King Charles strips Andrew’s prince title

[Anonymous]

The Queen was reportedly very fond of Sarah Ferguson when she married Andrew. She repaid the favor by causing the royal family embarrassment using their name to borrow money and leaving a trail of unpaid debts.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:No wonder the GOP is going to such lengths to suppress the Epstein files. How many of our illustrious folks feature there?

I think a lot of the suppression is about diplomacy, worldwide.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Charles doesn't have the legal authority to do this. It would take an act of parliament. I don't know what they're talking about.

I’m pretty sure Charles knows more than you and has done whatever was needed re: Parliament. The statement came from the King and Queen.

Oh really? Parliament voted on this and didn't tell anyone? Wow. Thank you for clearing that up.

In all seriousness, you are incorrect. Please look it up before mouthing off about something you don't know anything about.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Charles doesn't have the legal authority to do this. It would take an act of parliament. I don't know what they're talking about.

I’m pretty sure Charles knows more than you and has done whatever was needed re: Parliament. The statement came from the King and Queen.

Oh really? Parliament voted on this and didn't tell anyone? Wow. Thank you for clearing that up.

lol. Sweetie, you are a strange bird. This message came from the King himself. Take it up with him. Creepy Andrew fangirl.
In all seriousness, you are incorrect. Please look it up before mouthing off about something you don't know anything about.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Charles doesn't have the legal authority to do this. It would take an act of parliament. I don't know what they're talking about.

I’m pretty sure Charles knows more than you and has done whatever was needed re: Parliament. The statement came from the King and Queen.

Oh really? Parliament voted on this and didn't tell anyone? Wow. Thank you for clearing that up.


Weirdo
In all seriousness, you are incorrect. Please look it up before mouthing off about something you don't know anything about.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Charles doesn't have the legal authority to do this. It would take an act of parliament. I don't know what they're talking about.

I’m pretty sure Charles knows more than you and has done whatever was needed re: Parliament. The statement came from the King and Queen.

"The monarch is not the guardian of the constitution and all major decisions are routed through Parliament. This is true even of the many of the key elements relating to royalty.
The Queen alone cannot remove titles of peerage; that can only be done by statute, passed by both the House of Commons and the House of Lords, and receiving royal assent, which means the agreement of the Queen.
Even if he were stripped of his dukedom, Andrew could remain a prince."

https://inews.co.uk/news/prince-andrew-titles-what-left-stop-duke-of-york-virginia-giuffre-settlement-1463531

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Charles doesn't have the legal authority to do this. It would take an act of parliament. I don't know what they're talking about.

I’m pretty sure Charles knows more than you and has done whatever was needed re: Parliament. The statement came from the King and Queen.

Oh really? Parliament voted on this and didn't tell anyone? Wow. Thank you for clearing that up.

lol. Sweetie, you are a strange bird. This message came from the King himself. Take it up with him. Creepy Andrew fangirl.
In all seriousness, you are incorrect. Please look it up before mouthing off about something you don't know anything about.

You don't seem to know how to type but anyway. I'm not an Andrew Stan, I hate him. I also hate Charles which is why I'm bringing this up. My dad is British, the Windsors are making a mockery of the rule of law. Charles is using powers HE DOESN'T HAVE.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Charles doesn't have the legal authority to do this. It would take an act of parliament. I don't know what they're talking about.

I’m pretty sure Charles knows more than you and has done whatever was needed re: Parliament. The statement came from the King and Queen.

"The monarch is not the guardian of the constitution and all major decisions are routed through Parliament. This is true even of the many of the key elements relating to royalty.
The Queen alone cannot remove titles of peerage; that can only be done by statute, passed by both the House of Commons and the House of Lords, and receiving royal assent, which means the agreement of the Queen.
Even if he were stripped of his dukedom, Andrew could remain a prince."

https://inews.co.uk/news/prince-andrew-titles-what-left-stop-duke-of-york-virginia-giuffre-settlement-1463531

What are they going to do? Disagree with the decision? No, it’s done. Let it go. This is what needs to happen.

[Anonymous]

I read earlier today that Charles had Parliament's permission to do this. They didn't want an official vote (messy, I suppose) but found/created some other sanctioned process to allow this.

I don't know anything about this topic, but it's hard to imagine Charles doing something unilaterally that is expressly outside his legal authority.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Charles doesn't have the legal authority to do this. It would take an act of parliament. I don't know what they're talking about.

I’m pretty sure Charles knows more than you and has done whatever was needed re: Parliament. The statement came from the King and Queen.

"The monarch is not the guardian of the constitution and all major decisions are routed through Parliament. This is true even of the many of the key elements relating to royalty.
The Queen alone cannot remove titles of peerage; that can only be done by statute, passed by both the House of Commons and the House of Lords, and receiving royal assent, which means the agreement of the Queen.
Even if he were stripped of his dukedom, Andrew could remain a prince."

https://inews.co.uk/news/prince-andrew-titles-what-left-stop-duke-of-york-virginia-giuffre-settlement-1463531

What are they going to do? Disagree with the decision? No, it’s done. Let it go. This is what needs to happen.

Of course it needs to happen which is why it needs to happen the right way, the legal way, which is by an act of parliament. Charles waving his magic wand doesn't actually make it so. This is made up. They're hoping people like you drop it and I'm trying to explain that real consequences mean an act of parliament.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I read earlier today that Charles had Parliament's permission to do this. They didn't want an official vote (messy, I suppose) but found/created some other sanctioned process to allow this.

I don't know anything about this topic, but it's hard to imagine Charles doing something unilaterally that is expressly outside his legal authority.

Then parliament needs to come out and say we're good with this. Seriously is the Uk a nation of laws or are they a nation ruled by some guy?

[Anonymous]

He looks way older than 65.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Charles doesn't have the legal authority to do this. It would take an act of parliament. I don't know what they're talking about.

I’m pretty sure Charles knows more than you and has done whatever was needed re: Parliament. The statement came from the King and Queen.

Oh really? Parliament voted on this and didn't tell anyone? Wow. Thank you for clearing that up.

In all seriousness, you are incorrect. Please look it up before mouthing off about something you don't know anything about.

Fergie, you can stop grasping at straws now. 😂

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Charles doesn't have the legal authority to do this. It would take an act of parliament. I don't know what they're talking about.

I’m pretty sure Charles knows more than you and has done whatever was needed re: Parliament. The statement came from the King and Queen.

"The monarch is not the guardian of the constitution and all major decisions are routed through Parliament. This is true even of the many of the key elements relating to royalty.
The Queen alone cannot remove titles of peerage; that can only be done by statute, passed by both the House of Commons and the House of Lords, and receiving royal assent, which means the agreement of the Queen.
Even if he were stripped of his dukedom, Andrew could remain a prince."

https://inews.co.uk/news/prince-andrew-titles-what-left-stop-duke-of-york-virginia-giuffre-settlement-1463531

What are they going to do? Disagree with the decision? No, it’s done. Let it go. This is what needs to happen.

Of course it needs to happen which is why it needs to happen the right way, the legal way, which is by an act of parliament. Charles waving his magic wand doesn't actually make it so. This is made up. They're hoping people like you drop it and I'm trying to explain that real consequences mean an act of parliament.

It said he “initiated a formal process” which is probably whatever the legal requirements are. It could just be that he told Starmer at an audience to get it done.

[Anonymous]

Need another season of the Crown.