is laughable. It is possible that this could happen, being that The Queen can style anyone with this form of address as she chooses, and one would deduce define the circumstances of usage as well. But still ridiculous, imo.

In private, he still is.

r243 (and others): HRH is a royal styling, an honorifc and form of address. It is not actually a rank or title, like a princely title is or a dukedom. Its usage and application is fully controlled by the monarch.

It is uniquely strange that he would be royal in one setting, and five minutes later or 100 feet away be non-royal in another. As has been stated numerous times, the styling is strictly controlled by the monarch, so if he or she wishes this to be the case, it should be so. But what confusion comes from this.

There is no one in private who will ever address him as 'Your Royal HIghness' sans a few palace servants and his own home staff. He can't use it in correspondence or communications unless with family members or close friends, none of whom referred to his HRH to begin with. He can't be addressed as HRH in public again, and that would include in death, if the order holds.

It's akin to being 'half-royal'. Actually, less than half. Odd state of affairs, and certainly a weak way to appease Andrew's hurt feelings more than anything else.

My but the Klan Grannies do love to upvote themselves.

Like they cash in their points for extra beet rations or something.

^ You write a lot but you don't know what you are talking about.

"In 1917, the Queen's grandfather issued new letters patent that limited the number of royal family members with an HRH title.

These stated that 'the children of any Sovereign of these Realms and the children of the sons of any such Sovereign and the eldest living son of the eldest son of the Prince of Wales shall have and at all times hold and enjoy the style, title or attribute of Royal Highness with their titular dignity of Prince or Princess prefixed to their respective Christian names or with their other titles of honour'. "

Andrew is the son of a sovereign - yes?

And children of the sovereign "shall have and at all times hold and enjoy the style, title or attribute of Royal Highness with their titular dignity of Prince or Princess prefixed to their respective Christian names" - yes?

So get your facts straight.

R246 was for the benefit of R243, not that mouth breathing welfare recipient at R244. I usually have both of them on block.

Sorry, R244 is the one full of shit, R245 is living off our taxes. Told ya I had 'em blocked.

All of this will plunge Andrew into the abyss of corruption and filth. He will have no Mummy to fall back on and he will fall into the clutches of unscrupulous "businessmen," perverts, drug dealers and arms traders. It is the under under belly of society. And he will be used as a tool to blackmail the Royal Family.

Yes. Just think if he falls into debt to some perverted oligarch who has filth on him. Charles will fold like a cheap suit. There is no way he will allow Andrew to dishonor the family. These people are stupid. Stripping him of titles etc. doesn't change the fact that he is a Prince of the Blood.

As long as Andrew walks the earth, as long as he draws breath, he will be a liability. There is only one solution to this. In simpler times it would have been done already; clean, quick, and quiet.

KGT, the royal "insider" and now Oliver Cromwell.

Not too crazy around here tonight.

R245, who are the Klan Grannies?

[quote][R245], who are the Klan Grannies?

Based on your trolling history you it, bitch.

Don't you have a National Front rally to go to?

Oh dear R252. Why so defensive? Surely you can explain who the Klan Grannies are without being nasty.

Here you go, R252. Something to jerk off to so that you can then fall asleep.

Sweet dreams.

Well, Elvis Costello says he will no longer perform "Oliver's Army".

I’m just here for Title Troll.

She's from the gutter, R253, nasty is her dressed up for Christmas and singing carols.

Can someone please explain the significance of HRH to me? Does it confer special privileges? If a prince is the son of a monarch, how can he lose that? I get that a title that is bestowed is like a military rank or honour like a knighthood and can be withdrawn, but can an hereditary title also be removed?

I noticed she didn’t strip him of The Garter or The Royal Victorian Order. But without any official capacity now, it’s not like he has a place to wear them.

It was reported on the ABC news in Australia that the pressure to remove his military honours was at the request of the military itself. They said the health of Andrew must be drunk at every military meal and a lot of people were complaining to the brass that they didn't feel right about that given the type of accusations and the attitude so far of the courts.

That's serious stuff.

Does this mean the RF knows there’s going to be a default judgment against him

And they have no more fucks (or money) to give

I still remember at that last big Trooping when they were all on the balcony, Andrew was puffing his chest out and cock-blocking anyone who tried to get close to The Queen, who he was weirdly standing like two inches from. He was stuck to her like a hemorrhoid, you can tell it was his last gasp of royal relevancy and he was using it for everything he could. This was the day of the famous “Turn around!” fiasco with Me! Again and Harry.

Imagine, Andrew trying to be Alpha on the balcony in front of Charles and William. Such a buffoon.

It says they finally checked the police records and found Andy's never been to Pizza Express in Woking. He's got no case, either in Federal court in the US or in the court of public opinion in the UK.

to think, in a way this is all Sarah’s fault since Andrew was carousing with Epstein in order to procure money for Sarah’s numerous debts.

One thing is clear: when they make a movie about this, the role of Virginia Guiffre should be played by Jennifer Lawrence.

Hold me Sarah. I'm scared.

Andy, you in danger gurl!

Andrew still is an HRH. He is still royal, and if he remarries anyone, including Fergie, she will be royal, too. He is still Prince Andrew and still Duke of York.

I note that William and Charles are being g set up as the prime movers in this in order to shield the Queen from too much of an aura of ruthlessness.

I don't doubt that there's some truth to it, but if the Queen didn't see the necessity, finally, it wouldn't have happened.

I'm sure the resentment the Yorks, especially Andrew and Eugenie, have felt toward Charles, and, later, William and Kate, will be exacerbated by this. And. Interestingly, may strengthen the Eugenie-Sussex bond. See, we've both been cruelly mistreated the same way by the same people!

If it does, it won't matter in the long term.

The City of York wants Andrew stripped of his ducal title, too. And the people of Sussex passed through its local Council even before Megxit, a resolution never to call Harry and Meghan by their royal titles or address them as HRHs.

There are also large petitions circulating calling for removal of Harry's ducal title. One was sent last year to the government which promptly punted back to the Queen.

Both groups seem to be unaware that whilst the Queen has to get that ball rolling, Parliament has to agree and sign. They may be guaranteed to do do if she asks, but it still has to sign it.

In refusing to take titles the Queen gave them, ones they were not born with, the Queen is still in error.

Both men have used those titles to monetise their lives, have sullied the gifts, damaged the Queen and the institution, and besmirched those titles. It will take a generation before anyone wants to bestow them again. Small wonder if Charles is holding out the Edinburgh title for his grandson, Prince Louis, who would be in line for the York dukedom upon his marriage, when, presumably, Andrew would be dead.

Too little, too late. Harry and Andrew should not still be carrying those titles. It's insulting to the people in those real places the names represent.

If the pressure to take the York title is successful, then the Queen has an opening to take the Sussex title.

It's time to muck out the stables and realign the whole thing.

R10 The HRH is a strange beast, as are some of the holders. Behind closed Palace doors, Andrew will still retain the dignity of the HRH which means that he won’t have to bow to other HRHs - and one presumes that would include his own daughters. As for the frau fur flying when some of them discovered that dear Harry had equally lost the right to use the style - its removal is not reserved for the heinous crimes Andrew has been accused of, but it is removed at the whim of the Sovereign in some cases - namely divorce - as in the cases of Diana and Fergie. The California branch no longer have them, because quite frankly - they no longer need them. So Harry is now in the same sphere as other displaced Royal outcasts.

R268 Well said. It is interesting to contrast Charles’ efforts in Cornwall with those of the York and Sussex holders, even though Cornwall is set up for the Prince of Wales to fain an income. Along the way, though , Charles has made some truly worthwhile initiatives which have made the Duchy more productive and self supporting. It is probably a pity that the York and Sussex holders didn't attempt to make some sort of mark in their own Duchies, which would have been a far better look than hanging furtively around Chez Epstein along with Mme Maxwell and Harry cosying up to Bob Iger and asking for a job for wifey.

Both sets of Dukes never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity.

R269 Great post.

One difference, though: Diana and Fergie were really stripped of that HRH. As married in royals, not to the purple born, the loss of the royal husband through divorce (this does not apply to widowhood) means the final, complete loss of the HRH unless the Sovereign makes a special case for it. The Queen considered that for Diana as the mother of a future King, but Charles insisted.

The two men, you see, were born to the purple. De-royalising the ex-wives is easy. But you can't persuasively de-royalus two Princes of the Blood.

That's why the Queen should have taken the two ducal titles. Those were gifts on her part in expectation of service to Crown and Country with their brides for the rest of their lives.

Both men failed, and Harry bailed teo years after getting his.

The HRH in abeyance is fine, and the Queen can't Un-Prince them. But she should have De-Ducalised them.

You're right: they're royal outcasts. But they're also still royal ducal outcasts and Harry and Meghan, especially, turned that ducal title into their marketing brand.

She should never have allowed that.

R8- Prince Harry should be cast aside just for being so AVERAGE and a DUMBBELL.

I don’t know why anyone would doubt that within the palace walls Andrew won’t still be HRH. When the courtiers announce Andrew’s visit to HM, they shall tap the door and say “His Royal Highness The Duke of York” before showing him in. Andrew won’t be bowing to Edward or Anne.

I wonder what will happen at The Queen’s funeral, and Charles’ coronation. Andrew can’t very well be there sullying up the proceedings. They’ll have to arrange a private viewing of the casket for him, and he’ll have to watch the coronation on TV like the rest of us. He won’t be in purple and ermine.

Nothing has changed in the succession, in precedence or in the HRH. Andrew remains HRH and will be treated as such within the private confines of his mother's domestic domain.

The thought that Andrew would not be at the funeral is absurd. R273 is being silly and naive with her uppity notions of how things actually occur. It is not an honorific to attend one's mother's funeral.

The coronation is another thing, because at the time Elizabeth died and is buried his status will be set not by his mother but by his brother. I expect he certainly will not be at the coronation.

I usually get pissed off with the high handed absolutists on these threads who know EXACTLY what the protagonists are thinking/doing/will do but am joining the ranks to say there is no way not ever in hell period the collective will of the monarchy will bend to any silly online petition or any other manifestation that demands it yank titles. Just not gonna happen.

This is an organization that rightly or wrongly considers precedent in all things. Its changes are incremental, in all things, with a few earthquakes to make things better, not worse (the Queen's speech at Diana's death, the change to House of Windsor.)

Near as I can tell the last precedent for yanking titles was set around the first world war when British titles were taken from German relations who sided with Kaiser. That's when you yank a title with this lot - when the relations are siding with the enemy in war and killing the people of your country on the front and through air raids.

They are not going to set the precedent of yanking a title on the basis of nasty and embarrassing civil lawsuits, louche relations, running away to chase stardom or public opinion related to lawsuits or louche relations or fool's errands. They will revert to precedent: minimize, exile, ignore. And in time the crowns and the clothes and the massed bands and the soldiers and the waves from the balcony settle everything down and the focus shifts back to the day to day, routine, comfortingly dull and predictable work of the monarchy within the life of the nation. (Some people like to characterize this as nothing but opening supermarkets....)

