| The a#hole formerly known as Prince. 19:06 - Oct 30 with 3287 views | catch74 |
Out of his home and lost his title.
Hopefully more to come for him. |  |
| |  |
| The a#hole formerly known as Prince. on 23:16 - Oct 30 with 675 views | ArnoldMoorhen |
| The a#hole formerly known as Prince. on 20:31 - Oct 30 by Guthrum |
Wow. The last time a royal peer was actually deprived of their titles was those who actively fought on the other side in the First World War (mostly German aristocrats who held British titles through marriage and family connections). |
You're forgetting King Edward VIII. He actually spied for the Germans in the run up to World War II.
He insisted on being given a tour of the French defensive fortifications and then gave the intel to a Nazi sympathiser:
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/royal-family/2022/03/20/edward-viii-helped-nazis-inv
Andrew's Great Uncle.
Oh, and the King's. |  | | |
| The a#hole formerly known as Prince. on 23:38 - Oct 30 with 629 views | Guthrum |
Edward wasn't deprived of his titles in the same way, but abdicated (albeit under considerable duress). Indeed he was created Duke of Windsor afterwards.
Duff Cooper's diaries give an interesting insight into the character of Edward as Prince of Wales and the set he ran with. A bit different to the public image of worthily visiting poor areas of Britain. |  |
| |
| The a#hole formerly known as Prince. on 23:43 - Oct 30 with 614 views | Guthrum |
| The a#hole formerly known as Prince. on 23:11 - Oct 30 by vapour_trail |
Privately, my arse. Hardly self made is he. |
Tho the Sandringham estate (like Balmoral) is a private possession of the monarch, as opposed to state residences like Buck House and Windsor Castle. Was bought by Queen Victoria for the then Prince of Wales (in an attempt to keep him out of trouble). | |
| |
| The a#hole formerly known as Prince. on 00:06 - Oct 31 with 578 views | BanksterDebtSlave |
Just imagine the uproar if he'd arrived on a boat. |  |
| |
| The a#hole formerly known as Prince. on 00:18 - Oct 31 with 556 views | Freddies_Ears |
But, to be fair, we did fight on the wrong side in WW1. Our natural and historic enemy was France, but we had to fight v Germany because of an historic treaty with Belgium. Possibly, the decision to take out Belgium was a massive miscalculation by the Kaiser. | | | |
| The a#hole formerly known as Prince. on 01:15 - Oct 31 with 529 views | Ryorry |
| The a#hole formerly known as Prince. on 20:46 - Oct 30 by Mookamoo |
That has to be a worry, that he will start pimping himself about to anyone that will pay.
They're looking for seasonal staff in our Tesco. Don't think he'll need a DBS check for that. |
A role encountering unaccompanied under-18s would be an issue I think? [Post edited 31 Oct 2:06]
|  |
| |
| The a#hole formerly known as Prince. on 05:53 - Oct 31 with 458 views | Swansea_Blue |
A man born in the wrong time. Think how far he could have got in the Reform hierarchy… |  |
| |
| The a#hole formerly known as Prince. on 07:25 - Oct 31 with 402 views | The_Flashing_Smile |
| The a#hole formerly known as Prince. on 20:31 - Oct 30 by Zx1988 |
And his kids getting to keep their titles.
I'm in two minds on that, but it does feel that they're only Princesses on the basis that Daddy was a Prince... |
Every single royal is a royal on the basis of one of their parents being one... |  |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| The a#hole formerly known as Prince. on 08:03 - Oct 31 with 356 views | vapour_trail |
| The a#hole formerly known as Prince. on 07:25 - Oct 31 by The_Flashing_Smile |
Every single royal is a royal on the basis of one of their parents being one... |
The queen isn’t. |  |
| |
| The a#hole formerly known as Prince. on 08:27 - Oct 31 with 327 views | belgablue |
Must be a pretty humiliating and severe punishment for him, being exiled to Norfolk. |  |
| |
| The a#hole formerly known as Prince. on 08:32 - Oct 31 with 320 views | Zx1988 |
I've seen suggestions in a couple of places that the removal of all his styles, titles, and privileges could well be a prelude to making him more-easily prosecutable.
