| Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor arrested on 12:47 - Feb 19 with 712 views | bluelagos |
| Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor arrested on 11:38 - Feb 19 by Radlett_blue |
Giuffre was above the UK age of consent so Andrew had not committed an offence in the UK. He was never going to go to a US court. |
But under the age of consent in Florida. Presumably would need the US plod to persue his nonce like behaviour before he was in serious danger of getting done for rape. |  |
|  |
| Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor arrested on 12:49 - Feb 19 with 683 views | lowhouseblue |
| Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor arrested on 12:47 - Feb 19 by bluelagos |
But under the age of consent in Florida. Presumably would need the US plod to persue his nonce like behaviour before he was in serious danger of getting done for rape. |
and the us plod would need evidence that would convince a court. the pictures and emails so far released are not that. |  |
| And so as the loose-bowelled pigeon of time swoops low over the unsuspecting tourist of destiny, and the flatulent skunk of fate wanders into the air-conditioning system of eternity, I notice it's the end of the show |
| |
| Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor arrested on 12:55 - Feb 19 with 648 views | bluelagos |
| Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor arrested on 12:45 - Feb 19 by Radlett_blue |
Probably because there is no evidence that he did the latter? |
There may well be plenty of evidence.
They will be able show if he visited the Island.at the time of VGs allegations. There is her evidence. There may be other witnesses.
The evidence may not be enough for a prosecution but anyone saying there is no evidence is as a minimum dismissing VGs evidence which was made in court depositions made under oath. | |
| |
| Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor arrested on 12:56 - Feb 19 with 634 views | Radlett_blue |
| Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor arrested on 12:55 - Feb 19 by bluelagos |
There may well be plenty of evidence.
They will be able show if he visited the Island.at the time of VGs allegations. There is her evidence. There may be other witnesses.
The evidence may not be enough for a prosecution but anyone saying there is no evidence is as a minimum dismissing VGs evidence which was made in court depositions made under oath. |
Andrew may have broken US law, but the chance of him ever going to America to face charges or "co-operate" is less than zero. |  |
| |
| Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor arrested on 13:02 - Feb 19 with 610 views | bluelagos |
| Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor arrested on 12:56 - Feb 19 by Radlett_blue |
Andrew may have broken US law, but the chance of him ever going to America to face charges or "co-operate" is less than zero. |
Inclined to agree tbh | |
| |
| Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor arrested on 13:02 - Feb 19 with 605 views | lowhouseblue |
| Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor arrested on 12:55 - Feb 19 by bluelagos |
There may well be plenty of evidence.
They will be able show if he visited the Island.at the time of VGs allegations. There is her evidence. There may be other witnesses.
The evidence may not be enough for a prosecution but anyone saying there is no evidence is as a minimum dismissing VGs evidence which was made in court depositions made under oath. |
the best chance of getting evidence against andrew is to get him the witness box. if the misconduct in public office charge includes elements of sexual misconduct then more stuff may emerge. or he might just perjure himself. | |
| And so as the loose-bowelled pigeon of time swoops low over the unsuspecting tourist of destiny, and the flatulent skunk of fate wanders into the air-conditioning system of eternity, I notice it's the end of the show |
| |
| Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor arrested on 13:45 - Feb 19 with 553 views | Guthrum |
| Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor arrested on 12:47 - Feb 19 by bluelagos |
But under the age of consent in Florida. Presumably would need the US plod to persue his nonce like behaviour before he was in serious danger of getting done for rape. |
Not particularly severe danger. There is no extradition treaty between the USA and the UK. Dealt with on a case-by-case basis. They have never been particularly keen on sending suspects in this direction, so we don't necessarily go the other way, either. |  |
| |
| Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor arrested on 13:58 - Feb 19 with 526 views | DJR |
I mentioned that I don't like to comment on police investigations but that was really concerning the substance.
I came across this on the Guardian website and wonder if anyone can spot what's wrong with this.
"The arrest of Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor is “seismic” and has left senior royals in “unchartered waters”, a royal commentator has told the Press Association." [Post edited 19 Feb 13:59]
|  | | |
Login to get fewer ads
| Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor arrested on 14:08 - Feb 19 with 504 views | grow_our_own |
| Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor arrested on 12:06 - Feb 19 by Guthrum |
While technically exempt from tax, I assume he's continued his mother's arrangement of voluntarily paying it on private income (as opposed to the Sovereign Support Grant).