The flaw in the analysis of so many is to treat this like another episode of RHOWC. That's not the show these showrunners are producing. Sorry for being a condescending dickhead in putting this but there's so many people so certain yet so wide of the mark I thought I'd indulge myself.

R270, one problem is neither York nor Sussex have a duchy.

R275 long winded pile of shit.

Say what you want about Harry, he and Megs are making a go of it on their own. Sure they're using the BRF name to get by (Harry, born into that family, has that right) but they're not living off the teets of the British public. It's semi independent at the very least and totally capitalist. Unlike his uncle, Harry is not making deals with pedophiles and sex traffickers. Hate him via extended hate for his half-black wife, but he will NEVER be accused of what Andrew has.

The anti-Harry sentiment is so bad that ex-King Edward, who abdicated his thrown for his equally racist, Nazi-loving, twice divorcee wife and was in talks with Hitler to dethrone Bertie and be made King once the Nazis took over the UK, is treated better than Harry is. That should tell you enough about the racism held by the outsider royalists still pissed off a half-black woman got her hooks into the BRF.

Sorry to kill your buzz, R277, but I'm right.

[post redacted because linking to dailymail.co.uk clearly indicates that the poster is either a troll or an idiot (probably both, honestly.) Our advice is that you just ignore this poster but whatever you do, don't click on any link to this putrid rag.]

R275 is right. The British Monarchy has survived for the past 300 years by being cautious and careful. The Hanovers knew from the beginning that they were a dynasty created by Parliament who could choose to uncreate at any time. Hell, I'd say as far back as the restoration in 1666, the Monarchy knew it had to tread lightly. James II found out to his grief what happens when one doesn't. The Crown does nothing quickly or without a great deal of consideration. Andrew has probably been punished as much as he will be punished, as has Harry, barring further fuck-ups. Harry's supposedly inflammatory autobio is still big question mark.

What's more likely to come of this is the reconsideration of whether younger sons need hereditary Royal dukedoms (or, perhaps, Royal dukedoms at all). Life peerages would cause far less fuss, reduce the need to create new dukedoms out of thin air, and would prevent grandsons and great-grandsons from swanning around with unearned peerages. I wouldn't be surprised if Charles issues new LP about HRH grandchildren who are not in the direct line of succession, too. The shenanigans of Harry and Andrew WILL have consequences, but they probably won't be felt for a couple of generations.

*a big question mark

I keep misreading this thread title as “Prince Andrew STRIPPED of his royal titties”.

[QUOTE] King Edward, who abdicated his thrown for his equally racist, Nazi-loving, twice divorcee wife and was in talks with Hitler to dethrone Bertie and be made King once the Nazis took over the UK, is treated better than Harry is.

He was a damn snappy dresser, that’s for sure. Never a thread out of touch, timeless and elegant.

R278, a "go of their own"?

Parlaying non-expertise by playing it off of a magic "royalty" while continuing to have "security" paid for them? Money-scheming bullshit, in the manner of a typical grifting con?

Fuck those two. They're in the same category as Andrew and his ex-wife.

[QUOTE] King Edward, who abdicated his thrown for

Oh, DEAR!

And he popularized plus-fours, Fair Isle sweaters, and checked patterns.

Sorry R278 intern, many people loathe dim racist Prince Harry, period. I don't have to outline the reasons dating back to his teens. Just accept that he's a prick all on his own.

^Klan Grannie loon - thinks the worst sin possible is to fail the Firm.

You contradicted yourself in the first two sentences, R278. Harry and Meghan are NOT making a go of it on their own if they are still trading on their royal status for fame and money.

Edward VIII was a former king living in a very different time. It's apples and oranges to compare him to a 21st Century former spare. Meghan's race, which YOU obsessively bring up several times, has nothing to do with it.

[quote]The only reason for this is so that he can fight this case as a private citizen, nothing else.

R49 Does this now also mean that he can be legally pursued, prosecuted and, if found guilty, fined as a 'private citizen'?

Do the residents of York and Sussex have the right to petition the Queen to remove these titles? This is an interesting idea.

R278. And how was Edward VIII better treated?

Because gay men don't post on female forums/boards or appropriate from women (especially black women), R172?

No, r291, especially since he isn't in the US. It's so a circus show isn't created because a British royal is being prosecuted.

Allegedly, it was William and the Queen who decided Andrew's fate.

Oh, Eugenie will be "leaking" damaging info on the Cambridges to H & M for sure now.

as if Charles was not part of the discussion. smh

Eugenie can try it, and she'll find herself in social Siberia faster than you can say "Markle."

William doesn't play when it comes to his family's privacy.

This is one where I take reports of who did what with a huge grain of salt. There are no points to be scored by being the one who brought down the guillotine. Inside, there would likely be more sadness than satisfaction so leaking to get credit for lowering the boom doesn't seem highly likely on the face of it.

The Yorkies must be surveying the damage today, trying to figure out where they fit. Which would appear to be nowhere at all, officially, other than invitations to the coronation(s) and certain funerals. They better just keep their heads down and get on with their lives.

Titles Troll must be having the vapours about this.

In fairness, the royal dukedom aren't created out of thin air. Most of them are historic and are actually ranked in terms of age. When they're without a holder, they go into abeyance. The Sussex title is far less distinguished that the Cornwall and York titles.

The Duke of York was the only casualty of noble rank to die at the battle of Agincourt.

As these things are reckoned the high up, Andrew lost more than Harry did and is more disgraced, even though the result makes them begging level.

Personally, I'd rather have snagged Hugh Grosvenor or George Percy than Harry the spare and his lacklustre dukedom, who would have been living well but virtually penniless and dependent on his father if it weren't for that trust fund Diana left.

Neither would have looked twice at the 35 year old d-list divorcee, but if Meghan had been smarter when she went on the hunt in 2015 for a high profile English husband, she'd have done better research.

She wouldn't have snagged George Percy. Pippa Middleton tried that with a much less blemished history AND Royal connections, and Mama Percy still put a stop to it. I'm guessing there are similar protections around Hugh Grosvenor, whose mother is still very much alive.

Dowager Empress Westminster must be one circling hawk these days, with a Duke so young and billions on the line. Full Maggie Smith.

[quote] if Meghan had been smarter when she went on the hunt in 2015 for a high profile English husband, she'd have done better research.

Only you and two others on DL know who Hugh and George are. Everyone in the world knows Prince Harry. She went for the one with the highest visibility level.

^ Agreed. She plainly didn't want the UK life and so what if some third rate unknown actress divorced a duke at warp speed. The story would be duke the dupe not her.

Can and will Andrew implicate the former president?

If Meghan wanted to move in high social circles and have a life of ease where she could do just as she pleases, marriage to a rich British aristocrat would be the thing. However, what Meghan really seems to want is the A-list Hollywood life. You need a powerful studio chief, director, or actor husband for that. She should have set her sights that way rather than taking this weird dogleg into the BRF. It seems that Meghan thought being in the BRF was like being a Hollywood star, and that just shows the dangers of not doing your research.

R275 - RHOWC = ?????

^ Real Housewives of Windsor Castle.

R310 - THANKS!

As Meghan couldn't even stick royal life for 2 years, I think it's obvious her plan all along was to get very famous marrying Harry so she could go back to LA and get cast in Oscar-bait movies with A list directors. Harry pathetically whining to Bob Iger that Meghan could do voice-overs was obviously dictated to him by the little wife: she wants to be on the Hollywood A list after being snubbed for years.

Who wouldn’t?

[quote]Nothing has changed in the succession, in precedence or in the HRH. Andrew remains HRH and will be treated as such within the private confines of his mother's domestic domain.

And he will not be treated as such within the private confines of his brother's domain, either now or once he becomes King in short course.

It's the power of the monarch alone to decide who gets the royal treatment and styling, and who does not.

This portrait of Meghan as some Machiavellian, gold-digging villain is quite rich coming from a criminal family whose Ill-gotten gains are tolerated because they keep the peasants and tourists entertained with their antiquated pageantry and ludicrous claims of birth-right.

I agree, R305. Meghan was/is obsessed with Diana, so it was Diana's son (well, one of them) she was looking for.

Damn but you bitches are obsessed with making Andrew's troubles all about the Harkles.

Well said, r269. "behind closed Palace doors, Andrew will still retain the dignity of the HRH which means that he won’t have to bow to other HRHs". Behind the closed doors of his mother's confines (and, presumably, his own) only. The minute Charles becomes King, all vestiges of this will cease, guaranteed.

[quote]The two men, you see, were born to the purple. De-royalising the ex-wives is easy. But you can't persuasively de-royalus two Princes of the Blood.

But of course the monarch can, r271. Very easily. By many methods. This "Prince of the Blood" bullshit is just that. Blood or biology does not make one royal. Being born under the guidelines of the royal LP of 1917 does, and continued good standing with the current monarch keeps it.

HRH Princess Patricia of Connaught (granddaughter of Queen Victoria) was de-royaled in a flash, by nothing more than a royal warrant issued by her uncle, Edward VII at the time of her marriage. No LP needed.

It works both ways. The current Queen, and her father George VI, elevated many noblewomen to ranks and titles (Ladyship, in most cases) for no other reason than they would have had that rank had their fathers lived long enough to inherit high titles. They can bring individuals up in rank, they can bring them down. Fount of Honour, folks.

r246 I may write a lot, but at least I can read what I write. Get it now: Letters Patent (LPs) and their directives have standing as long as the current monarch allows them to. They are the final word to everyone BUT THE CURRENT MONARCH. It is not binding on them.

The current monarch also does not have to issue a new LP to override a prior one, to enforce their views or wishes on matters surrounding rank and titles they control. They can make their wishes known in a variety of ways: issuing a Royal Warrant, making a written public statement, or simply declaring what they want out loud, in front of those who can hear it and enforce it.

Modern thinking, with its emphasis on legalese, promotes the notion that for official and widespread understanding and acceptance, the monarch should issue new LPs to override prior ones. It keeps the rules "official". There may be some value to that. But know, it is not mandatory or necessary.

R318 Since the York princesses married commoners, they should "relinquish" their Princess/HRH titles as did Princess Patricia upon marrying her husband, a son of an earl.

And I suspect, with Nana gone, Charles may very well do that, as there is precedence for this in the BRF.

Sig Heil!

Titles drool #5:

R321 Easily the worst thing a member of the BRF has done since last week. Maybe yo you should come up with some new material. The Harry dressed as a Nazi, Meghan clothes aren’t tailored and “Nobody asked if I was ok” is rather stale and played out. I know that’s how you like things but the rest of the world has moved on.

You'd think you know where the world's moved, spending your whole life left behind.

Princess Patricia requested the demotion. No one forced Princess Mary to abandon her title and style, or Princess Alice, or Princess Margaret.

Btw, when ‘Lady’ Patricia attended the coronation of her cousin George VI she came dressed in full princess regalia, with coronet, and violet princess robe. She wasn’t missing her chance at participating in the glam festivities.

