King Charles strips Andrew’s prince title

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:When I was an 18 yr old in London I met a 28 yr old American model (very beautiful, like Andie Macdowell) who told me that for YEARS Prince A had young women lining up outside the palace, waiting to be let in. By him.

In the UK, the age of consent is 16. So as long as the young women were of that age, then Andrew was not breaking any laws.

He had sex with a girl he knew was trafficked, which is illegal. Apparently Epstein had a look-book, and Andrew ordered up a girl--Virginia--to be shipped to London.

If Andrew had sex with a girl that was shipped to London then yes, that's illegal. But the original comment was about young women lining up outside the palace, which as long as they were 16, was not illegal. Very unlikely too as the RF don't actually live there.

This is incorrect. The RF did live in Buckingham Palace.

They live in many places. Hard to imagine though that young girls were lining up outside the palace for Andy to let them in. Where were they lining up, on the roads around the palace or did they climb over the gates and stand by the back door while the police and guards watched them? The British aren't that lenient with the RF. There would have been a huge outcry from the media if any of this was true.

Oh for God’s sake, stop defending this pervert. Former palace security guy explains how Andrew had frequent women visitors and security was required to make an exception to all their rules and let these women in without knowing their names or doing checks: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=2j1ZcGKoJcU

I'm not defending Andrew at all. To be honest, I don't care about any of this or Andrew. If the allegations against him are ever proven in a court of law, then he deserves whatever gets thrown at him. I was merely pointing out that it was unlikely that there was a string of young women lining up at the palace to see Andrew. How many women could Andrew go through per night? I used to live in London. The few times I drove past the palace, I never saw young women "lined up around the palace".

Stop trying to deflect by flogging the red herring about women lined up around the palace. The former palace security guard at the link above explains very clearly, if you bothered to listen, that Andrew's women were brought in by drivers and bypassed the security guards. Andrew's women visitors didn't even have to tell security officers their names, the cars didn't have to be cleared in, and Andrew shouted insults ("fatty!") from his window at any security guard who tried to stop them.

It's not a red herring at all. The idea that there were women 'lining' up around the palace to see Andrew is an exaggeration. Using this type of hyperbole is unnecessary.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:When I was an 18 yr old in London I met a 28 yr old American model (very beautiful, like Andie Macdowell) who told me that for YEARS Prince A had young women lining up outside the palace, waiting to be let in. By him.

In the UK, the age of consent is 16. So as long as the young women were of that age, then Andrew was not breaking any laws.

He had sex with a girl he knew was trafficked, which is illegal. Apparently Epstein had a look-book, and Andrew ordered up a girl--Virginia--to be shipped to London.

If Andrew had sex with a girl that was shipped to London then yes, that's illegal. But the original comment was about young women lining up outside the palace, which as long as they were 16, was not illegal. Very unlikely too as the RF don't actually live there.

This is incorrect. The RF did live in Buckingham Palace.

They live in many places. Hard to imagine though that young girls were lining up outside the palace for Andy to let them in. Where were they lining up, on the roads around the palace or did they climb over the gates and stand by the back door while the police and guards watched them? The British aren't that lenient with the RF. There would have been a huge outcry from the media if any of this was true.

Oh for God’s sake, stop defending this pervert. Former palace security guy explains how Andrew had frequent women visitors and security was required to make an exception to all their rules and let these women in without knowing their names or doing checks: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=2j1ZcGKoJcU

I'm not defending Andrew at all. To be honest, I don't care about any of this or Andrew. If the allegations against him are ever proven in a court of law, then he deserves whatever gets thrown at him. I was merely pointing out that it was unlikely that there was a string of young women lining up at the palace to see Andrew. How many women could Andrew go through per night? I used to live in London. The few times I drove past the palace, I never saw young women "lined up around the palace".

Stop trying to deflect by flogging the red herring about women lined up around the palace. The former palace security guard at the link above explains very clearly, if you bothered to listen, that Andrew's women were brought in by drivers and bypassed the security guards. Andrew's women visitors didn't even have to tell security officers their names, the cars didn't have to be cleared in, and Andrew shouted insults ("fatty!") from his window at any security guard who tried to stop them.

It's not a red herring at all. The idea that there were women 'lining' up around the palace to see Andrew is an exaggeration. Using this type of hyperbole is unnecessary.

Not that pp, but you're obviously a troll who doesn't understand metaphors.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Of course Andrew isn’t the only one but good to see them going down like dominoes.

Yep. It would be great if Trump released the Epstein files like he promised during his campaign. But Andrew's what we have now, and Andrew hung around with Trump and Epstein at Mar al Lago: https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/news-photo/portrait-of-from-left-american-real-estate-developer-donald-news-photo/1192330903.

