I've seen what happens when a large beautiful estate is left to multiple children, who end up estranged because some won't pay taxes and others end up covering it for awhile, only to lose it to a deep-pocketed billionaire like Zuckerberg for their compound.

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.

Not really. I come from a country with very unequal inheritance distributions. As long as it’s clear and you know what to expect early it’s not bad. Also if tradition dictates it, you know not to take it personal.

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

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.

I don’t question this method of inheritance. Equal division is what I plan to do, however….

Case A: me. I have no historic estate to maintain. My kids can liquidate my home, assets and it’s all equally given in a trust.

Case B: someone who needs to maintain a historic title and estate - they must keep it intact by giving most of it to one heir

Case C: my friend inherited an equal 1/5 of a massive and historically owned ranch. Do you know how much coordination and craziness it is to keep them all on the same page? No one wants to break it up, but the ones who don’t want to participate… they sort of force the participants to do their work. It’s weird. Decisions? Unanimity not always working. In the next generation, how will it go?? I hope they never sell and develop; it’s beautiful land.

The Royals are not like me (A). And it would be insane to try equal division while holding it together (C).

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.

Belgium has a monarchy too.

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.

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

I’m getting Hyacinth Bucket vibes.

NP. There was a thread a few days ago where the crazy royalist said they were MAGA, and also that pedophila was wrong but ephebophilia (sexual preference for adolescents) was OK. I really wish I were making that up.

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.

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?

Israel prime minister Ehud Barak, in office
July 6, 1999 –March 7, 2001

Anonymous wrote:https://www.cnn.com/2025/10/30/europe/prince-andrew-title-and-honors-remove-latam-intl
Finally a reckoning.

Unconscionable that our "royal" president is getting away with his Epstein orgies because Johnson has no guts and covers for trump.

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.

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

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.

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?

I think the show The Crown was taken literally and/or seen as a documentary - rather than a dramatized version of the truth - by many viewers in America and has hurt the image of the royal family. They are certainly flawed but some people here seem to take it personally or at least too seriously. I also think that Queen Elizabeth kept it somewhat more legit but now that Charles is king the gravitas or what have you is lost.

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?

+1