Ms Eugenie the Leaker received the cold shoulder from Will at Kate's Christmas concert, unlike her sister, who got a mild hug. Something's not right there.

^*Agreed, but at least she wouldn't have gone into the match with Harry with such unrealistic expectations. Not that she'd be the first to make that mistake.

I think it was Loudon's mother who put a stop to the match with Pippa. "Not really wife material," I think she said, referring to the media attention Pippa was getting at that time.

The Loudons weren't the Percy/Northumberlands by a long shot, but they were distinguished old money gentry.

One wonders of Mrs L might have second thoughts watching Kate soar in the UK polls with her brood of attractive heirs. The Loudon son would be the brother in law of what looks to be a hugely popular King and Queen.

If the thing lasts that long.

This is so BRF won't have to pay Andrew's settlements.

Andrew does not love Sarah and is not going to re-marry her.

I love William as the Alpha Dick William, stepping into Prince Philip's shoes as BRF enforcer. Seriously, all of the 'lesser' royals should be concerned as he's got no time for their bullshit. Except for maybe Princess Anne and Mike Tindall and his missus ...

How do you know Andrew is not going to marry Sarah, R328? You must have much more good gossip if you know that to be a fact. Tell!

[quote]Nothing says BRF like squeezing out a litter of inbreds

Your girl married into it, R97. What does that say about her?

Is it possible that Nutmeg is secretly a KLAN GRANNY?

By your own version of history, Meghan was only there to take what she could find and return to Cali. Not very BRF.

It’s 2022. Can a UK person please tell me what exactly is the purpose of the monarchy and why UK taxpayers should support it? Thanks.

The purpose of monarchy is to provide occupants and function for the office of head of state and to serve as a focal point or representative of the nation as a whole at moments of national significance. Taxpayers fund it as taxpayers in any country fund the expenses associated with head of state.

But you know that.

They are the only functioning part of the UK economy left. Tourism brings in the revenue. And they give the peasantry something to read in the rags to distract them from the real news of how their country is circling the toilet.

"Naur, Andrew, One SHAN'T be giving you back your Princess Points!"

I'll tell you what I believe from reading my tea leaves: The Queen is VERY fond of Beatrice and Eugenie. And she will have extracted a promise, a binding commitment that the two Yorkies be treated well because they are not responsible for the kind of parents they have. So instead of shunting them aside, even though Charles may hate it, William will let them back in. Charles may try to ignore them, and push them to the back, but William will not.

R332 I'm fairly indifferent to the monarchy but I would say that it is part of the UK's cultural and historical identity. At it's best monarchy is a reminder that there more to national life than just politics and royals can, using their soft power, bring awareness to charitable causes in a way that politicians can't. Like when Diana shook the hand of an AIDS patient in the 80s, or when the Queen danced with a black president fromm Africa in the early 60s, or when William, Harry, and Catherine have talked about their mental health issues. Overall we hate politicians more than royals and the idea of having an executive President just doesn't really sit well with most people here (I mean the US is so politically divided, no one wants that here). Also right now our joke of a Prime Minister is caught in scandal because of boozy parties his staff held repeatedly during lockdown, while the Queen was forced to attend her husband's funeral alone due to the lockdown laws that the Prime Minister was breaking. That kind of sums up why there is no real significant movement to abolish the monarchy here.

“So glad the UK is being spared the kind of divisiveness going on in the UK”, said no one ever. Did you sleep through Brexit?

The truth is the Brits hate politicians more than they dislike royals. This is why there is no major push for an elected president.

A lot of countries with a parliamentary system and a ceremonial president as head of state have parliament select the president. They don't have to be directly elected (e.g. Germany, India, Italy).

Yes R337 & R339 sum it up very well. Americans, I think, are somewhat indoctrinated with the idea that their political leaders, particularly their presidents, are meant to be inspirational figures,though that has changed in recent times, whereas the British like to take the piss out of their politicians. They see politicians as corrupt, self-motivated opportunist. Even though the monarchy is no longer beloved like it was a couple generations ago, the alternatives are that appealing.

I do find it arrogant that many Americans fell they have the right to pontificate about how other countries govern themselves when their own democracy is crumbling.

Not so much arrogant as deluded.

*the alternative AREN'T that appealing

A Brit concerned about pontificating to others. Hmmm, interesting.

It's embarrassing that Americans in royals threads have no understanding of the BRF position.

If you mean working royals, no R336, William is not "going to let the Yorkie dogs back in." They're married and able bodied, kind of, and can go to work.

Here we go...

Because the Royals live in Palaces and are surrounded by pomp, there is an idea (particularly by Americans) that they costs UK taxpayers buckets of money. In reality, the British Monarchy is one of the thriftiest operations in Europe. The monarchy costs about $70 Million USD annually. Compare that to the President of France who costs about $100 million USD annually or the German President who costs about $80 Million USD a year. The US President is somewhere in the ball park of $150 to 200 Million a year.

Don’t you need to add Boris to the equation for it make sense.

R348 Boris not a head of state.

Why have two people and two entourages doing a job in many countries being done by one?

The Guardian on the cost of Andrew's security.

Countries such as?

You are being obtuse. You don’t need a political leader and a head of state? Any country without a monarchy.

A list of obtuse.

Is it tough being a genius?

More Yorkists demanding that Andrew be stripped of the title Duke of York.

That is a list of third world countries trying to avoid a dictatorship and France that gets a new constitution every blood moon. You are willfully avoiding the question why the UK still pays for a BRF to be head of state when the Prime Minister could just as easily take on that responsibility and save the UK $70M, end the offensive feudal practice of monarchy and the embarrassment of having a bunch of inbred criminals traipsing around the globe playing “do you know who I am”.

I get the desire for a sovereign-type to do ceremonial head-of-state stuff, but monarchies are foolish, especially 'royal families'. Why does anyone put up with a monarch's family baggage? They get titles, they're taxpayer-funded, they get bowed to as if they're better than the populace that funds them, and they are always, as we know, inbred layabout losers who can't hold a job.

Most foolish is anyone who blindly supports any of this and calls themselves a 'monarchist' or a 'royal family fan'. You might as well say, "I'm dumb and like being treated like shit".

R365 - I am guessing, and I mean really guessing, that the UK does NOT want the Head-of-State and Head-of-Government to be the same person (see Oliver Cromwell).

I see not problem with a constitutional monarchy but just because you have a constitutional monarchy does not mean you must have a Royal Family. Then again, I am a yank and really have no business advising the UK on how to run their national affairs.

How do the Irish do it? Do they not have a President and a Prime Minister?

R350 Because in Parliamentary democracies, the royal of Head of Government and Head of State are separate offices. Even in non-monarchial systems of Parliamentary democracies, the President and the Prime Minister are separate offices with the president's role being ceremonial (a unifying ambassador of the country) and the Prime Minister being the elected head of the party in power.

R357 Yeah I love being treated like shit so much! Damn me and my free healthcare, eight weeks paid vacation a year, sick days, affordable education, superior workers and human rights, my gun control, my freedom from religious zealots, no republicans........................

R358 - We have a President and a prime minister (though we call the officeholder Taoiseach - tee-shokh). The division of powers between our President and the Taoiseach is probably roughly similar to the division of powers between monarch and PM in Britain, where most of our legal system was adopted from (because it was the legal system in place when we were part of the United Kingdom). The President of Ireland has few powers, none of them truly substantial, but I won't bore you here. Unlike some other countries with symbolic presidents (Israel, Germany), ours is elected by the whole electorate; it leads to a rather farcical election once every seven years, where candidates talk about all the things they'll do in their totally neutral (not to say neutered) office.

R359 and you believe having a BRF brought those to you?

Just reminder that 10 out of 10 of the best countries in which to life are are Parliamentary Democracies (and seven of those are monarchies). Whatever you Americans think, the parliamentary system (with or without a monarchy) works far better and is much more representative.

R361 and you're saying that having an elected President got you what exactly?

We are debating political systems. We are debating the BRF costing the UK $70 and a world of embarrassment for the last 4 decades.

American here now living in Sweden, which is a monarchy btw. There is no point in arguing with my people from my country of birth. We are raised in a bubble believing that America is the greatest country on Earth. It won't matter what you say, what facts you present, Americanism is basically a cult. It doesn't matter that we are basically a joke and hated around the world.

*not debating. *$70M

R364 well, no one knows the art of international embarrassment better than Americans.

Way to not address the issue.

I'm an American, recognize what a shitshow the US is, and can truly appreciate the British parliamentary system, that MPs know how to argue, that you can have more than 2 parties, and that an election can be called when necessary. There are a lot of things you Brits can hang your hats on without having to feel the need to support the royal family.

OMFG people, can we stop with debates about governance?! Jesus christ, people are throwing around facts about thing they know nothing about. Like it or not the UK is a monarchy and the US is Presidential System. Who cares it makes zero difference when you're living in your parents basement anyways.

Now back to the fucker Andrew. Do you think this is going to court or will he settle?

r347 that doesn't take into account the hundreds of millions handed over every year from the sovereign grant. Money that the state could likely take back if they abolish the monarchy since the King "personally owned the lands" but only as the king, hence it is attached to the crown and would be state property.

So your thrifty headlines are BS, you left off $300 million or so.

Even people that want to pretend that the sovereign grant was privately owned need to accept that the king only acquired such land via public funds and resources given their position as king. no different then acquiring new land int he middle ages via wars.

r371 when I said King, I really should have said crown, but I meant the king as a person back when it was exchanged to cover one spend happy king.

Andrew who?

R369 No one is saying the country would fall apart without the monarchy, it wouldn't it. But the reality is, the majority of people int he UK don't want to abolish it at this time. One day that may change, but that's just how it is in the present. In the same way Americans gather round the flag and put their hands on their hearts, Brits gather around the royals, they are basically living symbols of patriotism. Will it be like that forever, who knows, but there is no real push to change things. The Queen is beloved, William is very popular, and while Charles isn't the most liked person, he's still more popular (by far) than any politician. The system is secure for the immediate future. The royals are still huge tourist attractions and a major contributor to the UK economy. And frankly, British people enjoy scandal in the same way Americans do.

[quote] Ms Eugenie the Leaker received the cold shoulder from Will at Kate's Christmas concert, unlike her sister, who got a mild hug. Something's not right there.

Meghan said that she and Harry socialized with Eugenie. Beatrice just seems like a nicer woman than Eugenie, IMO.

[quote] The Queen is VERY fond of Beatrice and Eugenie. And she will have extracted a promise, a binding commitment that the two Yorkies be treated well because they are not responsible for the kind of parents they have. So instead of shunting them aside, even though Charles may hate it, William will let them back in. Charles may try to ignore them, and push them to the back, but William will not.

The Queen can make promises to take care of Eugenie & Beatrice, but whether her successors will follow up is another question. Remember the Godfather, when Don Michael Corleone took over?

all you gays wish the headline read "Prince Andrew Stripped."

R371 Crown lands are held by the Monarch but owned by the state. Even the Duchies that the royals control are subject to Governmental oversight. The Royal cannot pocket any money from the Duchies, all the proceeds go to funding their offices, charities, and the rest is paid in taxes to the government.

