Buckingham Palace distances itself from a royal prince.

1
The Duke of York's military titles and royal patronages have been returned to the Queen, Buckingham Palace has announced.

Prince Andrew [the Duke of York] will stop using the style His Royal Highness in an official capacity, a royal source said.

The duke's roles will be given to other Royal Family members, the source added.

It comes as he faces a civil case in the US over claims he sexually assaulted a woman when she was 17, which he has consistently denied.

A source close to Prince Andrew said he would "continue to defend himself" against Virginia Giuffre's allegations.

A [US district court] judge ruled on Wednesday that the case brought by Ms. Giuffre could continue, after he tried to have it dismissed.

Buckingham Palace said in a statement: "With the Queen's approval and agreement, the Duke of York's military affiliations and Royal patronages have been returned to the Queen.

"The Duke of York will continue not to undertake any public duties and is defending this case as a private citizen."

All Prince Andrew's roles have been returned to the Queen with immediate effect, and will be redistributed to other members of the Royal Family, a source said.

He will stop using the title 'His Royal Highness' in any official capacity, they added.

A spokesperson for the Ministry of Defence said it had no comment about the duke's military titles being handed back to the Queen, and that it was a matter for the Palace.
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-59987935

So far Andrew avoided being prosecuted for or civilly sued in his connections to Jeffrey Epstein. The British media obsessed on the recent New York trial of Ghislaine Maxwell a close associate of Epstein, because she's the daughter and heiress of Robert Maxwell. Robert Maxwell was a media baron and former British Labour Party MP and major party donor. He was found to have stolen employee retirement funds and later died in a boating accident. A scoundrel.

In his youth the media dubbed Prince Andrew, "Randy Andy". Andrew is the Queen's second son and third child who is divorced from Sarah (Fergie), Duchess of York. It will be interesting to watch.

I expect Downing Street (the British government) had input in this decision.
"Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts." - Daniel Patrick Moynihan

Re: Buckingham Palace distances itself from a royal prince.

3
featureless wrote: Thu Jan 13, 2022 4:23 pm They need to try everyone involved in that trafficking operation, royal or no.
Yes. Andrew has been a pariah since Epstein was arrested. He has no public functions which is highly unusual for a senior member of the Royal Family and is rarely seen. Starting next month there will be public celebrations of Queen Elizabeth's Platinum Jubilee, 70 years as the British monarch. I imagine the queen and the government wanted to deal with the Andrew Problem before the festivities start.
"Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts." - Daniel Patrick Moynihan

Re: Buckingham Palace distances itself from a royal prince.

5
YankeeTarheel wrote: Thu Jan 13, 2022 11:41 pm WTF does anyone consider "royalty" to be anything other than an artifact from a time when the criminally strongest ruled?
The very idea of being elite by birth is anathema.
There is a movement to make Queen Elizabeth II the last monarch and abolish the monarchy.

https://www.reuters.com/world/uk/young- ... 021-05-20/
Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored.-Huxley
"We can have democracy in this country, or we can have great wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, but we can't have both." ~ Louis Brandeis,

Re: Buckingham Palace distances itself from a royal prince.

6
Yes there is an organization call "Republic" that favors abolition of the monarchy. Polls on abolition of the monarchy go up and down. In the Netflix series "The Crown" there is a well researched and written dialog by Tommy Lascelles (Sir Alan Lascelles) former private secretary to the Queen. It's an episode about Lord Altrincham who criticized the monarchy.

Lascelles:
The British people adore their sovereign. It is what constitutes, indeed defines, being British. No, the worst I've ever encountered is, uh, apathy, where people simply accept the king or queen as they accept the sky above their heads. But it's a long way from apathy to insurrection.

Now as regards the newspapers, the Crown can count on their support for two reasons: first, there is nothing to attack. That's the advantage of a constitutional monarchy. They have no power so there's nothing to complain about. And even if they wanted to, they'd always let us know first.

The palace would then threaten them with a boycott on the next major royal event, causing the newspapers immediately to back down. Because the very people you fear will hate the Queen are the same ones who buy copies of their millions [of newspapers]. Why? Because they love her.
[url]file:///C:/Users/My%20Account/Downloads/The-Crown-episode-script-transcript-season-2-05-Marionettes.pdf[/url]

In constitutional monarchies, the monarchs don't vote and don't involve themselves in politics. Even figure head presidents of countries had a political background before they were elected to that office, which can taint in their role as president.
"Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts." - Daniel Patrick Moynihan

Re: Buckingham Palace distances itself from a royal prince.

