Because what effect or relevance do Mandelson’s actions have on a remark specifically about Andrew’s?
All unproven and likely settled out of court because it couldn’t be proven. She seemed to go against that settlement, making her reliability as a witness questionable at best, and now we’ll never know.
Meanwhile, the consequences we’re discussing are a result of his post-conviction associations with Epstein: just like Mandelson.
If it couldn’t be proven why would he have settled? You don’t pay up £12M unless you think you would lose in court.
Don’t forget his lying about them.
Having campaigned for years now seeking to achieve equality in arms for women, and having been told it’s all terribly difficult and no one is even sure who has the ability to give women equality, we’re watching with great interest as HM likely signals exactly who has the authority to change / process such things. All of this should probably affect the armourial achievement held by Andrew M-W and the one that would then be inherited by his daughters.
All rather interesting if you spend too much time thinking about this stuff and engaging in the legal arguments…
1 Like
Will you be campaigning for Princess Beatrice to inherit her father’s former title and become HRH The Duchess of York, in her own right, rather than have the dukedom go into abeyance or merge into the Crown?
2 Likes
It’s a bit beyond the scope of our campaign and would likely muddy the waters significantly (our rather streamlined mission has been difficult enough).
I’ve also not really thought about these particular circumstances.
There’s a separate and longstanding campaign that looks at matters of general inheritance which probably covers this one perfectly.
The interesting question would be whether there’s anything to inherit now. Much like if your father lost his house, how could you then inherit it?
I’ve no idea if it’s remotely similar!
I think this whole debacle will lead to an inevitable debate on the future of the monarchy overall.
Whatever your thoughts, royalist or republican, many people will agree it isn’t fit and proper in the 21st century for a single person to be able to unilaterally determine the future of another person who (as yet) has not been charged nor convicted of any crimes.
It’s more likely than not that Andrew did do the things of which he is accused, but he’s still owed the due process we afford any suspect of any offence. The King’s action will be popular, they may be seen as morally correct, but are they right based upon the expectations of a lay person?
Randy Andy doing what he’s almost certainly done is what’s led is to this point. It’s another element in the debate against the Royal Family.
I’m generally a royalist. But I socialise amongst peers who are mostly not. It’s been incredibly difficult to defend and debate my position whilst Andrew has all been fully involved and benefiting from his position.
Whilst yes, we have the right to a fair trial, and so does Andy, in terms of criminal liability. That doesn’t mean certain civil action shouldn’t happen based on the balance of probabilities, rather than looking for beyond reasonable doubt.
1 Like
I think and I’ve seen reports in the press that a large part of the reason for this action and one of the reasons Andy has gone along with it is to stifle that debate.
HM was always said to want a smaller Monarchy and it’s said William wants an even smaller one. Thai might be happening to Rany Andy in disgrace but I could see it happening to a lot more in the future as a matter of course.
1 Like
I think, if anything, this will likely have the opposite effect - it’s easy to frame these actions as the King protecting his family, seemingly impending the course of justice through establish legal procedures, using the antiquated rights of the monarch, in order to do so.
I believe it still has to go to parliament to ratify & apply. As this is a royal/constitutional sanction rather than a legal sanction then this is the correct due process.
I would say they are as the lay person expectations is closer to the mob mentality and doing what “feels right” rather what is actually written down. The rise of popularism & over zealousness in over prosecuting /over charging actions that are minimal has undermined the illusion of the rule of law.
People will see this as the law has failed, the politicians have failed but the King has taken action.
One of the fascinating thing about watching traitors is how the herd mindset & decision making can be easily flowed to deflect suspicion away & focus attention in the way that benefits the minority who are manipulating the game.
If Andrew wants even a smidgen of hope of future acceptance let alone rehabilitation he will convert to Catholicism which will allow everyone to back off a bit.
But he won’t because he’s too arrogant.
Not withstanding his Falklands war record which by all accounts were courageous and exemplary, is it not time to move on. History will provide its own decisions. Too much bandwidth is being wasted on this subject. I’m old enough to know people who served with this gentleman and although he was considered a good pilot, very little positive comment was ever shared. It’s time for him to move on to Norfolk and time for everyone else to move on too.
2 Likes
The (press) hounds are very much on the heels of the rabbit, especially the likes of the Daily Wail, & others who are not monarchy-friendly. That’s just in the UK.
Throw in the ever-increasing frustration across the Atlantic for the release of the Epstein files & it’s the “perfect storm” for media coverage - the Prince who has lost his titles (forcibly), his wife (who is not seen as whiter than white with regards to Epstein) & his poor daughters. There also the relocation details / finance from King Charles, whatever. So many “interest” points to cover & expand on.
I don’t think this will die down for quite a while.
2 Likes
We are nowhere near the end of this news cycle hits yet, far too much public interest both at home and overseas.
1 Like
"It is also the case that the royal furore has been incredibly convenient for the government this week - grabbing headlines while Chancellor Rachel Reeves’ behaviour was being questioned.
During royal scandals, “you breathe a sigh of relief as you guys - the media - go crackers over something else,” a former No 10 official told me."
1 Like
Just being hypothetical here.
But i cant see the Crown removing titles etc like has happened to Andrew on non working members of the Royal Family, simply for being non-working.
More likely, the ‘bloodline bit’ of whether youre a prince or not will remain. But all the titles usually bestowed wont happen, unless you become a working member of the firm.
Makes sense. Reward for work.
Work harder. More titles etc.
No work. Ok youre a princeling, but so what.
1 Like
Bye bye honorary Rear Admiral rank?