Oh yes please! | |
| |
| The a#hole formerly known as Prince. on 08:43 - Oct 31 with 303 views | C_HealyIsAPleasure |
| The a#hole formerly known as Prince. on 00:06 - Oct 31 by BanksterDebtSlave |
Just imagine the uproar if he'd arrived on a boat. |
Fair point, there has definitely been a lack of uproar about Andrew |  |
| |
| The a#hole formerly known as Prince. on 09:26 - Oct 31 with 250 views | Radlett_blue |
| The a#hole formerly known as Prince. on 08:32 - Oct 31 by Zx1988 |
I've seen suggestions in a couple of places that the removal of all his styles, titles, and privileges could well be a prelude to making him more-easily prosecutable.
Oh yes please! |
While Andrew is and has always been an arse, with what offence do you think he might successfully be prosecuted? The victim and the prime perpetrator are dead.
Any more moves, such as a hugely damaging court case, would be heavily resisted by the establishment, which has protected Andrew for over 20 years. I'm already nauseated by the usual royal toadies, such as Dimbleby, falling over themselves to congratulate Charles for "acting so decisively". |  |
| |
| The a#hole formerly known as Prince. on 09:36 - Oct 31 with 232 views | Ryorry |
| The a#hole formerly known as Prince. on 08:27 - Oct 31 by belgablue |
Must be a pretty humiliating and severe punishment for him, being exiled to Norfolk. |
Oh I dunno, might fit right in - 'nfn'?! ... [Post edited 31 Oct 9:45]
| |
| |
| The a#hole formerly known as Prince. on 09:38 - Oct 31 with 229 views | hype313 |
| The a#hole formerly known as Prince. on 19:11 - Oct 30 by SitfcB |
|
I'm not sure having Mountbatten in your name is ideal either..... |  |
| |
| The a#hole formerly known as Prince. on 09:44 - Oct 31 with 214 views | Zx1988 |
| The a#hole formerly known as Prince. on 09:26 - Oct 31 by Radlett_blue |
While Andrew is and has always been an arse, with what offence do you think he might successfully be prosecuted? The victim and the prime perpetrator are dead.
Any more moves, such as a hugely damaging court case, would be heavily resisted by the establishment, which has protected Andrew for over 20 years. I'm already nauseated by the usual royal toadies, such as Dimbleby, falling over themselves to congratulate Charles for "acting so decisively". |
Yes, good point.
Absolutely agree with you regarding the reaction to this. Charles has acted anything but decisively, and the Royals have only decided to be stern/sorry on this now that Charles is getting heckled in public. | |
| |
| The a#hole formerly known as Prince. on 09:51 - Oct 31 with 202 views | BloomBlue |
| The a#hole formerly known as Prince. on 09:26 - Oct 31 by Radlett_blue |
While Andrew is and has always been an arse, with what offence do you think he might successfully be prosecuted? The victim and the prime perpetrator are dead.
Any more moves, such as a hugely damaging court case, would be heavily resisted by the establishment, which has protected Andrew for over 20 years. I'm already nauseated by the usual royal toadies, such as Dimbleby, falling over themselves to congratulate Charles for "acting so decisively". |
I think the point is more about, he must have the names of others who were at Epstein 'gatherings'. Actually Fergie (Sarah, not Sir Alex) should gave more info because she has known Epstein longer than Andrew.
He should go into a court and either be found guilty or not guilty based on evidence.
Hard to know how that would go. Michael Jackson paid out of court private settlements when he was rodgering underaged boys, sorry was innocently sleeping with them. Then that eventually still went to trial and he was found not guilty. Ok the thought was, like OJ Simpson, it was his fame that swung that verdict. But he similarly paid off people initially, and people went that must mean he's guilty. Plus I'm not sure how that would work in practice with Andrew, the MET police investigated and closed the case in 2021 because there wasn't any actual evidence.
But still Andrew should go into a court room, and let a trial decide. |  | | |
| The a#hole formerly known as Prince. on 09:55 - Oct 31 with 198 views | Radlett_blue |
| The a#hole formerly known as Prince. on 09:51 - Oct 31 by BloomBlue |
I think the point is more about, he must have the names of others who were at Epstein 'gatherings'. Actually Fergie (Sarah, not Sir Alex) should gave more info because she has known Epstein longer than Andrew.
He should go into a court and either be found guilty or not guilty based on evidence.
Hard to know how that would go. Michael Jackson paid out of court private settlements when he was rodgering underaged boys, sorry was innocently sleeping with them. Then that eventually still went to trial and he was found not guilty. Ok the thought was, like OJ Simpson, it was his fame that swung that verdict. But he similarly paid off people initially, and people went that must mean he's guilty. Plus I'm not sure how that would work in practice with Andrew, the MET police investigated and closed the case in 2021 because there wasn't any actual evidence.