So maybe investigating Andrew could lead to Andrew dropping the dime on Trump and other famous men. In fact, some of Andrew's disgusting defenders here are probably scared of exactly that--Andrew dropping the dime on Trump.

This is my hope. Parliament or The Met investigates Andrew and he spills the beans on seeing Trump with underage, trafficked girls. I mean, we know Trump and Epstein were bffs, we just need proof of what they were up to. It could wreck his presidency.

[Anonymous]

So if you google a bit, you’ll find that King Charles has been trying and hilariously failing to get Andrew out of the Royal Lodge for three years. Charles , when he first became King, also was the one who tried to rehabilitate Andrew’s reputation by including him in some events, making William and Kate ride with him somewhere, putting him at the head seating at some funeral. He then became angry with him, told him to get out of the lodge to which Andrew refused. William was the one in the background to finally get Andrew out despite the spin trying to make Charles look good.

Charles is an incredibly lazy and incompetent King. He cares nothing for Andrew’s victims.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So if you google a bit, you’ll find that King Charles has been trying and hilariously failing to get Andrew out of the Royal Lodge for three years. Charles , when he first became King, also was the one who tried to rehabilitate Andrew’s reputation by including him in some events, making William and Kate ride with him somewhere, putting him at the head seating at some funeral. He then became angry with him, told him to get out of the lodge to which Andrew refused. William was the one in the background to finally get Andrew out despite the spin trying to make Charles look good.

Charles is an incredibly lazy and incompetent King. He cares nothing for Andrew’s victims.

You call every royal lazy, pp.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So if you google a bit, you’ll find that King Charles has been trying and hilariously failing to get Andrew out of the Royal Lodge for three years. Charles , when he first became King, also was the one who tried to rehabilitate Andrew’s reputation by including him in some events, making William and Kate ride with him somewhere, putting him at the head seating at some funeral. He then became angry with him, told him to get out of the lodge to which Andrew refused. William was the one in the background to finally get Andrew out despite the spin trying to make Charles look good.

Charles is an incredibly lazy and incompetent King. He cares nothing for Andrew’s victims.

LOL at all these royals (William, Kate, and even Camilla) trying to grab credit for what's actually a pretty lame outcome that doesn't provide much justice to Andrew's victims. I have a ton of British relatives who've been emailing and texting me about all this, so let me share.

Charles is the only one who's been working recently, so he and his team are the only ones who could have negotiated with Parliament about taking Andrew off the peerage rolls (the titles thing). Which is worth a bucket of spit, but it does require someone on the ground to negotiate with Parliament.

William and Kate have been on school break with their kids for the past two weeks, and they've also been moving into their fifth forever mansion. It's another school break, and somehow the three Wales kids need both parents hovering at home/at a resort somewhere for the entire length of every school break. It's cute William's PR people are trying to keep him relevant, though.

And, LOL, Kate and Camilla also have people trying to claim they single-handedly got Andrew evicted. Check out Liz Jones' article called "Icy Kate," which sounds like Liz drew the "puff up Kate" straw, because Liz also throws a ton of shade on Kate. Apparently, Kate doesn't want her new mansion to be spoiled by the fact that Andrew lives/lived a mile away, although there's a lot of speculation that the Waleses have always wanted Andrew's mansion and now they see their chance (their sixth forever mansion?). Camilla's people are arguing that she empathizes with victims because as a teenager she was attacked on the Underground.

Emily Maitliss, who did the infamous interview with Andrew where he claimed he couldn't sweat, said yesterday she has it on good authority that William actually held up the Charles-Andrew negotiations. Because he, William, was concerned about Andrew's mental health. Seriously, google it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So if you google a bit, you’ll find that King Charles has been trying and hilariously failing to get Andrew out of the Royal Lodge for three years. Charles , when he first became King, also was the one who tried to rehabilitate Andrew’s reputation by including him in some events, making William and Kate ride with him somewhere, putting him at the head seating at some funeral. He then became angry with him, told him to get out of the lodge to which Andrew refused. William was the one in the background to finally get Andrew out despite the spin trying to make Charles look good.

Charles is an incredibly lazy and incompetent King. He cares nothing for Andrew’s victims.

You call every royal lazy, pp.