Witholding Royal Consent for legislation passed by Parliament would trigger a huge constitutional crisis. That is, however, separate from his ability to influence and even insert opt-outs to certain laws. Which has happened. |
Yes Royal Assent is different from King's Consent. Consent comes before laws ever reach parliament, whereas Assent is, as you say, a rubber stamp on laws the legislature has passed. Indeed denying Assent would be highly visible because we know which laws our elected reps have passed. Conversely, we can't find out when Royal Consent has been used to reject or shape upcoming laws because there's zero accountability nor transparency of this. But hey, "magic" and "tourism", so let's not worry our little heads. [Post edited 19 Feb 14:19]
|  | | |
| Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor arrested on 14:10 - Feb 19 with 501 views | baxterbasics |
| Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor arrested on 13:58 - Feb 19 by DJR |
I mentioned that I don't like to comment on police investigations but that was really concerning the substance.
I came across this on the Guardian website and wonder if anyone can spot what's wrong with this.
"The arrest of Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor is “seismic” and has left senior royals in “unchartered waters”, a royal commentator has told the Press Association." [Post edited 19 Feb 13:59]
|
I just made an AI query and results were interesting:
Prior to the arrest of Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor on February 19, 2026, the last time a senior member of the British Royal Family was formally arrested and detained by authorities was in 1647, when King Charles I was seized by Parliamentary forces during the English Civil War.
While some contemporary royals have appeared in court or received criminal convictions, they were not arrested or held in police custody:
Princess Anne (2002): The Princess Royal became the first member of the modern Royal Family to receive a criminal record. She pleaded guilty at Slough Magistrates' Court to a charge under the Dangerous Dogs Act after her bull terrier, Dotty, bit two children in Windsor Great Park. She was fined £500 but was not arrested or detained during the proceedings.
Princess Anne (2001): She was convicted of speeding and fined £400 after driving at 93 mph in a 70 mph zone, though this did not involve an arrest.
Elizabeth Tudor (1554): In another historical precedent for a monarch's sibling, the future Queen Elizabeth I was arrested and imprisoned in the Tower of London by her sister, Queen Mary I, on suspicion of involvement in the Wyatt Rebellion.
The February 2026 detention of Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor at the Sandringham Estate on suspicion of misconduct in public office is widely cited by historians as an unprecedented event in modern British history.
(OP edit: didn't realise Princess Anne was such a wrong'un!  ) [Post edited 19 Feb 14:13]
|  |
| |
| Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor arrested on 14:14 - Feb 19 with 477 views | grow_our_own |
| Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor arrested on 12:06 - Feb 19 by Guthrum |
While technically exempt from tax, I assume he's continued his mother's arrangement of voluntarily paying it on private income (as opposed to the Sovereign Support Grant).
Witholding Royal Consent for legislation passed by Parliament would trigger a huge constitutional crisis. That is, however, separate from his ability to influence and even insert opt-outs to certain laws. Which has happened. |
Yes, Charles volunteers income tax only. How generous of him. Much of that income is from his property company, the Duchy of Lancaster, which unlike its competitors pays zero corporation tax. Hence we give it an unfair advantage. He just inherited around a billion from his mum tax-free. "some animals are more equal than others" [Post edited 19 Feb 14:22]
| | | |
| Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor arrested on 14:35 - Feb 19 with 426 views | Radlett_blue |
| Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor arrested on 14:10 - Feb 19 by baxterbasics |
I just made an AI query and results were interesting:
Prior to the arrest of Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor on February 19, 2026, the last time a senior member of the British Royal Family was formally arrested and detained by authorities was in 1647, when King Charles I was seized by Parliamentary forces during the English Civil War.
While some contemporary royals have appeared in court or received criminal convictions, they were not arrested or held in police custody:
Princess Anne (2002): The Princess Royal became the first member of the modern Royal Family to receive a criminal record. She pleaded guilty at Slough Magistrates' Court to a charge under the Dangerous Dogs Act after her bull terrier, Dotty, bit two children in Windsor Great Park. She was fined £500 but was not arrested or detained during the proceedings.
Princess Anne (2001): She was convicted of speeding and fined £400 after driving at 93 mph in a 70 mph zone, though this did not involve an arrest.
Elizabeth Tudor (1554): In another historical precedent for a monarch's sibling, the future Queen Elizabeth I was arrested and imprisoned in the Tower of London by her sister, Queen Mary I, on suspicion of involvement in the Wyatt Rebellion.
The February 2026 detention of Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor at the Sandringham Estate on suspicion of misconduct in public office is widely cited by historians as an unprecedented event in modern British history.