Not so much

Will he have to get a job at the local grocery store now?

I’m not R359, but I do think that having a combined head of state and head of government has not helped the US political system or benefitted US society.

Making the head of government also the head of state brings a lot of irrelevant considerations into electoral politics. Whether the president is charismatic or not, whether he or she has a family or not, whether he is morally virtuous, and whether or not we would like to have a beer with him or her assume undue importance. It’s hard to imagine Theresa May or Gordon Brown ever achieving the American presidency. And, yes, I realize they are not shining examples of political effectiveness, but they are much more palatable than many recent US presidents. In the UK you don’t have one side deifying a prime minister and another side demonising him or her to the same extent as in America.

And for Americans who mock Britons for maintaining the royal family, don’t forget that the institution of First Lady seems as strong as ever. She, like the royals, is a public figure with no official power who goes around doing largely pointless things and getting a lot of attention for them. simply because of whom she is related to.

Wow god forbid countries should have different traditions and customs.

Are the York sisters still working royals? It would seem smarter to keep them on. Will and Kate can't do it all and they have to send someone to do the shitty stuff. They seem perfect for that.

Coming together to talk shit about the Royals is what bridges all for us Brits and Yanks,

R382 No, Beatrice and Eugenie have never been working royals. The Queen occasionally allows them to accompany her on official engagements, but despite their HRH status, they are effectively private citizens. This is because Charles wants to slim down the monarchy to just the Monarch and their consort, the heir and their spouse, and the heir's heir. Charles was actually against B&E even being given royal titles but Andrew threw a hissy fit and the Queen caved to him. After the Queen dies, the working royals will consist of Charles, Camilla, William, Kate, Anne, Edward, and Sophie (the latter three only until W&Cs kids are old enough to start undertaking royal duties).

[quote] It would seem smarter to keep them on. Will and Kate can't do it all and they have to send someone to do the shitty stuff.

It's all shitty stuff.

I don't think stuff like going to the BAFTAs is shitty, but YMMV.

Singing carols at nursing homes, which is what they had Markle doing before she fled, would be the shitty stuff IMO.

About a decade ago, Andrew went on the warpath to try and foist his useless daughters onto the public trough. Charles went to battle and prevailed. The Queen confirmed that the Yorkie Princesses would never be working royals by canceling their Scotland Yard protection (it was costing 700,000 pounds a year.

People enjoy the Royals the same way they do soap operas or any sort of series.

I know I do.

[quote] Will he have to get a job at the local grocery store now?

Maybe Princess Anne could help her kid brother get a job at one of the Tesco stores where she’s done a ribbon cutting. She must have some kind connections, I’d imagine.

Some people in both the UK and the US need to learn the difference between reality that matters and their adolescent masturabatory entertainment fantasies that don’t.

T386. It’s a mixture. Meghan got plenty of the glamour as well but she expected no drudgery to be required in return. The Queen herself has visited plenty of primary schools and hospitals.

[quote]I'm an American, recognize what a shitshow the US is, and can truly appreciate the British parliamentary system, that MPs know how to argue, that you can have more than 2 parties, and that an election can be called when necessary. There are a lot of things you Brits can hang your hats on without having to feel the need to support the royal family.

See, this is the crux of it. The American inability to imagine or respect that some simply countries choose to do differently or need to defend or explain a system that isn't the American way. Thank you for your generous approvals, you can imagine what that means. The arrogance is indescribable. I mean, the UK hasn't had a school shooting since 1996 and you haven't had one since last month, but should the UK do guns the American way too? Your country is literally imploding around you, sliding toward authoritarianism... that you'd presume to criticize any functioning democracy for anything would be laughable if it weren't so infuriating.

"The Queen confirmed that the Yorkie Princesses would never be working royals by canceling their Scotland Yard protection (it was costing 700,000 pounds a year)."

R387 - That was in 2011 when Beatrice was 23 and Eugenie was 21.

Name the only royal who has been convicted of a criminal offense. No googling. GO.

other monarchies are more expensive, and give less show. I believe the Dutch royal house organization costs way more than the Windsors. The pudgy Crown Princess recently declined her 1 million euro allowance saying she didn’t need it yet as she just turned 18 and wasn’t doing official work for the crown.

R394, was that Mrs. Anne Lawrence in the case Lawrence v. Regina?

Laurence, dammit.

R397 Yesss! 10 points.

And as to the cost, you're paying for fine figures like Kevin McCarthy and Mitch McConnell and Lindsay Graham and Gym Jordan and Clarence Thomas and Judge Squee and Vairst Letty...

Deflection, incoming?

It’s not about there being despicable people in positions of power on both sides of the pond. The question was is the BRF an expensive, superfluous additional bunch of despicable people in positions of power.

I understand that Archewell is hiring, R379.

Yes R393, exactly. Charles moved preemptively early on. The Yorkies were never working royals and their father was trying to get them a cushy working royal position with all the wonderful perks. Charles prevented this when they were young, so as to encourage them to get "jobs" and pay their own way. But these silly women still think that they can somehow worm their way back in. Not a chance, once QEII dies we will never see either one on a royal balcony, etc.

Look at all the Americans obsessed with British royalty. They don't seem to be interested in - are they even aware they exist? - the Japanese royal family, the Dutch royal family, the Danish royal family, the Swedish royal family, the Spanish royal family... and on and on. Americans obsessed with British royalty spend Big Bucks every year in the UK looking at their palaces. The British royal family would need to survive if only to get American tourist dollars.

It's funny looking at Meghan Markle's fanclub on twitter. Here are a bunch of uneducated, unsophisticated women who have never been out of the US, pontificating on British royalty, the British media, British government... all because a starlet they'd never heard of till she married into the British royal family claimed somebody said something racist. You can't make these people up. I suppose they're the same ones obsessed with Real Housewives so Meghan should start up a Real Housewives of Montecito reality show to make all their dreams come true.

Will the trial be for money only? It will be a civil trial not one that could send him to jail, right? Plus he's never going to go to the US so he will pay the whore a few millions to keep her mouth shut (no books, no Oprah).

There have been sufficient examples to indicate they are not particularly expensive compared to anywhere else. So your question was answered, you just don't like what you're hearing.

Yes, R405, it's a civil trial. No jail involved except for possibly contempt of court, like Brenda Dickson during her divorce trial.

I don’t really count the unsupported fraudulent numbers as an answer. But it does look like the klan grannies and GOP have different standards than I do on that.

Is BRF paying for Andrew’s legal team?

Not explicitly anymore.

R405 Andrew is broke. So he'll use the proceeds of the sale of the Verbier chalet (the little equity he had in it) to pay his lawyers. He doesn't have any assets in the US the court could seize so I doubt she'll see a dime. As he has no US assets, I wonder who will be paying Giuffre's lawyer? Maybe her lawyer's still rich off what he got paid by Harvey Weinstein and can do it pro bono.

R408 just went to the supermarket. Star Mag - a US tabloid - has a cover story about how Harry's broke and Meghan's raising hell and they're splitting up. You really need to get to work on them because it appears the US tabs hate the Harkles too. Tell Meghan's army of lawyers!

R411 - Star Magazine is on the same level as The Daily Mail online.

But Star is a US publication. So Harry "fled" the Daily Mail to fall into the clutches of Star Mag. Good luck suing them.

Every wee they pick a different couple to say they are getting a divorce. Sometimes it’s politicians, sometimes it’s movie stars, sometimes it’s musicians. Sometimes they guess right, just like DL. Whatever will catch the attention of frauds.

Unlike the UK, in the US these companies seldom have pockets deep enough to make it worthwhile to sue.

Years ago I told you Andrew would fall because of sex trafficking, the entire monarchy will be tainted.

It's nice to see their masks are finally falling off... they are parasites.

R377 "The Royal cannot pocket any money from the Duchies, all the proceeds go to funding their offices, charities, and the rest is paid in taxes to the government."

You've got it dead wrong. Do your research, educate yourself, and then come back and post the correct information.

I don't know if William would care that much if Britain abolished the monarchy and he could go be a very rich private citizen. He's doing his duty, but he seems less entranced by the honor of being king than his father.

What should we all do next, Oracle? I presume you know everything else, too. Pompous ass.

Speaking of other royal houses, does anyone know what happened to the Royal Foibles website? It was very thoroughly researched and very comprehensive. The owner went quiet for awhile, and then he started it up again, begging readers for money, offering them access to secret information. And now it says Page Suspended.

IMO, William seems like he wants to ascend to the throne. Kate seems like she's ready for it, too. Nothing wrong with that, but I really doubt he wants to be a regular private citizen, even if rich.

Don't know about Royal Foibles but in France there's a magazine devoted to every royal family they can find (including the French pretenders) "Point de Vue".

[QUOTE] Not a chance, once QEII dies we will never see either one on a royal balcony, etc.

That I don’t see. Today there are obscure Mountbattens, Gloucester and Kent grandchildren, etc that play no royal role but who sometimes get invited to the balcony. The Queen was always keen on a royal mob of cousins, and William is very much like his mother in that he wants to show the best side to the monarchy as possible. The two Yorkies are benign enough. I think if anyone gets the axe off the balcony it will be Princess Margaret’s children and grandchildren, and the various Kent’s and Gloucesters. Who really cares if The Earl of Snowdon, Lady Helen Windsor or The Earl of St. Andrews are up there?

If they care about looks, they need to put the Chattos on the balcony and the Yorkies in the rear.

I think Edward and Sophie's kids will have a heightened profile. The daughter has said she will assume the title of Princess when she turns 18. She was born with some disabilities and has developed into a champion carriage driver. She's very admirable and just the kind of royal who will connect with people.

The cadet branches always get lopped off after a few generations. I agree that the Snowdon, Kent, and Gloucester lines are next for the chop. It's not like we see the descendants of Edward VII or George V's younger siblings up there anymore.

Oddly enough, you can see the descendants of Edward VII's youngest sister Maud up on balconies in Norway, as she married Prince Carl of Denmark, and when Norway split off from Sweden in 1905, Carl was made the king, partially because of his high-status marriage to a British princess. Harald V, the current monarch, is her grandson (Queen Elizabeth II's second cousin).

Louise becoming a Princess must have been a rumor. She turned 18 in November and is still Lady Louise. Why would she want that unnecessary title clinging to her? She seems like a private person.

R424, I have grown rather fond of the Wessexes over the years. I generally prefer Anne and the Tindalls but Sophie Wessex in particular works quietly and always seems pleasant, kind and dignified in the background so I have come to respect her and the Wessexes far more of late.

Yes, what this troubled kingdom needs now is a really competent carriage driver, someone all British people can identify with. Thank god for Lady Louise.

It would be kind of amusing if Louise, as an adult, just chose to continue being plain old Lady Louise. There are so many people who are obsessed with all this titles and styling business who would be completely aghast at her turning down that opportunity.

