| Andrew leaving Royal Lodge 09:50 - Oct 27 with 1874 views | nrb1985 |
Sorry, I know Rory Stewart and others on the board don't like the ongoing Andrew "chat".
However, this appeared in the standard this morning:
https://www.standard.co.uk/news/royals/prince-andrew-fergie-royal-lodge-exit-fro
Can somebody more au fait with this type of thing explain how his ex wife, of 30 years now, is entitled to a free house still?! Surely she's just a private citizen and has been for three decades now?
Pair of absolutely shameless freeloaders. |  | | |  |
| Andrew leaving Royal Lodge on 18:55 - Oct 27 with 176 views | Axeldalai_lama |
| Andrew leaving Royal Lodge on 16:54 - Oct 27 by DarkBrandon |
But you aren't holding them to the same standards. You wouldn't have to publicly disclose the source of funds for any legal settlement you made. |
How about the same standards as us? Inheritance tax? Being talked about in parliament? Being exempt from freedom of information? Etc etc. |  | | |
| Andrew leaving Royal Lodge on 19:27 - Oct 27 with 140 views | Swansea_Blue |
| Andrew leaving Royal Lodge on 16:54 - Oct 27 by DarkBrandon |
But you aren't holding them to the same standards. You wouldn't have to publicly disclose the source of funds for any legal settlement you made. |
I was thinking more along the lines of if anyone of us here was accused of sexually abusing an underage girl, we would probably have our collars felt and wouldn’t be able to pay it off in a civil court to make the accusations go away. |  |
| |
| Andrew leaving Royal Lodge on 00:25 - Oct 28 with 61 views | ArnoldMoorhen |
I noted with interest that Frogmore Cottage, the place that it is suggested that Andrew may have to move to as a punishment, is the same house that Harry had to move to when he married a Black Woman. | | | |
| Andrew leaving Royal Lodge on 00:29 - Oct 28 with 58 views | ArnoldMoorhen |
| Andrew leaving Royal Lodge on 10:31 - Oct 27 by DarkBrandon |
ex-wife. Although they are now apparently back together.
Lets turn the question round.
Should Andrew be prevented from having a companion/partner of his choice living with him. |
I guess it depends on whether she has been groomed and sex trafficked at a young age. | | | |
| Andrew leaving Royal Lodge on 00:37 - Oct 28 with 54 views | ArnoldMoorhen |
| Andrew leaving Royal Lodge on 14:05 - Oct 27 by BlueBadger |
It's the old 'you can only care about one thing at a time' fallacy. Plus, why shouldn't we, as a nation, be concerned that a member of the institution which nominally heads the state has all sorts of dodgy associations? |
Do you remember when the Queen died, and we were told that "it wasn't the right time to question the Monarchy"?
And now it turns out that the King's brother definitely lied to the nation (which is a big deal, and not something which has had much focus) about having sex sessions with a convicted paedophile billionaire and multiple young women who may have been groomed and trafficked, including one who has been driven to suicide by the lies he told and the pressure he put on her, including possible illegal use of Police resources to do so. And so we are now being told that it will never be the right time for the relevant law enforcement agencies to question him about these allegations, and that it still isn't the right time to question the Monarchy.
So my question is: When is the right time for us to question the Monarchy? | | | |
| Andrew leaving Royal Lodge on 00:42 - Oct 28 with 51 views | ArnoldMoorhen |
| Andrew leaving Royal Lodge on 16:54 - Oct 27 by DarkBrandon |
But you aren't holding them to the same standards. You wouldn't have to publicly disclose the source of funds for any legal settlement you made. |
If you were accused of having sex with allegedly groomed and trafficked young women, you would have to answer the questions that Law Enforcement Agencies wanted to put to you about those events.
He isn't being held to those same standards. | | | |
| Andrew leaving Royal Lodge on 01:38 - Oct 28 with 29 views | Ryorry |
| Andrew leaving Royal Lodge on 11:58 - Oct 27 by Ftnfwest |
I think as it currently stands he's only a couple of years away from the point where he wouldn't get any 'refund' back from CE for the initial capital outlay on the refurbishments (25 years form when they were done?) It's really from that point that he would benefit from the real 'peppercorn' rent situation so at least he loses out on that. |
Not sure that's quite right.
I had a similar arrangement with an estate for total upfront renovation of one of their Grade 2 listed derelict houses; it was formally called a "repairing lease".
How it worked was that the total cost of the renovation was divided by the annual market rent for the property once renovated, the number of years of 'peppercorn' rent was calculated on that (and reviewed every 3 years or so, leading to a small rent rise every time). So, eg, £120k renovation costs :/: £1,000 rent/pcm would get you a 10 year repairing lease at a peppercorn rent.
The important thing is that at the end of the 20 year lease, I'd have then been charged a *market* level rent if I wanted to continue living there (I decided to leave).
Doing things that way isn't a cheap or freebie option, it's simply paying what the cost of a normal market rent for that property would be over a set period of time, in a lump sum upfront. In our case it suited both parties because I couldn't afford to both buy & renovate a house using non-toxic building materials (I was recovering from CO poisoning which had made me allergic to modern chemicals); and they got one of their potentially valuable properties saved from total collapse (2/3rds of the roof purlins were completely gone & there was a 2-foot snowfall 3 months later!) without them having to fork out from their funds. [Post edited 28 Oct 2:55]
|  |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