It's weird she's so invested in William. William, the guy who didn't seem at all fussed about hanging around with Andrew until a few weeks ago. William, the guy who's been on vacation and busy moving into his newly-renovated pile for the past few weeks.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So if you google a bit, you’ll find that King Charles has been trying and hilariously failing to get Andrew out of the Royal Lodge for three years. Charles , when he first became King, also was the one who tried to rehabilitate Andrew’s reputation by including him in some events, making William and Kate ride with him somewhere, putting him at the head seating at some funeral. He then became angry with him, told him to get out of the lodge to which Andrew refused. William was the one in the background to finally get Andrew out despite the spin trying to make Charles look good.

Charles is an incredibly lazy and incompetent King. He cares nothing for Andrew’s victims.

William cares nothing about Andrew's victims either. William just wants Royal Lodge, Andrew's home, which is the home William and Kate have said for years that they've wanted. I also get that Andrew is probably terrible company around the Sandringham dinner table. William also wants this whole thing to go away so Parliament doesn't start asking bigger questions about the Crown Estate and other royals' lease arrangements.

At least Charles' latest statement expressed concern about victims of sexual abuse. William's never mentioned victims of sexual abuse at all.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So if you google a bit, you’ll find that King Charles has been trying and hilariously failing to get Andrew out of the Royal Lodge for three years. Charles , when he first became King, also was the one who tried to rehabilitate Andrew’s reputation by including him in some events, making William and Kate ride with him somewhere, putting him at the head seating at some funeral. He then became angry with him, told him to get out of the lodge to which Andrew refused. William was the one in the background to finally get Andrew out despite the spin trying to make Charles look good.

Charles is an incredibly lazy and incompetent King. He cares nothing for Andrew’s victims.

LOL at all these royals (William, Kate, and even Camilla) trying to grab credit for what's actually a pretty lame outcome that doesn't provide much justice to Andrew's victims. I have a ton of British relatives who've been emailing and texting me about all this, so let me share.

Charles is the only one who's been working recently, so he and his team are the only ones who could have negotiated with Parliament about taking Andrew off the peerage rolls (the titles thing). Which is worth a bucket of spit, but it does require someone on the ground to negotiate with Parliament.

William and Kate have been on school break with their kids for the past two weeks, and they've also been moving into their fifth forever mansion. It's another school break, and somehow the three Wales kids need both parents hovering at home/at a resort somewhere for the entire length of every school break. It's cute William's PR people are trying to keep him relevant, though.

And, LOL, Kate and Camilla also have people trying to claim they single-handedly got Andrew evicted. Check out Liz Jones' article called "Icy Kate," which sounds like Liz drew the "puff up Kate" straw, because Liz also throws a ton of shade on Kate. Apparently, Kate doesn't want her new mansion to be spoiled by the fact that Andrew lives/lived a mile away, although there's a lot of speculation that the Waleses have always wanted Andrew's mansion and now they see their chance (their sixth forever mansion?). Camilla's people are arguing that she empathizes with victims because as a teenager she was attacked on the Underground.

Emily Maitliss, who did the infamous interview with Andrew where he claimed he couldn't sweat, said yesterday she has it on good authority that William actually held up the Charles-Andrew negotiations. Because he, William, was concerned about Andrew's mental health. Seriously, google it.

You post here all the time on royal threads talking about your "British relatives". You're a one trick pony.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So if you google a bit, you’ll find that King Charles has been trying and hilariously failing to get Andrew out of the Royal Lodge for three years. Charles , when he first became King, also was the one who tried to rehabilitate Andrew’s reputation by including him in some events, making William and Kate ride with him somewhere, putting him at the head seating at some funeral. He then became angry with him, told him to get out of the lodge to which Andrew refused. William was the one in the background to finally get Andrew out despite the spin trying to make Charles look good.

Charles is an incredibly lazy and incompetent King. He cares nothing for Andrew’s victims.

LOL at all these royals (William, Kate, and even Camilla) trying to grab credit for what's actually a pretty lame outcome that doesn't provide much justice to Andrew's victims. I have a ton of British relatives who've been emailing and texting me about all this, so let me share.

Charles is the only one who's been working recently, so he and his team are the only ones who could have negotiated with Parliament about taking Andrew off the peerage rolls (the titles thing). Which is worth a bucket of spit, but it does require someone on the ground to negotiate with Parliament.

William and Kate have been on school break with their kids for the past two weeks, and they've also been moving into their fifth forever mansion. It's another school break, and somehow the three Wales kids need both parents hovering at home/at a resort somewhere for the entire length of every school break. It's cute William's PR people are trying to keep him relevant, though.

And, LOL, Kate and Camilla also have people trying to claim they single-handedly got Andrew evicted. Check out Liz Jones' article called "Icy Kate," which sounds like Liz drew the "puff up Kate" straw, because Liz also throws a ton of shade on Kate. Apparently, Kate doesn't want her new mansion to be spoiled by the fact that Andrew lives/lived a mile away, although there's a lot of speculation that the Waleses have always wanted Andrew's mansion and now they see their chance (their sixth forever mansion?). Camilla's people are arguing that she empathizes with victims because as a teenager she was attacked on the Underground.