I remember seeing "Lady C" (whom I've seen referred to here as the "son of a Jamaican shopkeeper", which I just loved) being indignant at the idea that Meghan and Harry would stop Archie from being Lord Archie, the styling to which he's entitled as a duke's son. A far cry from her/his behaviour: still using the "Lady" almost 50 years after her/his very brief marriage to Lord Colin Campbell ended.

The Wessex children using the HRH Prince/Princess titles is the exact opposite of the slimmed-down royal family Charles wants. They'll never be working royals so their titles would be as pointless as Bea and Eug's. It is equally silly for California kids Archie and Lili to be Lord Archie and Lady Lili. Much cooler to have them and NOT use them.

I read an article written by a British author who said most aristocrats at the Earl level or lower don't use their titles in everyday life. It's considered rather gauche. British DL'ers, is this true?

The fact that Lady Louise was born with disabilities would be very meaningful to all Brits with disabilities. And the Royal family is very active in charities involving people with disabilities.

Was he doing anything with it anyways?

She had a wonky eye, not a bum leg.

R433 insulting people with disabilities, are we?

I think Edward is what Andrew could have become. There are stories from his youth where he was pretty high handed and regal. He seems to have mellowed and he is and his wife work hard on behalf of the Queen. Andrew could have done that, had he so chosen, but he went down the Queen Mother road... living like an Edwardian with none of his grandmother's charm. Both young men with bad attitudes and one pulled it out of the fire and one didn't. Then again, their wives couldn't have been more different. Fergie hasn't got the self-control, though The Times or Torygraph claimed she was the one brought him round to accepting his fate in large measure.

R434, I had a sister who lived for fifty years with severe cerebral palsy. I've lived around and supportively with the disabled a hell of lot more than you have. Get off your high horse and lighten up a little.

I want to know why Fergie still has so many debts. She's had debts for going on 40 years now. What the hell does she spend her money on? Obviously not plastic surgery because she looks like hell.

I recall her personal assistant (the one who later got convicted of murdering her boyfriend) once "lost" Fergie's jewels on a flight to NY. At the time, it seemed like a scam for Fergie to get the insurance money. She was in debt even back then.

I hope he cryin in his fine linen encased pillow.

Fuck this rapist fraud.

R436 talking insultingly about 'wonky eyes' and 'bum legs' - sure you did, liar

Go cradle a mug, you ass.

And to flesh out the point: there's a hell of a big gap between someone who can't walk or control their motor skills or speak and someone with a condition that required corrective eye surgery. Which you might have worked out for yourself if your disability wasn't completely stupid.

What disability did Lady Louise have, aside from the wonky eye?

It's a disabled eye. Other than that, nothing.

Meghan has a wonky eye, too. Is she disabled?

Archie's also got a wonky eye which is why they haven't shown any photos of him full face. I wonder when he can get operated on? Must be genetic.

Louise's brother has shown signs and symptoms of being neuroatypical, like Barron Trump. They both probably have autism.

I just imagine Andrew storming off to his icy kingdom like Ilsa in Frozen.

To the two morons who keep arguing for and against royals, please stop your pissing contest now. You both have microdicks and will never get laid hence the reason you're on DL all day arguing about something sane people don't give a shit about.

STRIPPED!

R448 Honey, sanity is in short supply around these parts!

I don't mine insane so much as stupid. God, if you mine that into something useful.

R448 An anonymous site makes it all too clear when someone is projecting so best to remain silent if you have nothing to contribute to the substance of the conversation.

Lady Louise can still do work on behalf of people with disabilities if she wishes. She doesn't have to be a Princess to do that.

For fuck's sake, here we go again with Charles throwing a hissy fit about the York girls "getting royal titles".

That's the second time you've put that up after being told it is, quite simply, factually bvb WRONG.

The York girls were born HRHs AUTOMATICALLY BY VIRTUE OF BEING GRANDCHILDREN OF THE SOVEREIGN IN THE MALE LINE.

They weren't GIVEN anything, they had it by right of birth. Charles did not nor would he EVER have had the slightest power or say in the matter. The two girls were BORN PRINCESSES OF THE BLOOD THAT'S WHY THEY HAVE PRINCESS BEFORE THEIR FIRST NAMES. THEIR FATHER WAS THE SON OF THE SOVEREIGN. THAT'S WHY THEY ARE ABSOLUTE PRINCESSES.

Stop putting that erroneous shit up.

What Charles resisted was Andrew's 11th hour attempts to get jus daughters onto the gravy train as senior working royals just after William married Kate.

And Charles, who knew that one day the Epstein grenade was going to land in their midst, appears to have shown good sense.

Although Eugenie, I'll wager, sees the matter differently.

Wow, take a Valium, R454.

It's possible that Charles floated the same deal for Andrew that Edward later took: Andrew's daughters are princesses by right but would only use the style of Lady. It would have made more sense given their lives as entirely private citizens.

Anyway, Lady Louise had amblyopia, a lazy eye, which is not a disability as such. As well, she's not exactly charismatic.

More or less charisma than Charles?

I think we need a Moldavian Wedding level event at the next Royal get together to clear some of the cobwebs away.

Which one of these Windsor muppets are charismatic?

R459, I think Prince Louis is quite magnetic.

I forgot the children. Charlotte, of course, is the shiniest amongst the dull bulbs.

Once Charles is king, Andrew should go on the continent and collect an army, invade England, lock up Charles and proclaim himself king. That's what a rebellious prince would have done in the past.

George is going to be very popular.

R463 In the showers after rugby practice.

None of that talk for another dozen years.

R462 That didn't go so well for George, Duke of Clarence - he ended up drowned in a vat of malmsey wine.

R462, he’s too spoiled and lazy to do that. But it would be funny.

R437, whenever someone seems to be in debt but don’t have flashy items or an obvious substance abuse problem, I suspect gambling addiction. It’s very very expensive and the addicts have nothing to show for it. Not saying it’s the case with Fergie. I think she likes pills.

yes agreed, Fergie looks like an opiate addict.

or opioid, whichever

He'd have to be Catholic or something for that, r462.

No, it isn't possible that Charles floated anything of the kind. Edward was years from being married in 1986. No such unusual arrangement had even occurred. The York girls' titles took the unquestioned expected path. NO ONE including Charles, questioned it for a nanosecond.

Yeah, Charles suggested in 1986 that the 4th in line as Andrew was then, reject the ducal title he would get on his wedding day, the York ducal title no less, traditionally given to the second son.

Stop trying to double down on a completely unfounded theory with no logical foundation that came to you whilst having a root canal.

It was 1986. Andrew was 4th in line. His wife became the 4th highest ranking lady in the land.

You made this up. It be never happened. And the only reason it happened with Edward was 1) the promise of the Edinburgh title one day, and 2) by the time he got married, Andrew had also had two kids and Edward was down to 7th in line and his future kids would be 8th and 9th.

Andrew at 3rd line line in 1986? Please.

Well, I'm late to the party. Anyway....

Aaaaaahahaha hahaha hahaha hahahaha!

Yup. Charlotte is a star. Has the most going on behind the eyes.

Grumpy George is adorable.

That Charlotte will murder her siblings in their sleep when the right moment comes.

[quote]"The British Monarchy has survived for the past 300 years by being cautious and careful"

R281 - The current blood line extends back to 1066 (William the Conqueror), not to 1721 (George I). They are all direct descendants of William I, so they've actually survived over 950 years; 350 if you consider the Commonwealth Period as a valid break in the royal chain, which it isn't.

I’ve really enjoyed watching the various tabloid articles that popped up with transparently leaked information claiming Charles, William, or (the best and most laughable) Fergie was the REAL hero of the day who convinced HM to finally spank Andrew.

It seems most likely it was a cold deal worked out far in advance that if the case survived, Andrew’s honors would not. And I think it finally did come from his mother.

I wish Peter Morgan would reconsider ending the Crown around 2000. How can he pass up the past two decades?

Been there done that.

Everything gets rebooted these days. Morgan will probably take a break and come back in 10 years once the Queen has passed. They constantly change actors anyway, so it won't be a problem with casting.

Does this distancing of the BRF from Andrew and calling him a "private citizen" with regards to this case shield them, or provide some sort of protection for them, against any financial liability in his case? So that if he gets a large financial judgement against him, they can't go after the BRF's assets, or those expected to become his, only his own right now?

r480, if you're the plaintiff in a major civil case and you lose, is your family required to pay the damages? Are your parents or siblings liable?

Of course they can't go after the BRF assets. They couldn't, even if he was still a working royal. Most of the BRF assets are tied up in complex trusts anyway, to protect them from this sort of thing.

The distancing from Andrew by the BRF is public damage control. They don't want the stench of his problems tainting the family brand, plain and simple.

WTH R478 Is that a real photo or photoshopped because he looks like his dick is cut. Brits don't snip unless for religious reasons.

R482 It’s a real photo. Royals of Andrew’s generation were circumcised - Charles by a mohel named Jacob Snowman.

The Queen should be made to sell off her over 550 plus drawings by Leonardo da Vinci to pay for restitution to all the young girls molested by Andrew.

The Queen is an avid art collector but she’s not an art lover or knows anything about the pictures she has. They’re just valuable things to own. Most of the Windsors (with a few exceptions like Sarah Chatto and David Lindley) are oblivious to art and high culture. And they don’t care, the things that are important to them are horses and dogs, shooting, and drinking. It’s part of their brand, as shallow as it all seems.

Why should the Queen pay anything for Andrew’s actions? Should your mother be forced to pay all of us for being subjected to your stupidity, r484?

Because harm to Andrew's reputation harms the BRF, R486. He's part of a family firm.

The Times (the UK one) has a leader today saying that Andrew should not receive any public funds over this. I 100% agree but we all know how soft the Queen is and most of his money comes from her.

But that doesn’t create a line between his actions and the Queen’s culpability, r487.

I do agree no public funds for Andrew.

[quote] if you're the plaintiff in a major civil case and you lose, is your family required to pay the damages?

There’s an instance where this does come into play: if you and your family jointly own some kind of family company or venture. I don’t know how the royal family’s money (private or public) is structured. If they were smart they would all be walled off from each other totally.

[QUOTE] I think Prince Louis is quite magnetic.

You're a paedophile.

Whatever happens to Andrew won't damage the royal family one little bit, r487. And, no, he's not part of the so-called "family firm". Once upon a time he was, but that was a long time ago. Even if he'd been involved in a scandal then, he would simply have been ejected from the public aspects of the royal family. Just like his idiotic nephew.

Sure r484, she should auction off the Royal Collection's publicly accessible Leonardos so that they can be snapped by Mohammed bin Salman for literally billions of pounds, thus making prices throughout the art market skyrocket all round, so that he can display them to his mafioso friends in his private yacht.

Why do people keep going on about not giving public funds to Andrew? That was never going to happen. When he comes to a deal with Giuffre and finally gives her some of the millions she's been chasing him for, then he will pay for that from his own private wealth. The Swiss chalet is worth almost 20 million pounds.

R495 His equity in that will likely not even cover everything. And his private wealth effectively mostly comes from the Queen anyway.

