King Charles strips Andrew’s prince title

[Anonymous]

I am so intrigued by the crazy royalist in this thread.

I’m getting Hyacinth Bucket vibes.

[Anonymous]

It’s so gross and abusive.Poor Virginia.PA had daughters the same age at the time.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I am in awe and delighted that King Charles has taken this seriously. I have hope that this may have an effect on our own country! No pedos! And no fake royals using titles they aren’t earning through good works.

"Taken this seriously"???? Girl. He's been king for three years.

He's not taking it seriously. If he took it seriously it would've been the first thing he did. That's what we were told for YEARS was that Andrew was the Queen's favorite and Charles was just biding his time until he could get rid of Andrew.

And yet...hmm...he didn't get rid of Andrew until Virginia Giuffre killed herself and it came out that Andrew used his power to get intel on her.

They're all disgusting.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I want to know the prime minister who Guiffre alleged attacked her. Probably not someone currently in politics. This was all in the 90s?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I want to know the prime minister who Guiffre alleged attacked her. Probably not someone currently in politics. This was all in the 90s?

It’s a former Israeli prime minister according to reports. Can’t remember his name.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I want to know the prime minister who Guiffre alleged attacked her. Probably not someone currently in politics. This was all in the 90s?

It’s a former Israeli prime minister according to reports. Can’t remember his name.

Shocker.

[Anonymous]

They're all awful, useless people who've caused great harm to others.

[Anonymous]

It's what the people want. Kings sometimes do that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:They're all awful, useless people who've caused great harm to others.

I don't know why Britain tolerates it. They pay for an old man with cancer to be trotted out to cut ribbons and shake hands while a young couple flies private to Mustique every few weeks. It's crazy to me.

And don't say "Oh, well, the royals bring in tourism." Countries with abolished monarchies - France, Italy, etc. - see just as much tourism as the UK. If anything they would probably get MORE tourism if the palaces these leeches live in were able to be shown off more to the public.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I want to know the prime minister who Guiffre alleged attacked her. Probably not someone currently in politics. This was all in the 90s?

It’s a former Israeli prime minister according to reports. Can’t remember his name.

Was his name ever mentioned?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I am so intrigued by the crazy royalist in this thread.

I’m getting Hyacinth Bucket vibes.

I haven’t seen any royalist, just you foaming at the mouth. I’m a republican in terms of favoring abolition of all monarchies, and am certainly to the left of you voting-wise. This specific fusty institution still enjoys relatively broad public support, but maybe there will be a referendum there.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I want to know the prime minister who Guiffre alleged attacked her. Probably not someone currently in politics. This was all in the 90s?

It’s a former Israeli prime minister according to reports. Can’t remember his name.

Was his name ever mentioned?

Ehud Barak was discussed on some podcasts. It matches and he’s involved very much in commentary on Israeli politics. This was the point in time when he and Clinton and people like George Mitchell would’ve been closely connected, and dumbasses like Trump and Andrew were busy partying alongside them.

[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.

You’re spinning out and perseverations and calling other people royalists. Wild.

The Guardian coverage notes that as PP wrote, he initiated the process, and noted that it was understood that the government was in alignment with this. It’s a positive thing. So you’re wicked pissed that he made a good decision.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They're all awful, useless people who've caused great harm to others.

I don't know why Britain tolerates it. They pay for an old man with cancer to be trotted out to cut ribbons and shake hands while a young couple flies private to Mustique every few weeks. It's crazy to me.

And don't say "Oh, well, the royals bring in tourism." Countries with abolished monarchies - France, Italy, etc. - see just as much tourism as the UK. If anything they would probably get MORE tourism if the palaces these leeches live in were able to be shown off more to the public.

It is the only thing that makes them a country. They have no written constitution. Their traditions are mostly centered around the monarchy. Could they drop them? Yes. But they would lose a piece of who they are and become Belgium or some other sad country trying to with no traditions and no core. I doubt that country survives more than a couple of years before it breaks up.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They're all awful, useless people who've caused great harm to others.

I don't know why Britain tolerates it. They pay for an old man with cancer to be trotted out to cut ribbons and shake hands while a young couple flies private to Mustique every few weeks. It's crazy to me.

And don't say "Oh, well, the royals bring in tourism." Countries with abolished monarchies - France, Italy, etc. - see just as much tourism as the UK. If anything they would probably get MORE tourism if the palaces these leeches live in were able to be shown off more to the public.

It is the only thing that makes them a country. They have no written constitution. Their traditions are mostly centered around the monarchy. Could they drop them? Yes. But they would lose a piece of who they are and become Belgium or some other sad country trying to with no traditions and no core. I doubt that country survives more than a couple of years before it breaks up.

People who live in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones. What right do we have to criticize their country? We have a convicted rapist for a president. And you want to pick apart their monarchy?