Prince Andrew stripped of all titles and honours.

Bloody hell, didn’t see that happening, but necessary. He’s also been served notice to move out of Roaul Lodge, but hey, he’s going to live at Sandringham at the Kings expense.

I wonder how that affects his daughters titles.
 
Chunkylad said:
Daughters are keeping them.

Harsh but i think they should be stripped too. They gained from his birth rites (luck), they should not continue to benefit from it
Click to expand...
mmmm...both parents have very questionable qualities but even though we know very little about the daughters it seems to some extent that they are grounded in a way you would hope they would be. So no, i've no problem with them keeping their titles.
 
20togo said:
mmmm...both parents have very questionable qualities but even though we know very little about the daughters it seems to some extent that they are grounded in a way you would hope they would be. So no, i've no problem with them keeping their titles.
Click to expand...
I know my view on this is harsh.

In times gone by though, if a royal or aristocrat was stripped of land and titles, it was the case for all the family.
 
Let's be honest about this. Charles and the Royal hierarchy have been forced into this by media and public opinion and they could and should have done it ages ago. Everytime some new thing comes out about Andrew they do something, but never enough.
And the press will keep digging as more information comes out from the US and about his role as trade ambassador. That will include their role, together with that of the government, in hiding what they knew about Andrews's activities and in protecting Andrew.
And I think the Royals are running scared of far more scrutiny of MPs, the press and the public of their commercial and other activities
 
Last edited:
Not good enough, until he's been skinned alive and boiled in burning oil live on TV then revived and hung drawn and quartered, then whipped....
 
bill40 said:
Not good enough, until he's been skinned alive and boiled in burning oil live on TV then revived and hung drawn and quartered, then whipped....
Click to expand...
They have plenty of private estates to do that discreetly. And don't forget, he will hardly be roughing it on the Sandringham Estate. I feel sorry for the residents of Norfolk.
 
The yardstick for Royalty is, for example, Alfred the Great, William I, Richard I, Henry V, Henry VII, & Elizabeth I. It was meant to have ended with The Protector, Oliver Cromwell (who rightly refused the crown), and our republic, The Commonwealth. Time to go back to the future.
 
He won’t be destitute. He will live very nicely in a house that could house asylum seekers and the homeless and still have plenty of empty rooms.
 
Interesting that in the statement, the Royals say that despite stripping him of all honours and titles, he is still claiming innocence.
 
King Charlie Cairoli III.
Too little, too late. Should have been done 10 years ago.
Oh… I forgot, HM QE2 was protecting him and squashing all action. She will be spinning like a top in St George’s Chapel.
There must be much, much more damaging stuff that is going to come out soon. Hence panic stations.
Prince William with the lead pipe and Princess Catherine with the dagger in the Royal Lodge Conservatory.
 
Last edited:
What if, and it’s a big if, he is actually innocent.

VG only complained after that photo was released, why hadn’t she gone public before?

Did it happen, or did she see an opportunity, if it did, was she a willing participant, maybe enjoying sleeping with famous men, maybe the financial rewards were her motivation, or was she forced into being a sex slave. The photo suggests she was happy.

Older man having sex with a 17 year old, shocker, not the first time in history by any means.

He said he’s never been to the bar in Tramps because other people order drinks for him, surely they can check,

Have Pizza Hut in Woking confirmed he visited on that day, the pizzas would have been ordered by someone.

Clearly his ongoing relationship with Epstein was suspect and suggests he was in up to his neck, but did he do anything illegal.

I’m awaiting abuse.
 
Matesrates said:
What if, and it’s a big if, he is actually innocent.

VG only complained after that photo was released, why hadn’t she gone public before?

Did it happen, or did she see an opportunity, if it did, was she a willing participant, maybe enjoying sleeping with famous men, maybe the financial rewards were her motivation, or was she forced into being a sex slave. The photo suggests she was happy.

Older man having sex with a 17 year old, shocker, not the first time in history by any means.

He said he’s never been to the bar in Tramps because other people order drinks for him, surely they can check,

Have Pizza Hut in Woking confirmed he visited on that day, the pizzas would have been ordered by someone.

Clearly his ongoing relationship with Epstein was suspect and suggests he was in up to his neck, but did he do anything illegal.

I’m awaiting abuse.
Click to expand...

That is a valid counter argument. However it then comes back to why do the Palace always block freedom of information requests about Andrew.

Also as an innocent, why hand over £12m to the girl who had no real evidence? That's a lot of money to hand over for a man who already had a damaged reputation? As you say he has sex with a 17 year old perhaps - however she may have had much worse information or evidence than that?

It's a massive amount of pay off for hearsay
 
Matesrates said:
What if, and it’s a big if, he is actually innocent.

VG only complained after that photo was released, why hadn’t she gone public before?