So, r496? It's still not public money and no doubt he has other funds and not from the Queen (from when he was a trade emissary, for example). Sure, Giuffre is going to try to push to get as much as she can, but if he can't pay whatever she's asking for then he can't pay. In any case, if they come to a deal then that means she will have agreed to what he's offered.

[post redacted because linking to dailymail.co.uk clearly indicates that the poster is either a troll or an idiot (probably both, honestly.) Our advice is that you just ignore this poster but whatever you do, don't click on any link to this putrid rag.]

That speculative article doesn't say he's broke r498, just that he might be following a pay-off to Giuffre.

Why does he need a security detail if he never goes anywhere ?

The shit you read here is really sometimes beyond moronic.

Neither the Queen nor any other member of the RF nor the institution itself are remotely legally responsible for any debts, legal or civil, incurred by Prince Andrew.

The Queen and the Queen Mother were, actually, keen collectors. The assertion that they paid no attention to what they bought is laughable. If anything, they concealed their appreciation for the finer things in life their wealth made possible in order to keep up their outward persona of just slightly upgraded middle-class folk.

There are letters from the Queen Mother discussing her artistic pleasure in certain items.

And, lastly, a huge amount of the royal collection is vested in the state.

Her personal collection is still spectacular, and suggesting she has no clue as to why is rather like the people who think her easily sociable, when in fact she's an earthy countrywoman who bred horses and took to sex so heartily that in the months after their marriage, Philip began to complain that he couldn't keep her out of his bed. Finally, his father in law took him aside and told him to knock it off.

She's not who you think she is. If she's been able to hold her own with 14 Prime Ministers, it's a safe bet she can appreciate Rembrandt and Da Vinci.

And, no, she can't be "made" to sell it to pay his fees, and if she could, he'd get off the hook again. He's the perp, not her.

Andrew is not getting public money. He only gets that if he's working for the monarchy, and he isn't.

The term private citizen as she used it means that Andrew is being left to deal with this as an individual rather than as a representative of the BRF. Just the way BP, in response to Harry's (as usual, unresearched and erroneous) remarks about the Commonwealth, stated that asxHarry was now "a private citizen" and not a representative of the monarchy, he was free to express his opinions.

The casual interpretation of facts without checking them just makes the poster look thick.

Andrew won't end up in the poor house, she'll let him stay on at Royal Lodge, and he has (or had at one time) a trust fund and personal wealth of around $80 million.

She didn't pay Charles' legal Bill's either in his divorce. He had to liquidate his entire portfolio to pay the lump sum settlement for which Diana's solicitors took him to the cleaners.

Oh, it's recovered nicely since 1996. And the money formed the basis of his sons' trust funds.

Harry is on his own, now, and so is Andrew. They're still technically royal, but functioning expressly as private citizens because the Queen wants the public to know that without being so crass as to mention money.

I suspect the Queen is angrier than is let on by the "more in sorrow than in anger" image being projected.

He lied to her for years about his involvement with Epstein and the institution is paying for it. She may have left him his ducal title publicly, but I wonder if she finally realised she's been had.

He's going to pay through the nose.

^*easily shockable (not sociable)

legal bills (not Bill's)

Fucking autocorrect.

R271 Thanks. Much appreciated.

R275 You may be referring to The Titles Deprivation Act which enabled George V to strip titles from formerly Royally or Serenely titled persons. Not all of them, however, had fought against the Brits, but George had to do some damage control, so he took titles away from the likes of Lord Louis Mountbatten, who had been born Prince Louis of Battenberg, and several others.

On 13 May 1915, King George V struck the names of seven German and Austrian royals (some of whom had never been British) from the roll of Knights of the Most Noble Order of the Garter; but peerage titles cannot be withdrawn except by Act of Parliament.In 1917, therefore, Parliament passed the Titles Deprivation Act authorising the deprivation of peerage titles, as well as princely dignities.

Could Harry and Andy lose their Dukedoms? I am sure that they could if the need was pressing enough. Maybe they should thank their lucky stars that that could be all they lose in this day and age. For what use is a title when one has been relieved of their head?

R273 Of course Andrew will be at his mother’s funeral. The Duke of Windsor attended both his brother, the King’s funeral, and his mother’s. He will be clad in ermine and velvet at Charles’ Coronation, unless Charles predeceases his mother, in which case rhe

R273 Of course Andrew will be at both the funeral and the subsequent Coronation. Or Coronations. Or funerals. Or both.

If Andrew willingly participated in the US suit (which I realize is a very remote possibility) and lost, it would be fascinating to hear the details of his finances and how they do or don’t intersect with his family’s and any state funds.

BUT WHAT DID FERGIE KNOW!!!!!

For a long while, it seemed that Andrew had successfully shrugged off the taint of his visits to Epstein’s playpens of depravity. But when Epstein was arrested for a second time, in July 2019, the relationship was suddenly under scrutiny again. Two weeks later, with Epstein dead and the case closed, Andrew’s role was being pursued more vigorously by Giuffre’s lawyers, alleging that she had been forced into having sex with him three times. In November 2019, Andrew decided to try to swat that problem away in an interview with Emily Maitlis, a particularly cogent and incisive BBC reporter.

“This is a man—a prince—who did not come to repent. He came to earn back his right to tell the story his way.” — Emily Maitlis We don’t know if the queen assented to this interview in advance. For a large part of her reign, the BBC had been dutifully deferential toward the monarchy. The corporation was still regarded almost as an accessory of the royal soap opera, always mounting exquisitely produced coverage of the annual ceremonials or special events, like the marriage of Harry and Meghan. Andrew set up the interview expecting it to turn out like one of those warm embraces, where he could appear the injured party.

But this was not his mother’s BBC. As Maitlis said afterwards in the Guardian, “This is a man—a prince—who did not come to repent. He came to earn back his right to tell the story his way.” He showed no remorse at all for Epstein’s many victims.

Whatever the queen felt, Charles took the moment to have Andrew banished from making official public appearances. Even then, it didn’t do much to humble Andrew. And he didn’t seem rattled when Maxwell was finally tracked down and arrested in July 2020, even though that put his position in more jeopardy. And later, in the week before his father’s funeral, in April 2021, he was telling people—wrongly—that he expected to be able to resume public duties shortly. He pressed his mother to let him appear at the funeral in the uniform of an admiral of the fleet. She demurred, banning any military uniforms.

In this, the queen’s platinum jubilee year, marking at 70 years the longest ever reign of a monarch, her second son is a pariah, being rendered as far as it is possible within the system a non-person, and left, in the words of the official announcement to defend his case “as a private citizen.”

Has the queen finally accepted that Andrew is a creep? To her subjects, Elizabeth has always been above reproach. It is sad to see that, if she had a failing, it was the very human one of expecting more from a son than he was capable of giving.

I’ll bet anything that when the Charles-Diana-Camilla scandal was at its height and it looked like Charles might be dumped from the line of succession, Andrew was watching with glee from the sidelines, scheming to push himself up the food chain.

What’s funny is that now Charles’ devotion to that boozy old hag, Camilla, is pretty damed endearing. He ditched the most desired woman in the world for the old broad. It’s rather sweet, if you overlook what happened in a Paris tunnel as a result of it.

Andrew comes off as a sad, desperate loser who is too weak to distance himself from his wreck of an ex-wife to find a new relationship. Instead he needs to count on creeps like Epstein to provide him with sex romps.

He should just pay up, move in with one of his daughters, and call it a day.

[quote]Latest - Andrew will not lose his security detail and that the Queen will most likely pay for it...as Andrew is broke as hell.

I intensely dislike Andrew and like many am disgusted with his actions, but am not so ignorant to know that certain amenities he experiences won't, and can't, be removed. Security is one of them.

As one of the children of the current monarch, he is a target for potential kidnapping or harm. This, despite his terrible behavior, is a reason to keep minimal security around him.

Once his brother is King, and he is no longer a strong target, look for this minimal courtesy to be stripped away as well.

[quote]Of course Andrew will be at his mother’s funeral. The Duke of Windsor attended both his brother, the King’s funeral, and his mother’s. He will be clad in ermine and velvet at Charles’ Coronation, unless Charles predeceases his mother,

Disagree heartily, re Charles's coronation ceremonies. He will very likely not be allowed within a mile of any of them. Future coronations won't be as in the past, with all the glitz, ermine and trappings. With the exception of his crowning in Westminster Abbey (the UK monarch is also head of the Church of England), Charles's coronation will be more like an investiture, like the ones the continental Euro monarchs now have.

Andrew will be at his mother's funeral, of course.

[quote]On 13 May 1915, King George V struck the names of seven German and Austrian royals (some of whom had never been British) from the roll of Knights of the Most Noble Order of the Garter; but peerage titles cannot be withdrawn except by Act of Parliament. In 1917, therefore, Parliament passed the Titles Deprivation Act authorising the deprivation of peerage titles, as well as princely dignities.

Wrong information, in the last sentence. Peerage titles may or may not be withdrawn without Parliamentary involvement, but 'princely dignities' are at the sole discretion of the sitting monarch and he/she alone controls their application and usage. They absolutely do NOT need Parliamentary approval to remove them.

The Titles Deprivation Act of 1917, which removed both peerage and princely rank from a number of royal relatives, has created confusion around this detail. There has never been a requirement for outside approval for the monarch to remove princely rank, even if it was sought in this past instance.

R485, the Royal Collection is not the Queen’s personal property. It is held in trust for the nation. She cannot sell any part of it. Priceless works are often on display in the Queen’s Gallery at Buckingham Palace, at Holyroodhouse in Edinburgh, and are frequently on loan to galleries all over the world. It’s the same with the Crown Jewels, they are not hers.

She has plenty of money of her own, and has an army of advisors to manage it, legally or otherwise. Lots of British Overseas Territories don’t ask questions about investments.

It never looked like Charles was going to be dumped from the line of succession, at any point.

A bit of colour from The Telegraph:

Where Andrew is more fortunate than Edward (VIII) is that privately he has remained close to the Queen. Since the death of Prince Philip, last April, he has been the most frequent visitor out of her four children. There is no doubt that the Duke loves his mother and is embarrassed by the scandal and shame threatening to engulf her jubilee year, having apparently already understood that he could play no public part in the celebrations.

Andrew and Sarah have Beatrice, 33, and Eugenie, 31 – and now grandchildren, too. The princesses have said nothing in public. In private, insiders say, they are mortified. Beatrice, in particular, is said to be “absolutely devastated” that her 18th birthday ball was besmirched when a photograph came to light of Harvey Weinstein, Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell standing in the Windsor grounds.

Yet, like Wallis and Edward, the Yorks are tight-knit, loyal to their core. As other royals distance themselves over the dark days that lie ahead for Andrew, they may be all he has.

I can't help but root for the York sisters. They really haven't done anything wrong and given the bitter coldness of the Windsors, i can see why they remain loyal to their parents. Their aunts and uncles certainly wouldn't have stepped up. Andrew was their source of income. Without him they'd be broke-broke.