8
sikacz wrote: Fri Jan 14, 2022 12:32 pm Concept of monarchies and royals is appalling. Their country though. I don’t get why so many here are fascinated by them.
To me it's a reality of government in many countries. Finland has a republic, but Sweden, Norway and Denmark have monarchies and they seem happy with them. When they're not happy with them, they'll abolish them. We have one in North America, technically Canada is a monarchy though some refer to it unofficially as a "crowned republic". Queen Elizabeth is the queen of Canada, but the prime minister and parliament solidly control government.
"Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts." - Daniel Patrick Moynihan

Re: Buckingham Palace distances itself from a royal prince.

9
highdesert wrote: Fri Jan 14, 2022 12:57 pm
sikacz wrote: Fri Jan 14, 2022 12:32 pm Concept of monarchies and royals is appalling. Their country though. I don’t get why so many here are fascinated by them.
To me it's a reality of government in many countries. Finland has a republic, but Sweden, Norway and Denmark have monarchies and they seem happy with them. When they're not happy with them, they'll abolish them. We have one in North America, technically Canada is a monarchy though some refer to it unofficially as a "crowned republic". Queen Elizabeth is the queen of Canada, but the prime minister and parliament solidly control government.
I don't believe the other crowned heads of Europe cost nearly as much as the Windsors do. Spain, Belgium, Netherlands, and Luxembourg also have monarchs, as do Monaco and Liechtenstein. Most of the time their royals lead ordinary lives. I remember one queen grocery shopping on her bicycle.

Parliamentary democratic systems don't need a monarch. They work perfectly well with an elected President in that position. Works great in Germany, Israel, Portugal, Italy, Finland, etc.
"The upper class: keeps all of the money, pays none of the taxes. The middle class: pays all of the taxes, does all of the work. The poor are there...just to scare the shit out of the middle class."--George Carlin

Re: Buckingham Palace distances itself from a royal prince.

11
sig230 wrote: Fri Jan 14, 2022 4:20 pm Not my government not my problem.

We have more than enough problems pf our own.

Let's see what we can do about our Royals.
You mean the House of TOT.
Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored.-Huxley
"We can have democracy in this country, or we can have great wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, but we can't have both." ~ Louis Brandeis,

Re: Buckingham Palace distances itself from a royal prince.

12
YankeeTarheel wrote: Fri Jan 14, 2022 4:15 pm
highdesert wrote: Fri Jan 14, 2022 12:57 pm
sikacz wrote: Fri Jan 14, 2022 12:32 pm Concept of monarchies and royals is appalling. Their country though. I don’t get why so many here are fascinated by them.
To me it's a reality of government in many countries. Finland has a republic, but Sweden, Norway and Denmark have monarchies and they seem happy with them. When they're not happy with them, they'll abolish them. We have one in North America, technically Canada is a monarchy though some refer to it unofficially as a "crowned republic". Queen Elizabeth is the queen of Canada, but the prime minister and parliament solidly control government.
I don't believe the other crowned heads of Europe cost nearly as much as the Windsors do. Spain, Belgium, Netherlands, and Luxembourg also have monarchs, as do Monaco and Liechtenstein. Most of the time their royals lead ordinary lives. I remember one queen grocery shopping on her bicycle.

Parliamentary democratic systems don't need a monarch. They work perfectly well with an elected President in that position. Works great in Germany, Israel, Portugal, Italy, Finland, etc.

Every country decides for themselves what form of government they'll have. The Windsor's cost more because the UK is the largest country with a monarchy in Europe (67 million people) and people want royals at their events. The late Queen Juliana of the Netherlands was known for bicycling around The Hague, you probably saw a picture of her shopping. Times change and security is a bigger factor.
"Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts." - Daniel Patrick Moynihan

Re: Buckingham Palace distances itself from a royal prince.

13
I’d prefer to see royals kept as zoo specimens for public entertainment. You could even breed them just to keep the line going and keep the revenue coming in. Considering the violence and oppression this particular group of people have inflicted, I have no other use for them. Still it’s every country’s choice which form of government they have, unless of course you’re a country whose natural resources another country wants. Perhaps I should just shut up.
Image
Image

"Resistance is futile. You will be assimilated!" Loquacious of many. Texas Chapter Chief Cat Herder.

Re: Buckingham Palace distances itself from a royal prince.

16
Eh, most of their assets belong to the state - I doubt they could sell off Windsor Castle to a Russian oligarch without Parliamentary approval. What they have is an unusual degree of access to state property. And QE doesn't have to earn a drivers license because they're issued in her own name. As far as control over their own lives? There's a lot of royal retainers to schedule and shepherd them from one official appearance to the next. There are reasons some of them renounce the titles.