Did it happen, or did she see an opportunity, if it did, was she a willing participant, maybe enjoying sleeping with famous men, maybe the financial rewards were her motivation, or was she forced into being a sex slave. The photo suggests she was happy.

Older man having sex with a 17 year old, shocker, not the first time in history by any means.

He said he’s never been to the bar in Tramps because other people order drinks for him, surely they can check,

Have Pizza Hut in Woking confirmed he visited on that day, the pizzas would have been ordered by someone.

Clearly his ongoing relationship with Epstein was suspect and suggests he was in up to his neck, but did he do anything illegal.

I’m awaiting abuse.
Click to expand...
Having sex with somebody who has been sex trafficked is a criminal offence. My interest in this is how much did the British state (and Royal family) know about this. For instance, where was his security detail when he was having sex with Giuffre? Was state money involved in the procurement of prostitutes for PA? What other dodgy or illegal stuff did he do whilst posing as a trade envoy for the UK? etc.

I think that your post betrays a complete lack of understanding of the power imbalance in the Giuffre case and sexual exploitation in general. Read or listen to extracts from her book - it's very clear that she didn't 'enjoy' it. She has been very brave to expose all of this. Conveniently for the establishment she is now dead like a number of people who knew about Epstein and the powerful men he entertained.
 
Matesrates said:
What if, and it’s a big if, he is actually innocent.

VG only complained after that photo was released, why hadn’t she gone public before?
Click to expand...

VG put the photo into the public domain, it was her photo taken with her camera. She did this because she was talking to a journalist who was investigating the Epstein scandal. She in effect put the story into the public domain.
 
Matesrates said:
What if, and it’s a big if, he is actually innocent.

VG only complained after that photo was released, why hadn’t she gone public before?

Did it happen, or did she see an opportunity, if it did, was she a willing participant, maybe enjoying sleeping with famous men, maybe the financial rewards were her motivation, or was she forced into being a sex slave. The photo suggests she was happy.

Older man having sex with a 17 year old, shocker, not the first time in history by any means.

He said he’s never been to the bar in Tramps because other people order drinks for him, surely they can check,

Have Pizza Hut in Woking confirmed he visited on that day, the pizzas would have been ordered by someone.

Clearly his ongoing relationship with Epstein was suspect and suggests he was in up to his neck, but did he do anything illegal.

I’m awaiting abuse.
Click to expand...
Who's going to retain records of purchases from 2010 ?

Not Pizza Hunt or the former owners of a nightclub that closed in 2023

Interestingly though the Govt do from Randy's time as envoy but won't release them Wonder why !

I suspect there's something big to come as the Palace haven't done this on a whim
 
Matesrates said:
What if, and it’s a big if, he is actually innocent.

VG only complained after that photo was released, why hadn’t she gone public before?

Did it happen, or did she see an opportunity, if it did, was she a willing participant, maybe enjoying sleeping with famous men, maybe the financial rewards were her motivation, or was she forced into being a sex slave. The photo suggests she was happy.

Older man having sex with a 17 year old, shocker, not the first time in history by any means.

He said he’s never been to the bar in Tramps because other people order drinks for him, surely they can check,

Have Pizza Hut in Woking confirmed he visited on that day, the pizzas would have been ordered by someone.

Clearly his ongoing relationship with Epstein was suspect and suggests he was in up to his neck, but did he do anything illegal.

I’m awaiting abuse.
Click to expand...
Not abuse. Pity that you're so gullible to believe him after all the evidence that continues to emerge.
 
ElBurroSinNombre said:
Having sex with somebody who has been sex trafficked is a criminal offence. My interest in this is how much did the British state (and Royal family) know about this. For instance, where was his security detail when he was having sex with Giuffre? Was state money involved in the procurement of prostitutes for PA? What other dodgy or illegal stuff did he do whilst posing as a trade envoy for the UK? etc.

I think that your post betrays a complete lack of understanding of the power imbalance in the Giuffre case and sexual exploitation in general. Read or listen to extracts from her book - it's very clear that she didn't 'enjoy' it. She has been very brave to expose all of this. Conveniently for the establishment she is now dead like a number of people who knew about Epstein and the powerful men he entertained.
Click to expand...
Not a lack of understanding, just putting out there that so far, there’s been no evidence apart from the photo which doesn’t prove anything untoward. The fact that he continued to engage with Epstein knowing he had been convicted was completely stupid. As I said, I firmly believe he was in it up to his neck, but has you say, people who worked for him must have known and should be questioned.
 
I notice that Fergie is to make her own housing arrangements. She won't want to be closetted away on the Sandringham estate. She already has a property in London.
 
If he is now an ordinary citizen, rather than royalty, then is he subject to tax on any income, including any support from Charles?
 