(OP edit: didn't realise Princess Anne was such a wrong'un! ) [Post edited 19 Feb 14:13]
|
Princes Anne has a considerable history of speeding offences, going back at least to 1972 when she received a "written warning" (how tough we are on these royals).a 96mph offence in 1977 and a 93mph in 2001. I think she should be deported to Saxe-Coburg-Gotha. | |
| |
| Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor arrested on 14:35 - Feb 19 with 426 views | DJR |
| Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor arrested on 14:10 - Feb 19 by baxterbasics |
I just made an AI query and results were interesting:
Prior to the arrest of Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor on February 19, 2026, the last time a senior member of the British Royal Family was formally arrested and detained by authorities was in 1647, when King Charles I was seized by Parliamentary forces during the English Civil War.
While some contemporary royals have appeared in court or received criminal convictions, they were not arrested or held in police custody:
Princess Anne (2002): The Princess Royal became the first member of the modern Royal Family to receive a criminal record. She pleaded guilty at Slough Magistrates' Court to a charge under the Dangerous Dogs Act after her bull terrier, Dotty, bit two children in Windsor Great Park. She was fined £500 but was not arrested or detained during the proceedings.
Princess Anne (2001): She was convicted of speeding and fined £400 after driving at 93 mph in a 70 mph zone, though this did not involve an arrest.
Elizabeth Tudor (1554): In another historical precedent for a monarch's sibling, the future Queen Elizabeth I was arrested and imprisoned in the Tower of London by her sister, Queen Mary I, on suspicion of involvement in the Wyatt Rebellion.
The February 2026 detention of Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor at the Sandringham Estate on suspicion of misconduct in public office is widely cited by historians as an unprecedented event in modern British history.
(OP edit: didn't realise Princess Anne was such a wrong'un! ) [Post edited 19 Feb 14:13]
|
Sorry, it's not quite as complex as that.
The correct term is "uncharted waters" not "unchartered waters".
I think it's a common mistake, and if the Guardian is accurately quoting what was said, they haven't corrected it either.
I heard a BBC interviewer today also using the incorrect term, and I remember using the term myself some 40 years ago only to be corrected by a friend of mine who was training to be a Chartered Accountant.
Chartered has three meanings.
a chartered organization has an official charter that allows it to operate
having the necessary qualifications to do a particular job:
rented for a particular purpose
Perhaps the confusion is caused by the fact that it is possible to charter a boat.
[Post edited 19 Feb 14:41]
| | | |
| Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor arrested on 15:11 - Feb 19 with 361 views | WeWereZombies |
| Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor arrested on 14:35 - Feb 19 by DJR |
Sorry, it's not quite as complex as that.
The correct term is "uncharted waters" not "unchartered waters".
I think it's a common mistake, and if the Guardian is accurately quoting what was said, they haven't corrected it either.
I heard a BBC interviewer today also using the incorrect term, and I remember using the term myself some 40 years ago only to be corrected by a friend of mine who was training to be a Chartered Accountant.
Chartered has three meanings.
a chartered organization has an official charter that allows it to operate
having the necessary qualifications to do a particular job:
rented for a particular purpose
Perhaps the confusion is caused by the fact that it is possible to charter a boat.
[Post edited 19 Feb 14:41]
|
'rented for a particular purpose' - but that is what this Mountbatten-Windsor bloke is supposed to have made an arrangement with Epstein about... |  |
| |
| Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor arrested on 15:13 - Feb 19 with 350 views | Keno |
| Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor arrested on 14:35 - Feb 19 by DJR |
Sorry, it's not quite as complex as that.
The correct term is "uncharted waters" not "unchartered waters".
I think it's a common mistake, and if the Guardian is accurately quoting what was said, they haven't corrected it either.
I heard a BBC interviewer today also using the incorrect term, and I remember using the term myself some 40 years ago only to be corrected by a friend of mine who was training to be a Chartered Accountant.
Chartered has three meanings.
a chartered organization has an official charter that allows it to operate
having the necessary qualifications to do a particular job:
rented for a particular purpose
Perhaps the confusion is caused by the fact that it is possible to charter a boat.
[Post edited 19 Feb 14:41]
|
**ahem**
some individuals also have chartered status within the professions |  |
| |
| Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor arrested on 15:20 - Feb 19 with 320 views | redrickstuhaart |
| Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor arrested on 14:08 - Feb 19 by grow_our_own |
Yes Royal Assent is different from King's Consent. Consent comes before laws ever reach parliament, whereas Assent is, as you say, a rubber stamp on laws the legislature has passed. Indeed denying Assent would be highly visible because we know which laws our elected reps have passed. Conversely, we can't find out when Royal Consent has been used to reject or shape upcoming laws because there's zero accountability nor transparency of this. But hey, "magic" and "tourism", so let's not worry our little heads. [Post edited 19 Feb 14:19]
|
Not really accurate.
The King has no real say in the laws made, under our constitution. Its largely symbolic. | |
| |
| Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor arrested on 15:44 - Feb 19 with 278 views | DJR |
| Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor arrested on 15:20 - Feb 19 by redrickstuhaart |
Not really accurate.