Emily Maitliss, who did the infamous interview with Andrew where he claimed he couldn't sweat, said yesterday she has it on good authority that William actually held up the Charles-Andrew negotiations. Because he, William, was concerned about Andrew's mental health. Seriously, google it.

You post here all the time on royal threads talking about your "British relatives". You're a one trick pony.

You post ad hominems when you have no rebuttal. You're a one-trick pony.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Good, but long overdue. Andrew's 65 now, so he probably doesn't have a lot of "ink in the pencil" any more and so he'll just fade away, living a quiet and privileged life in some nice manor house given to him.

Meanwhile, he got away with dastardly deeds for years. In his mind, he'll look back at all the "fun" he had and probably wont' even regret it.

Both his parents lived well into their 90's so he probably has 30 years of living in oblivion. If he is smart he will find something worthwhile to do for the rest of his life.

[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.

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.

Apparently, he worked with other people who do have the authority because it is a DONE DEAL!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So if you google a bit, you’ll find that King Charles has been trying and hilariously failing to get Andrew out of the Royal Lodge for three years. Charles , when he first became King, also was the one who tried to rehabilitate Andrew’s reputation by including him in some events, making William and Kate ride with him somewhere, putting him at the head seating at some funeral. He then became angry with him, told him to get out of the lodge to which Andrew refused. William was the one in the background to finally get Andrew out despite the spin trying to make Charles look good.

Charles is an incredibly lazy and incompetent King. He cares nothing for Andrew’s victims.

You call every royal lazy, pp.

PP is a fqin nut bar who is a Meghan Markle super fan and makes all the discussions of anyone adjacent to that yacht whore and her literal moron spouse even dumber than they should be. She does nothing but report to Jabba the mod, and not in fact some kind of advocate for the victims of Andrew, Trump, Clinton, Epstein, Maxwell, Black, Dubin, Dershowitz, Mitchell, Richardson, and so forth. If she were, Andrew’s “demotion” would be seen as a good thing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So if you google a bit, you’ll find that King Charles has been trying and hilariously failing to get Andrew out of the Royal Lodge for three years. Charles , when he first became King, also was the one who tried to rehabilitate Andrew’s reputation by including him in some events, making William and Kate ride with him somewhere, putting him at the head seating at some funeral. He then became angry with him, told him to get out of the lodge to which Andrew refused. William was the one in the background to finally get Andrew out despite the spin trying to make Charles look good.

Charles is an incredibly lazy and incompetent King. He cares nothing for Andrew’s victims.

LOL at all these royals (William, Kate, and even Camilla) trying to grab credit for what's actually a pretty lame outcome that doesn't provide much justice to Andrew's victims. I have a ton of British relatives who've been emailing and texting me about all this, so let me share.

Charles is the only one who's been working recently, so he and his team are the only ones who could have negotiated with Parliament about taking Andrew off the peerage rolls (the titles thing). Which is worth a bucket of spit, but it does require someone on the ground to negotiate with Parliament.

William and Kate have been on school break with their kids for the past two weeks, and they've also been moving into their fifth forever mansion. It's another school break, and somehow the three Wales kids need both parents hovering at home/at a resort somewhere for the entire length of every school break. It's cute William's PR people are trying to keep him relevant, though.

And, LOL, Kate and Camilla also have people trying to claim they single-handedly got Andrew evicted. Check out Liz Jones' article called "Icy Kate," which sounds like Liz drew the "puff up Kate" straw, because Liz also throws a ton of shade on Kate. Apparently, Kate doesn't want her new mansion to be spoiled by the fact that Andrew lives/lived a mile away, although there's a lot of speculation that the Waleses have always wanted Andrew's mansion and now they see their chance (their sixth forever mansion?). Camilla's people are arguing that she empathizes with victims because as a teenager she was attacked on the Underground.

Emily Maitliss, who did the infamous interview with Andrew where he claimed he couldn't sweat, said yesterday she has it on good authority that William actually held up the Charles-Andrew negotiations. Because he, William, was concerned about Andrew's mental health. Seriously, google it.

You post here all the time on royal threads talking about your "British relatives". You're a one trick pony.

You post ad hominems when you have no rebuttal. You're a one-trick pony.

Nah you just decided you're for the victims but actually you just hate the royals. Such a disingenuous twit.

[Anonymous]

Are we really name-calling over the royal family tabloid fodder. Weird.