Sometimes people talk trash on them being lazy. Well, they are princesses, they are acting as princesses have basically always acted. God knows the future Queen Kate did fuck all until she wore William down as the last acceptable woman standing. I really wish Charles would consider adding the York sisters as working royals. You need someone young besides William and Kate. Those two already have a lot on their plate, why not use two available and young Princesses of the blood?

This is a calculated move to protect royal assets. In actuality, these people don’t give a rat’s ass about the victims.

R517 I think Charles would consider it except Sarah has shown she is capable of joining the event and acting crass. I'd imagine Andrew may try to do the same. There would have to be some sort of agreement. But that would be an awkward conversation.

If I remember right, William and Harry grew up as good friends of their cousins.

Those girls are the antithesis of what Charles says he intends to do, which is slim it down to the sovereign and the children of the sovereign. Had the Californians not run away they would have been pared down come William's turn, in all likelihood.

R519, I remember that as such, too. Whether things have changed in the intervening years, who knows? People who are close fall out, people who are close can see things two or three or ten ways at once.

"it looked like Charles might be dumped from the line of succession" - it didn't ever look like Charles was going to be dumped from the line of succession, r510. That was never, ever going to happen.

[quote]The Queen should be made to sell off her over 550 plus drawings by Leonardo da Vinci to pay for restitution to all the young girls molested by Andrew.

Well, if you don't want Andrew benefiting from public funds, you wouldn't want her doing that. The royal collection is held in trust for the nation.

But this idiotic quote accidentally raises one interesting point. With all this high profile publicity and a team of lawyers representing VG and the always ready to help Blooms and Allred on the periphery, nobody else has come forward. Recognize there's a big yet potentially attached, but not even any rumours, are there?

WOW! Brutal headline in The Times:

It wasn’t just the Queen: the whole royal family knifed Prince Andrew - After years of indecision, the Firm finally acted against the duke — and all his siblings were involved

For a minute I thought I was reading the Mail. `

"For a minute I thought I was reading the Mail." - Why? The Times loves clicks and gossip and is not particularly sympathetic to the royals. This Andrew story is a dream for the Times.

Those stupid York girls, advocating on behalf of sex trafficking victims yet have a father with close ties to a sex trafficker, yet they have not said a word on this or the financial benefits their family received from the sex trafficker.

Charles and William need to boot these two far away - perhaps they can go live in Mozzi's Italian "palace" - which is probably quite shabby according to their standards.

R523 Please warn us when you post a paywalled article. How many times do we have to say it.

R518. How exactly does this protect their assets?

Why, R526, was the shock too much to bear? Your heart? Hit your head on the fainting couch? Jesus.

I had just finished keying up a summary but, meh.

That headline is stupid. Andrew made his own lecherous choices and behaved like a great braying ass for most of his life. The knife to the heart was a self-inflicted wound.

R529 Then you are as pointless as Prince Andrew

Yeah but pointless who knows more than you do, el cheapo. Have a nice afternoon.

r523 or anyone - Can someone post the Times article. Thanks!

For you, R533, an honest and civlized gentlperson deserves a summary ;)

The Times writes that all siblings were involved in the discussion, decision over Xmas and Queen had intended to hold a meeting at Sandringham before Omicron ruined her Xmas.

It was Maxwell's conviction that led them to act on decision it had gone far enough and wherever it went next wasn't good.

Final decision was Queen's, with significant input from Charles but less from William than reported. Times says Kensington Palace strategy is to keep him as far away from it as possible. That W has empathy for Andrew as a person but thinks his entitlement is the kind of behaviour that threatens the monarchy. W sees being part of RF as being a privilege.

Prince andrew does not deny that it is him in the photograph. But is it really his hand clasped around the waist of 17-year-old Virginia Roberts? He cannot be sure. In fact, he told the BBC in 2019, he had no memory of the picture being taken. It showed him in travelling clothes, he mused, but when in London he would wear a suit and tie, and he certainly didn’t go around hugging people. He had never been upstairs in the house of Ghislaine Maxwell, his socialite friend, where the snap was taken. And had it really been Jeffrey Epstein behind the camera? The prince hadn’t ever seen his friend take a picture. That photograph haunts the queen’s second son. Mr Epstein would later be convicted of procuring a minor for prostitution, and in 2019, after being charged with further sex offences, he hanged himself with a prison bedsheet. On December 29th Ms Maxwell, visible in the picture behind Ms Roberts, was convicted by a Manhattan court of sex-trafficking offences. As for the prince, Ms Roberts (who now goes by her married name, Giuffre) is suing him for “exemplary and punitive” damages.

In a civil case in New York, she has alleged that after the snap was taken, she was forced to have sex with the prince against her will. She claims that he abused her at Epstein’s homes in New York and the US Virgin Islands, while knowing that she was a victim of sex-trafficking. He vehemently denies the allegations and says he has no recollection of meeting her. At a hearing on January 4th his lawyers sought to have the case struck out on the basis of a settlement Ms Giuffre signed with Epstein in 2009; the judge said he would give his decision “pretty soon”, which has been widely interpreted as meaning within days.

However the case plays out from here, monarchists can try to argue that the crown is insulated from it. Although for his first 22 years Prince Andrew was second in line to the throne—just one nasty polo accident away from heir-apparent—his elder brother Charles’s children and grandchildren have pushed Andrew back to ninth in the line of succession. The monarchy is popular, too: a survey in 2021 by YouGov, a polling firm, found that voters prefer it to a republic by 61% to 24%. Prince Andrew’s difficulties have not dented the queen’s sky-high approval ratings. The royal family has weathered centuries of sexual misdeeds by dissolute princes. There is no republican caucus in Parliament. Europe’s defunct monarchies fell as a result of war and calamity: during peacetime they have survived through inertia.

Yet the allegations pose a threat to the monarchy, all the same. In June Britain is due to celebrate the 96-year-old Queen Elizabeth II’s platinum jubilee, marking 70 years since her accession. It may be the final grand spectacle of her reign. When it comes, the coronation of King Charles will be a renewal of the public’s consent to the hereditary monarchy that forms the apex of the British constitution.

Once upon a time, that consent rested on principle. The inheritance of titles, land and property through primogeniture was believed in as a good in itself. That belief was bolstered by widespread religious faith: a British monarch is sworn to defend the Protestant church. As late as 1956, a third of Britons thought the queen had been chosen by God.

But as her reign wore on, principle was no longer enough. Britain’s monarchy became what Vernon Bogdanor, a constitutional historian, calls “utilitarian”, with legitimacy resting on the good it does. It became necessary for royals to be hardworking and do-gooding. It embraced the rhetoric of meritocracy: never mind how the queen got her job, what mattered was that she performed it as well as any elected head of state. Intimacy succeeded reverence: nowadays, commoners love the royal family in part because they think they know it.

Ms Giuffre’s allegations have thrown all this into doubt. Britain’s main anti-monarchist movement, Republic, plans to step up its campaigning during the jubilee. It hopes the succession will open up debate on the constitution. The queen is the royal family’s “heat shield”, says its leader, Graham Smith. “When she is gone they’re going to be very vulnerable.”

A utilitarian monarchy is undermined by a prince who has been forced by scandal to abandon his duties, and now passes the time horse-riding in the grounds of Windsor Castle. A meritocratic monarchy is undermined by a prince unsuited to diplomacy, whose alibis have been widely ridiculed and who, even after Epstein’s death, declared he had no regrets about their “very useful” friendship. It is a reminder that heredity is a lottery, sometimes throwing up stars like Queen Elizabeth II, and sometimes duds. As for intimacy, the royal family’s affairs and divorces in the 1990s bound the monarchy closer to ordinary people, with their own messy marriages. The allegations made about Prince Andrew are hardly relatable.

The bare fact of Ms Giuffre’s case, whether it succeeds or fails, leaves the royal family with no good options for dealing with Prince Andrew. There is talk of sending him into internal exile: asking him not to use his titles and stripping him of his military ranks. That would leave him in the line of succession. But the alternative—him renouncing his claim to the throne—would probably be even more damaging. It is fundamental to a hereditary order that succession is automatic and beyond debate. Start tinkering with the line because one son is better qualified, more popular or more moral, and the logic falls apart.

As Edward Bulwer-Lytton, a Whig politician in the 19th century, once put it: “What suicide is to a man, abdication is to a king.” That is why Edward VIII’s abdication in 1936 was so traumatic, and why Prince Harry, despite having “stepped back” from royal duties for a more glamorous life in Hollywood, remains sixth in line. The monarchy cannot tolerate Prince Andrew on the inside, but it cannot eject him either. The best it can do is close its eyes, and pretend he was never there. ■

The dynamics of the cousins are very interesting and in my view, very bad news for Beatrice and Eugenie. Their major backer is the Queen, who adores them - remember, for ~ 15 years they were the only two “princesses of the blood” of that generation (maybe they reminded her of her relationship with Margaret).

Charles was unswayed by family feeling and pulled their security detail and other perks once they decided they wouldn’t be undertaking royal duties as adults.

William and Harry may both have been close to them as kids, but once Kate entered the picture, the relationship between the girls and William/Kate turned to ice. They apparently went to the Queen to demand Kate be forced to properly curtsy to them when William wasn’t present. William and Kate snubbed them on social occasions, leading to more whining and complaints, and the famous video of the girls giving Kate the cut direct. Harry may have maintained good relations with them, at least it appears so, but he left the circle of power.

So all the girls have to look forward to is begging for scraps from Charles and then William, neither of whom is disposed toward wanting anything to do with them. The Queen will be gone, their father exiled, and their friendly cousin living in America.

[quote] Final decision was Queen's, with significant input from Charles but less from William than reported.

It’s funny watching Charles and William try to elbow each other out of the way to get credit for this through press leaks.

Lock him up! Even if it’s just a cock cage.

I don’t need to see that!

[quote] So all the girls have to look forward to is begging for scraps from Charles and then William

The girls have their own lives. They don’t have to, and won’t, beg Charles for anything.

Bea and Eug would have been useful junior royals if Andrew weren't such a nightmare. Making them working royals would bring up their idiot father at every turn, and the BRF doesn't want that. If they should blame anyone for their lack of participation in the work of the Crown, it should be Daddy.

So hot!

The girls have social lives, jobs, and husbands all acquired through their closeness to the throne. They’ll be begging Charles on their hands and knees once the Queen is gone and Andrew’s turning his wallet inside out.

Are the girls living off the royalties of their mother’s children's books?

Agree R537. Those fools really blew it when they turned on Kate, who will be their Queen. Charles and William need to put a kibosh on those idiots speaking in public about sex trafficking. The optics are, shall we say, simply dreadful.

R541 They were never working royals, absolutely never. They and their father tried to push the Queen to make them such, but Charles put his foot down. After their shameful display at Kate and Will's wedding, Charles through the Queen had their security taken away and Andrew was told his daughters would never be working royals and they needed to get "real" jobs.

I understand and can sympathize with their burning desire to snub Kate and put her in her place, probably out of jealousy or fear of exactly this loss of power as they got older. It’s not nice and I’d guess Kate is not too nice and a bit of a snob herself. But it was just so, monumentally stupid of them.

