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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.