Matesrates said:
Not a lack of understanding, just putting out there that so far, there’s been no evidence apart from the photo which doesn’t prove anything untoward. The fact that he continued to engage with Epstein knowing he had been convicted was completely stupid. As I said, I firmly believe he was in it up to his neck, but has you say, people who worked for him must have known and should be questioned.
Click to expand...
I don't know what planet you inhabit but we have had;
  • Giuffre's testimony and allegations detailed in her book
  • the picture that puts Andrew and Giuffre at Maxwell's house at the time and place that Giuffre gave
  • the Epstein file information that corroborate Giuffre's claims - Giuffre was flown in and out of the UK at the time of the alleged sex
  • Witnesses have reported seeing Andrew at the club with a teenage girl on the night in question
  • Andrew goes to Epstein's NY house for 4 days to 'end his friendship' as it is honourable - how does this even make sense?
  • Then emails Epstein to say he wants to 'play again soon' - what do you think this means?
  • Gives his security detail information on Giuffre to dig dirt on her - although he never met her.
  • Pays Giuffre ~£10 million to settle the case against him - although he denies any wrong doing and had never met her
  • etc. etc.
More will come out on Sunday - that is why he has been stripped today. But it won't be enough. What he did, what he knows needs to come into the public domain and if the law has been broken he needs to face the consequences. Anything else will not be enough.
 
bfcpete said:
If he is now an ordinary citizen, rather than royalty, then is he subject to tax on any income, including any support from Charles?
Click to expand...
I'm sure he will have massive wealth stashed away in offshore and. overseas accounts? All those 'special envoy' trade deals; access to the crown and government- he will have earned handsomely and it will be nicely invested with enormous returns tax free.

The wealthiest landowners in this country have not paid tax since 1066
 
Has he broken any law here in the U.K.?
Age of consent is16 however I know in the states it is 18 therefore if he steps foot there then it is a different scenario.

Just need clarification on this.
 
GrahamwantshisOates said:
Has he broken any law here in the U.K.?
Age of consent is16 however I know in the states it is 18 therefore if he steps foot there then it is a different scenario.

Just need clarification on this.
Click to expand...

Sex trafficking is a criminal offence, as discussed in this article;

www.independent.co.uk

Could Prince Andrew ever be prosecuted over his links to Jeffrey Epstein?

The Metropolitan Police are ‘actively looking’ into claims that the royal tried to use his bodyguard to smear his accuser Virginia Giuffre – as her family urged the force to reopen an inquiry into her alleged abuse
www.independent.co.uk www.independent.co.uk
 
ElBurroSinNombre said:
I don't know what planet you inhabit but we have had;
  • Giuffre's testimony and allegations detailed in her book
  • the picture that puts Andrew and Giuffre at Maxwell's house at the time and place that Giuffre gave
  • the Epstein file information that corroborate Giuffre's claims - Giuffre was flown in and out of the UK at the time of the alleged sex
  • Witnesses have reported seeing Andrew at the club with a teenage girl on the night in question
  • Andrew goes to Epstein's NY house for 4 days to 'end his friendship' as it is honourable - how does this even make sense?
  • Then emails Epstein to say he wants to 'play again soon' - what do you think this means?
  • Gives his security detail information on Giuffre to dig dirt on her - although he never met her.
  • Pays Giuffre ~£10 million to settle the case against him - although he denies any wrong doing and had never met her
  • etc. etc.
More will come out on Sunday - that is why he has been stripped today. But it won't be enough. What he did, what he knows needs to come into the public domain and if the law has been broken he needs to face the consequences. Anything else will not be enough.
Click to expand...
All good and as I already said I believe he’s guilty, but her testimony and allegations are just that. I’ve not seen where witnesses have said they saw him at the club, or the files saying she was flown in and out of the uk at the time, I’ll take your word for it, however, it’s still clearly not solid evidence, or he’d have been arrested.

As for the play again soon email, I thought that was Mandelson
 
Matesrates said:
Not a lack of understanding, just putting out there that so far, there’s been no evidence apart from the photo which doesn’t prove anything untoward. The fact that he continued to engage with Epstein knowing he had been convicted was completely stupid. As I said, I firmly believe he was in it up to his neck, but has you say, people who worked for him must have known and should be questioned.
Click to expand...
Do you really think his family would have gone to the lengths they have to distance themselves from him purely on the basis of a picture which on the face of it looks innocent enough?
 
That’s clearly some serious stuff to come out and that’s before you get to the FOI request which will I’m guessing reveal the shenanigans he was up to at taxpayers expense
 
traffordtang said:
Do you really think his family would have gone to the lengths they have to distance themselves from him purely on the basis of a picture which on the face of it looks innocent enough?
Click to expand...
Charles is not exactly the sharpest tool in the box, and optics can be more important than truth.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top