So, the real job that Andrew’s daughters got were as hat models? How’s that working for them?

That sounds serious!

The Villa Mapelli Mozzi is nothing to sneeze at, although I have no idea if Edoardo has any claim to it.

[quote] After their shameful display at Kate and Will's wedding, Charles through the Queen had their security taken away and Andrew was told his daughters would never be working royals and they needed to get "real" jobs.

Were people really upset about their hats? I thought the hats added some interest to the wedding.

Was Eugenie upset when Meghan announced her pregnancy at Eugenie's wedding?

[quote]BREAKING - Prince Andrew STRIPPED

That's as far as I got when I vomited.

[quote] Was Eugenie upset when Meghan announced her pregnancy at Eugenie's wedding?

She seems to be the one cousin still close with them, so it must not have ticked her off. She also had to push her wedding back by a year and give them her date in the chapel. Maybe she’s more easygoing than Beatrice.

Thanks, R552, I forgot about Eugenie having to reschedule her wedding. I would guess that Beatrice is more easy-going, though.

How's the heating?

R549. Bea's husband does not own the villa. The owners, in fact, rent it out for vacations and holidays, probably because they need the money for the upkeep. FYI, Mozzi's father lives modestly in France, not the villa.

It looks a bit shabby in some of the photos on the Trip Advisor, with cheap tablecloths/curtains and old children's trikes and toys left outside.

R522, no one has come forward publicly. We don't know what has happened privately.

Gloria Allred has had at least 20 clients that sued epstein/his estate. All those cases were private

[quote]The girls have their own lives. They don’t have to, and won’t, beg Charles for anything.

Where do the "girls" live?

They are the biggest council tenants in the UK. Parasites living off public money no matter what the idiot above tries to say.

R558 What public money do Beatrice and Eugenie and their families live off? If you’re calling another poster an idiot then obviously you have proof to back up your statement.

Snubbing the heirs and sucking up to the Queen seems like an idiotic strategy. The Yorks do it, the Harkles did it. Elizabeth can't live forever, and making enemies out of her heirs...not exactly genius.

[quote]It’s funny watching Charles and William try to elbow each other out of the way to get credit for this through press leaks.

They *all* seem to want credit for shanking Andy. Charles & Wills - you can understand their role because they are the future of the monarch. But Anne - she's probably considered Andy a twat for years, but he's still her younger brother. And Edward (along with Sophie) seem to have worked hard at developing a reputation for being friendly & low key). No one came to his defense.

My favorite was a tabloid claiming it was actually Fergie who was instrumental in the punishment. Good one Fergie!

What will Andrew inherit from Queen Elizabeth II when she passes away?

“For reasons well known to him”

This guy (body language analysis) is kind of long-winded and loud.

But -- very interesting breakdown of:

William / Kate

Zara (daughter of Anne)

Eugenie & Beatrice

William and Kate are greeting their cousins. Much more warmth exchanged with Zara. Not so much with Eugenie. Beatrice, somewhere in the middle.

Fergie is and has always been a disaster. She's a publicity hound, the original Meghan Markle. Charles will not want Fergie and her daughters anywhere near him.

I wonder if Zara Tindall might not be a good addition to the working royals: she's accomplished, intelligent and good-looking.

It's a well-known fact that William and Kate are on very good terms with Zara and her husband. Their kids are very close. So that body language guy pointing out that Zara was greeted with warmth is a no-brainer.

There are no "royal assets" at risk other than Andrew's. His mother and siblings would be no more legally open to seizure for his legal damages than your mother would be in a civil suit against you.

The York girls' state funded security was always going to be yanked once their nonworking royal status became clear. The Sussexes tried to swing that, too. It didn't work, and Harry is Charles' own son.

Marrying Fergie again would be useless, as well. She has nothing and as they weren't married during the time covered in the legal suit, I doubt she'd even be eligible for the spousal immunity clause re testifying against her husband.

The only advantage Andrew has now is that he and Fergie can be seen out together as much as they like, as he's a private citizen. And she's hanging on for dear life, given that she doesn't want to lose her free digs at Royal Lodge or her Duchess title and her proximity to royal life at the edges of royal life and privilege and her daughters and grandchildren.

[quote]What public money do Beatrice and Eugenie and their families live off? If you’re calling another poster an idiot then obviously you have proof to back up your statement.

I don't know about the one who married the Italian, but the other one (who married the cheater) lives at Kensington Palace. I don't know if she pays any rent, but if she does, it's at least 500% less than she would pay on the open market. And she gets free 24 hour a day apartment security from the police

R568 Beatrice and Eugene have never had state funded security because they are not working royals. The Queen, I believe, has helped Andrew pay for private security for them, but both B&E are often seen around London without security protection. In the eyes of the UK government only the Queen, Charles, Camilla, Kate, William, Anne, and Edward and Sophie can have Home Office protection. Andrew, his daughters, Harry & Meghan, Anne's kids, Edward's kids, they are all private citizens.

[post redacted because linking to dailymail.co.uk clearly indicates that the poster is either a troll or an idiot (probably both, honestly.) Our advice is that you just ignore this poster but whatever you do, don't click on any link to this putrid rag.]

[post redacted because linking to dailymail.co.uk clearly indicates that the poster is either a troll or an idiot (probably both, honestly.) Our advice is that you just ignore this poster but whatever you do, don't click on any link to this putrid rag.]

Yeah, good luck with that one. Fucking privileged twat wants his cake and to eat it. If he wants us to pay likely £1m a year for security, how about he goes back to being a working royal. And I thought they claim to be on their way to be billionaires.

On the contrary, the royal family always plead poverty.

R569 if you’re going to pull “facts” out of your arse you could at least try and make them somewhat believable. If Princess Eugenie is paying “500% less” than the market rate then that would mean that she is being paid four times the market rate to live there. 100% less being zero pounds. Get it?

Eugenie and Jack live at Frogmore Cottage on the grounds of Windsor Great Park. The same house Harry and Meghan abandoned a few years ago when they left for North America.

Now everyone's other favourite royal, Harry, is threatening to sue the UK government to get his security back because it's not safe for his family to return home otherwise.

The Duke of Sussex has said he does not feel safe in the UK, as he challenges a Home Office decision not to allow him to personally pay for police protection for him and his family.

The Duke wants to bring his son Archie and baby daughter Lilibet to visit from the US, but he and his family are "unable to return to his home" because it is too dangerous, a legal representative said.

It follows an incident in London in the summer of 2021 when his security was compromised after his car was chased by paparazzi photographers as he left a charity event.

The Duke and Duchess of Sussex lost their taxpayer-funded police protection in the aftermath of quitting as senior working royals.

The Duke wants to fund the security himself, rather than ask taxpayers to foot the bill, his legal representative said. He has now filed a claim for a judicial review against the Home Office decision.

The Duke is arguing that his private protection team in the US does not have adequate jurisdiction abroad or access to UK intelligence information which is needed keep the Sussex family safe.

"The UK will always be Prince Harry's home and a country he wants his wife and children to be safe in," said the legal representative. "With the lack of police protection, comes too great a personal risk."

The representative added: "The Duke and Duchess of Sussex personally fund a private security team for their family, yet that security cannot replicate the necessary police protection needed whilst in the UK.

"In the absence of such protection, Prince Harry and his family are unable to return to his home."

I guess he'll just have to stay in sunny California.

Maybe this is setting up their excuse for his first wife and her children not to come to anything ever in the UK.

Though there's a flaw in the logic.

People would have to care if they came, first.

Wouldn't that be SUCH a shame, r578.

Harry wants extra security while visiting London with his family. I don't find that too unreasonable.

I think it's reasonable to ask for security in London. But on the Oprah interview, he was bitching about having to pay for his own security in the US. Maybe that's why people are fed up hearing about Harry's security woes.

It is absurd and a sign of the worst kind of communications that the subject of FUCKING SECURITY becomes public and nasty in this way.

Security matters of any kind are never discussed in public. I assume Harry was so furious over the "glitch" he claims occurred that he's pulling another "I AM THE MAN AND MUCH PROTECT MY FAMILY" public snit, when the actual issue appears to be that he wants the official British security people who cover the family to share "secret" information with his private security group, or the one he wants to hire in the UK.

It comes across as just another threat: I shall not bring my family "home" to the UK unless you do what I want.

Of course as a matter of security the Harrys need the usual quality of coverage. They are not important as such but they are prominent and obvious targets for anyone wanting fame or to make a point. But you don't go to the media, even if you're trying to circumvent a supposed tabloid release. Where are Harry's (meaning his wife's) priorities, for fuck's sake.

Whine whine whine.

R276 Thanks for pointing that out. I erroneously called them ‘Duchies’ which they aren't in the same way as Cornwall is - but I was trying to make a point that they could have contributed something to holding Dukedoms in the names of those places, especially in today’s world where nominal Dukedoms are no longer taken for granted.

Why hasn’t some enterprising kidnapper nabbed the York girls since they have no security detail and made some coin off the Queen sending them their little fingers like a Getty grandchild style kidnapping?

Harry is such a privileged straight white male, I am surprised he hasn't been cancelled.

Does Harry's security team have access to US intelligence information in California? What utter horseshit.

R587 In another thread, people are stating this is likely a PR move to make this look like the reason why they don't attend the Jubilee in June to cover the fact they've either not been invited or its been made clear they can come but they won't be on the balcony.

“Won’t be on the balcony” “can’t use HRH” “can’t wear the purple and ermine” “fount of all honour” It’s like LARPing for mean girls. Grown men and women really see this has important and worthwhile use of resources in 2022?

I bet they're broke. He can't afford to pay for the travel expenses involved + bodyguards so he's begging his Daddy to give him his allowance back.

They wouldn't be broke if they didn't waste all Diana's money on suing people.

R4589 YES!

Is the Royal warrant for Twinnings Tea at risk with all this upheaval? What can we do to protect its status?

Did Megan and Harry make no money off Diana The Musical?

Agree with other posters - they’re setting it all up so they absolutely, cannot go back to the UK…and then blame it all on the BRF. Yet again.

These two. Ugh. They certainly love litigation. Between their legal fees and PR fees- they must be sweating a bit.

Considering the way they’ve acted, I don’t think Sussex’s security team SHOULD have any intelligence or classified information about the rear of his family. Talking about a plane crash away from the throne and such.

If there’s a credible threat against your family, Harry, MI5 will let your bodyguards know. Don’t worry about what Will’s bodyguards are doing or where they are.

If Harry doesn’t feel safe even among his own people, he should accept that he shouldn’t go back where he is not wanted. On the other hand, we know that it’s Meghan who is the one who is obsessed with having a security detail for show.

40 % of London's population is foreign born, and they don't give a shit about any members of the BRF. And the increasing boat traffic from France will increase that percentage.

Lady C. weighs in...

The French are yachting to London R597?

Lady CC is hilarious. Al the toffs getting together to save hedgehogs, Andrew can't get it up, etc etc. You couldn't make it up.