Re: Buckingham Palace distances itself from a royal prince.

17
wings wrote: Sun Jan 16, 2022 4:11 pm Eh, most of their assets belong to the state - I doubt they could sell off Windsor Castle to a Russian oligarch without Parliamentary approval. What they have is an unusual degree of access to state property. And QE doesn't have to earn a drivers license because they're issued in her own name. As far as control over their own lives? There's a lot of royal retainers to schedule and shepherd them from one official appearance to the next. There are reasons some of them renounce the titles.
The real estate assets belong to the State, except for two of them, but the Queen has investments that belong to her at $500 million

https://www.cosmopolitan.com/entertainm ... net-worth/

Overall it is enough to make TOT drool and be very jealous.
Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored.-Huxley
"We can have democracy in this country, or we can have great wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, but we can't have both." ~ Louis Brandeis,

Re: Buckingham Palace distances itself from a royal prince.

18
TrueTexan wrote:
wings wrote: Sun Jan 16, 2022 4:11 pm Eh, most of their assets belong to the state - I doubt they could sell off Windsor Castle to a Russian oligarch without Parliamentary approval. What they have is an unusual degree of access to state property. And QE doesn't have to earn a drivers license because they're issued in her own name. As far as control over their own lives? There's a lot of royal retainers to schedule and shepherd them from one official appearance to the next. There are reasons some of them renounce the titles.
The real estate assets belong to the State, except for two of them, but the Queen has investments that belong to her at $500 million

https://www.cosmopolitan.com/entertainm ... net-worth/

Overall it is enough to make TOT drool and be very jealous.
Especially since he’s worth - $440 million. Huckster.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Re: Buckingham Palace distances itself from a royal prince.

19
TrueTexan wrote: Sun Jan 16, 2022 4:43 pm
wings wrote: Sun Jan 16, 2022 4:11 pm Eh, most of their assets belong to the state - I doubt they could sell off Windsor Castle to a Russian oligarch without Parliamentary approval. What they have is an unusual degree of access to state property. And QE doesn't have to earn a drivers license because they're issued in her own name. As far as control over their own lives? There's a lot of royal retainers to schedule and shepherd them from one official appearance to the next. There are reasons some of them renounce the titles.
The real estate assets belong to the State, except for two of them, but the Queen has investments that belong to her at $500 million

https://www.cosmopolitan.com/entertainm ... net-worth/

Overall it is enough to make TOT drool and be very jealous.
That’s 500 million too much.
Image
Image

"Resistance is futile. You will be assimilated!" Loquacious of many. Texas Chapter Chief Cat Herder.

Re: Buckingham Palace distances itself from a royal prince.

22
sikacz wrote: Sun Jan 16, 2022 7:57 pm
YankeeTarheel wrote: Sun Jan 16, 2022 7:24 pm More. The queen is a multi-billionaire.
Unearned wealth based on theft for generations.
You mean Donald Trump
Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored.-Huxley
"We can have democracy in this country, or we can have great wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, but we can't have both." ~ Louis Brandeis,

Re: Buckingham Palace distances itself from a royal prince.

24
wings wrote: Sun Jan 16, 2022 4:11 pm Eh, most of their assets belong to the state - I doubt they could sell off Windsor Castle to a Russian oligarch without Parliamentary approval. What they have is an unusual degree of access to state property. And QE doesn't have to earn a drivers license because they're issued in her own name. As far as control over their own lives? There's a lot of royal retainers to schedule and shepherd them from one official appearance to the next. There are reasons some of them renounce the titles.
You're righ, Windsor Castle is owned by the government and so is Buckingham Palace, she couldn't sell them. Cold and drafty old places. The crown jewels in the Tower of London are owned by the government, the Queen just has use of them at state functions. She has use of a lot of things that she doesn't personally own. Yes, the royals serve a purpose, their days are scheduled as patrons of various charities and organizations, opening new hospitals, schools and attending other boring functions and giving speeches At state dinners and parties, they are still working. And they always have to smile and make light conversation even though they're totally uninterested. They don't vote or express any political opinions.

When an obese loud mouth occupied the US White House, it was nice to see a non-political head of state performing her duties.

Harry and Meghan got out of there fast after their wedding. Meghan wanted the title, but not the work and the structured life. The Queen's cousin Prince Edward, the Duke of Kent married a non-royal decades ago and after the Duchess raised their three children, she taught music for many years in a primary school in north England for free. Everyone knew her as Mrs. Kent, but eventually she was outed by the press. She doesn't use her HRH style, just preferring Katherine Kent. She rarely attends royal functions.
"Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts." - Daniel Patrick Moynihan

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests

cron