King Charles strips Andrew’s prince title

[Anonymous]

I like to think about what Andrew is up to today. Probably lots of yelling and pacing around the house. Talking to his teddy bears.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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!

There is no positive to pedophilia.

Oh look, it’s the “ephebophillia is totally fine” poster again.

[Anonymous]

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.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:But what really could the Royals do if he continued to use the title? It’s not like they’d engage in a scandalous lawsuit against one of their own? This shows why a monarchy is so silly in this day and age. They are a joke with these “titles” which are meaningless outside of their fantasy bubble.

Why would he do that? His and Sarah's best strategy is to retire quietly and allow his daughters and grandchildren to live their lives without further scandal. That is what I would expect from them.

I agree but I’m wondering if there’s any REAL consequence if he defied them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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!

There is no positive to pedophilia.

Oh look, it’s the “ephebophillia is totally fine” poster again.

To be fair, different countries and areas have different laws about what is considered the age of consent. It is not the same as attraction to prepubescent children, which is a psychiatric disorder.

Not standing up for this kind of behavior, but different communities make different laws about what they consider appropriate and legal. We could make laws changing the age of consent to 21 if we had enough support to do that as a society. The laws about age of consent tend to reflect the beliefs of that society.

[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.

im pretty sure Belgium has a king.

[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.

100% this. I was really surprised to see how much the royal family is really part of the structure there.

[Anonymous]

He should bug off to Thailand or Dubai or some place and just keep a low profile.

[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.

100% this. I was really surprised to see how much the royal family is really part of the structure there.

Pretty sure Scotland and Wales would be happy to get rid of them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:He should bug off to Thailand or Dubai or some place and just keep a low profile.

He could have all the underage girls he wanted there.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:But what really could the Royals do if he continued to use the title? It’s not like they’d engage in a scandalous lawsuit against one of their own? This shows why a monarchy is so silly in this day and age. They are a joke with these “titles” which are meaningless outside of their fantasy bubble.

Why would he do that? His and Sarah's best strategy is to retire quietly and allow his daughters and grandchildren to live their lives without further scandal. That is what I would expect from them.

I predict they won't be quiet. They can't help themselves. I predict interviews with more embarrassing statements and more stupid decisions even in their isolation. Andrew is the definition of a twit. He has no sense whatsoever. Sarah is also a dolt.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:He should bug off to Thailand or Dubai or some place and just keep a low profile.

He could have all the underage girls he wanted there.

Was Guiffre underage? She was 17 and age of consent in UK is 16.

[Anonymous]

They are clearly getting ahead of the news. Whatever is about to come out must be really bad.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:He should bug off to Thailand or Dubai or some place and just keep a low profile.

Just shut up. No, he shouldn’t travel to where he can rape kids. Yes, he’s a pedophile.

No more essays about how 16 is ok, please, guys. Do none of you have ethics, compassion, or daughters?

[Anonymous]

Maybe the police are gonna pick him up so Charles knows Andy won’t be crashing at Sandringham in any event. “sure, bro, come stay on the estate. Whoops, psych, the cops are here. Right, off you go.”