King Charles strips Andrew’s prince title

[Anonymous]

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.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This is an unprecedented move, can't think back to when a child of a monarch was stripped of titles due to him by birth. As PP pointed out, Charles found a way to do it working with parliamentary authorities. But despite being unprecedented, it does show the monarchy's ability to evolve and move with the times. Charles has always wanted a slimmed down royal family so wouldn't be surprised to see further restrictions on princely titles for future generations.

-- neither a royalist nor republican.

Well said.

[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.

I take this reporting to mean that Charles has told Parliament: I want you to go ahead with this, please do it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Reports are surfacing that Charles paid Andrew millions to buy him out. Andrew will be going to a smaller house on Charles' private estate of Sandringham, so at least it's not Crown Estate again, but still.

The Windsors may be hoping this averts a Met Police or parliamentary inquiry into Andrew, Andrew's finances, and who knew what, when. But Brits don't appear mollified. As this guy says, "Today, it didn’t end the crisis. It just moved the prisoner to a different cell." https://theroyalist.substack.com/p/virgina-giuffre-is-why-king-charles

I agree. This is a performative effort to save face. But they've shielded this creep from consequences for decades.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Reports are surfacing that Charles paid Andrew millions to buy him out. Andrew will be going to a smaller house on Charles' private estate of Sandringham, so at least it's not Crown Estate again, but still.

The Windsors may be hoping this averts a Met Police or parliamentary inquiry into Andrew, Andrew's finances, and who knew what, when. But Brits don't appear mollified. As this guy says, "Today, it didn’t end the crisis. It just moved the prisoner to a different cell." https://theroyalist.substack.com/p/virgina-giuffre-is-why-king-charles

I agree. This is a performative effort to save face. But they've shielded this creep from consequences for decades.

Whatever he did must have been horrible. Even worse than what we're hearing about.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Reports are surfacing that Charles paid Andrew millions to buy him out. Andrew will be going to a smaller house on Charles' private estate of Sandringham, so at least it's not Crown Estate again, but still.

The Windsors may be hoping this averts a Met Police or parliamentary inquiry into Andrew, Andrew's finances, and who knew what, when. But Brits don't appear mollified. As this guy says, "Today, it didn’t end the crisis. It just moved the prisoner to a different cell." https://theroyalist.substack.com/p/virgina-giuffre-is-why-king-charles

I agree. This is a performative effort to save face. But they've shielded this creep from consequences for decades.

At

Stripping him of his titles and moving him is not enough. He is an embarrassment to the BRF and the British nation. He engaged sex with trafficked teenagers, was BFF was sex traffickers even after it was well known that they were doing, and took gifts in exchange for access to the BRF and his connections.

The only positive is that he’s made Harry and Meghan look like saints!

[Anonymous]

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.

Yeah, back then his nickname was Randy Andy.

When I read that he has a bunch of teddy bears on his bed that have to be arranged just so--what a tool.

Sarah is also despicable.

Sarah and Andrew remind me of the aristocratic ex-lovers in Les Liaisons Dangereuses or Portrait of a Lady. They scheme together to get things from others. They aren't together but are faithful only to each other. Neither has had a significant relationship in all these years. They're not after relationships, they just want to use people. Their relationship is weird and decadent and the Epstein association makes so much sense--someone to use for their pecadillos. They were also being used. They got gifts and money from others too. I'm sure there are other disreputable things that they've done that are buried.

Reminds me of Epstein and Maxwell.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This is an unprecedented move, can't think back to when a child of a monarch was stripped of titles due to him by birth. As PP pointed out, Charles found a way to do it working with parliamentary authorities. But despite being unprecedented, it does show the monarchy's ability to evolve and move with the times. Charles has always wanted a slimmed down royal family so wouldn't be surprised to see further restrictions on princely titles for future generations.

-- neither a royalist nor republican.

The Swedish and Danish monarchies have already removed HRH titles from any grandchildren that are not descendants of the crown prince/princess. And those are families with no public history of bad blood or poor behavior.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Reports are surfacing that Charles paid Andrew millions to buy him out. Andrew will be going to a smaller house on Charles' private estate of Sandringham, so at least it's not Crown Estate again, but still.

The Windsors may be hoping this averts a Met Police or parliamentary inquiry into Andrew, Andrew's finances, and who knew what, when. But Brits don't appear mollified. As this guy says, "Today, it didn’t end the crisis. It just moved the prisoner to a different cell." https://theroyalist.substack.com/p/virgina-giuffre-is-why-king-charles

I agree. This is a performative effort to save face. But they've shielded this creep from consequences for decades.

Andrew was protected by his mother’s blind devotion.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Andy’s only got like 5 mil. I got 5 mil. Dude is broke

Andrew is obviously the worst but there is also something grotesque about one of your children inheriting a billion dollars and the others a few million.

Andrew should write a book and take his five-million dollars and move to a lower COLA in the world. But, he has to tell it all

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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?

DP but yes? Their monarchy is predicated on the fact that one family has been ordained by God to rule over the little people. They think snipping ribbons at children's hospitals once a month counts as a "job."

Don't mistake this for King Charles being a better leader than Trump. He's been king for three years and didn't do this until Virginia Giuffre killed herself and then it was leaked that Andrew used his power to harass and intimidate her. If it were really important to him, it would've happened much sooner.

Multiple things can be true. America can be in horrific shape right now while England is being led by a family of royal a-holes.

[Anonymous]

Why aren’t the British public out in the streets questioning the need to spend their tax monies on a family of unelected pedophiles and grifters?

[Anonymous]

I totally agree with this move.

That said Charles allegedly promised QEII to protect Andrew in exchange for supporting Camilla becoming Queen consort. So it’s kind of remarkable that he consistently does not keep his commitments to people he is supposed to love except Camilla.

Does Fergie also loser her titles too? Or is she the Duchess of York while Andrew is now nothing?

[Anonymous]

NO KINGS !!!!!!!!!!!!

[Anonymous]

Fergie lost her title as well and supposedly has to find her own living arrangements according to news reports I've read or seen. Their daughters are getting to keep the Princess titles at least for now as grandchildren of QEII.