But still Andrew should go into a court room, and let a trial decide. |
Decide what? Giuffre was 17 at the time when she didn't meet Andrew & that's perfectly legal in the UK.
No chance of Andrew being seen in the USA again, where he could conceivably have been charged. | |
| |
| The a#hole formerly known as Prince. on 09:58 - Oct 31 with 194 views | Mookamoo |
| The a#hole formerly known as Prince. on 09:26 - Oct 31 by Radlett_blue |
While Andrew is and has always been an arse, with what offence do you think he might successfully be prosecuted? The victim and the prime perpetrator are dead.
Any more moves, such as a hugely damaging court case, would be heavily resisted by the establishment, which has protected Andrew for over 20 years. I'm already nauseated by the usual royal toadies, such as Dimbleby, falling over themselves to congratulate Charles for "acting so decisively". |
That assumes there was only one victim.
They are rapidly distancing themselves from him suggesting there is evidence out there they're struggling to keep a lid on. |  | | |
| The a#hole formerly known as Prince. on 10:09 - Oct 31 with 173 views | Ryorry |
| The a#hole formerly known as Prince. on 09:58 - Oct 31 by Mookamoo |
That assumes there was only one victim.
They are rapidly distancing themselves from him suggesting there is evidence out there they're struggling to keep a lid on. |
I have a hazy memory from TV documentary that there were several younger ones.
Not to mention that they were lured to the island under false pretences (so, entrapment) and then kept there against their will (false imprisonment). Which iirc played a part in G. Maxwell’s conviction. | |
| |
| The a#hole formerly known as Prince. on 10:12 - Oct 31 with 168 views | Zx1988 |
| The a#hole formerly known as Prince. on 09:58 - Oct 31 by Mookamoo |
That assumes there was only one victim.
They are rapidly distancing themselves from him suggesting there is evidence out there they're struggling to keep a lid on. |
That's what I'm inclined to think.
A mixture of the fact that this is clearly not going away, and the constant drip-feed of additional information, suggests that they've cut ties now as a pretty futile act of damage limitation. | |
| |
| The a#hole formerly known as Prince. on 10:14 - Oct 31 with 162 views | BloomBlue |
| The a#hole formerly known as Prince. on 09:55 - Oct 31 by Radlett_blue |
Decide what? Giuffre was 17 at the time when she didn't meet Andrew & that's perfectly legal in the UK.
No chance of Andrew being seen in the USA again, where he could conceivably have been charged. |
But I thought is wasn't about the age of consent as such, as that's 16 (in most states) in the USA.
I thought the point was she didnt consent, irrelevant of age, which is also against UK law. I believe (I could be wrong) if they have sufficient evidence the USA can request extradition.
Now I admit that would require many hurdles to be jumped. | | | |
| The a#hole formerly known as Prince. on 10:17 - Oct 31 with 157 views | Ryorry |
| The a#hole formerly known as Prince. on 10:12 - Oct 31 by Zx1988 |
That's what I'm inclined to think.
A mixture of the fact that this is clearly not going away, and the constant drip-feed of additional information, suggests that they've cut ties now as a pretty futile act of damage limitation. |
The docu I mentioned above contained eyewitness testimony from a couple of the girls who were still very much alive. | |
| |
| The a#hole formerly known as Prince. on 10:35 - Oct 31 with 132 views | The_Flashing_Smile |
| The a#hole formerly known as Prince. on 08:03 - Oct 31 by vapour_trail |
The queen isn’t. |
Pedantic. I was thinking of the 'proper' royals, but I guess yes you can be one by marrying one.
My point still stands, none of them do anything to 'earn' it as such. There's nothing different or special about Andrew's kids. | |
| |
| The a#hole formerly known as Prince. on 10:36 - Oct 31 with 134 views | Radlett_blue |
| The a#hole formerly known as Prince. on 10:14 - Oct 31 by BloomBlue |
But I thought is wasn't about the age of consent as such, as that's 16 (in most states) in the USA.
I thought the point was she didnt consent, irrelevant of age, which is also against UK law. I believe (I could be wrong) if they have sufficient evidence the USA can request extradition.
Now I admit that would require many hurdles to be jumped. |
In Florida, the age of consent is 18, hence Epstein's criminal conviction. However, Giuffre's liaisons with Andrew were (allegedly) in London, New York & the US virgin Islands. Andrew chose to steer well clear of the USA once the balloon went up. The possibility of Andrew being extradited to the USA is between slim & zero.
Proving non-consent in the UK is hard enough even when the plaintiff is alive so this is a non-starter. | |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