The King has no real say in the laws made, under our constitution. Its largely symbolic. |
Maybe it will all change if he stages a military coup. | | | |
| Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor arrested on 16:03 - Feb 19 with 256 views | Xatticus |
| Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor arrested on 12:45 - Feb 19 by Radlett_blue |
Probably because there is no evidence that he did the latter? |
You do not know this, so why chime in?
We know that she made an accusation. We know that he denied ever knowing her. We know that her story was corroborated by evidence and that evidence proved him a liar. We know he settled out of court. | | | |
| Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor arrested on 16:08 - Feb 19 with 240 views | Cheltenham_Blue |
| Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor arrested on 12:45 - Feb 19 by Radlett_blue |
Probably because there is no evidence that he did the latter? |
And who's left to testify against him? |  |
| |
| Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor arrested on 16:22 - Feb 19 with 213 views | Zx1988 |
| Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor arrested on 15:20 - Feb 19 by redrickstuhaart |
Not really accurate.
The King has no real say in the laws made, under our constitution. Its largely symbolic. |
He has an incredible amount of sway:
https://www.theguardian.com/uk
According to the explainer within the article, it's all on an official basis as well. If a law will impact the Royal Prerogative, or any asset of the Crown, Monarch's Consent must be sought. [Post edited 19 Feb 16:25]
| |
| |
| Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor arrested on 16:27 - Feb 19 with 197 views | grow_our_own |
| Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor arrested on 15:20 - Feb 19 by redrickstuhaart |
Not really accurate.
The King has no real say in the laws made, under our constitution. Its largely symbolic. |
It's 100% accurate. I think you're confusing post-law Assent with pre-law Consent. Here's the Queen denying her Consent for parliament to discuss removing her immunity from prosecution:
https://api.parliament.uk/hist
""
Speaker: The Queen's consent has not been obtained. Therefore, I cannot propose the Question.
""
Vetoed.
Usually it's ministers who approach the King to seek his Consent before "relevant" proceedings, not the other way around. But parliament rules require them to "err on the side of caution" (whatever that means), per 4.19: https://www.gov.uk/government/
Consent period is "never less than 14 days" - see clause 1.10: https://assets.publishing.serv
If Consent is denied while bill was still in confidential drafting phase, then we never get to discover the monarch's veto. We don't know what we don't know.
Charles is the only person privy to Cabinet minutes beyond cabinet members for decades.
If you meet the most powerful person in the country for an hour, off the record, every week, no matter how busy the PM's schedule, then in addition to knowledge, you have access and influence. You have power. [Post edited 19 Feb 16:55]
| | | |
| Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor arrested on 16:30 - Feb 19 with 177 views | Zx1988 |
| Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor arrested on 16:27 - Feb 19 by grow_our_own |
It's 100% accurate. I think you're confusing post-law Assent with pre-law Consent. Here's the Queen denying her Consent for parliament to discuss removing her immunity from prosecution:
https://api.parliament.uk/hist
""
Speaker: The Queen's consent has not been obtained. Therefore, I cannot propose the Question.
""
Vetoed.
Usually it's ministers who approach the King to seek his Consent before "relevant" proceedings, not the other way around. But parliament rules require them to "err on the side of caution" (whatever that means), per 4.19: https://www.gov.uk/government/
Consent period is "never less than 14 days" - see clause 1.10: https://assets.publishing.serv
If Consent is denied while bill was still in confidential drafting phase, then we never get to discover the monarch's veto. We don't know what we don't know.
Charles is the only person privy to Cabinet minutes beyond cabinet members for decades.
If you meet the most powerful person in the country for an hour, off the record, every week, no matter how busy the PM's schedule, then in addition to knowledge, you have access and influence. You have power. [Post edited 19 Feb 16:55]
|
The quotes from the Crown in the Grauniad article are farcical as well.
If you believe The Crown, the Monarch will only ever refuse consent on the advice of Government ministers.
Which leads to the perverse situation where a Government minister would be involved with the conception of an item of legislation, and then tell the Monarch that they should refuse to allow it.
Chinny reckon. | |
| |
| Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor arrested on 16:34 - Feb 19 with 155 views | GeoffSentence |
It's nice for the royal correspondents to have something serious to do for a change. |  |
| |
| Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor arrested on 16:36 - Feb 19 with 146 views | Zx1988 |
| Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor arrested on 16:34 - Feb 19 by GeoffSentence |
It's nice for the royal correspondents to have something serious to do for a change. |
Must be quite the change to be able to ask "Would you mind awfully if I published this?", rather than being asked "Would you mind awfully publishing this?". | |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
