Prince Andrew Loses Military Titles

[RAFEngO74to09]

Disclose.tv on Twitter: "JUST IN - Britain's Prince Andrew loses military titles and patronages amid sex abuse lawsuit, Buckingham Palace has announced. https://t.co/R1d9A8oXyi" / Twitter

40 years ago:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s47fsZBpaJg

[sharpend]

Sad he went under, but only himself to blame. He could have had it all.

[ShyTorque]

Sad he went under, but only himself to blame. He could have had it all.

Well he might have tried to do just that....

A terrible thing, all round. Another sad day for Her Majesty.

[Ken Scott]

Innocent until proven guilty?

[Vortex Hoop]

Innocent until proven guilty?
Agreed. Although the picture of him with Ghislaine Maxwell and one of the underage girls doesn't look too good!

[Brewster Buffalo]

Rumours he is to lose his HRH as well...

[Just This Once...]

Innocent, whilst actively evading the FBI, DoJ and the courts to preclude any chance of a criminal investigation, with the kind assistance of the Met Police, until proven guilty.

Innocent, to a lower burden of proof in a civil court, whilst actively evading the courts, disclosure process, actually being 'served', using the Met Police as a shield and actually played 'the card' written by a convicted and deceased co-conspirator and claimed that it was effectively a get-out-of-jail for such an obvious defendant such as he, until proven liable for his acts.

Again, not a suitable position to be in and actively hold military titles and positions. He may meet the criteria listed above to participate on this sub-forum but I doubt he would be welcome now.

[MG]

Rumours he is to lose his HRH as well...
a bit of a rubbish rumour then. He won’t lose the title, he’s agreed not to use it, in the same way that the Sussexes don’t use theirs.

[langleybaston]

a bit of a rubbish rumour then. He won’t lose the title, he’s agreed not to use it, in the same way that the Sussexes don’t use theirs.

The Queen is the fount of honour. If she says he is not an HRH, as reported, he is not an HRH

End of.

[RAFEngO74to09]

(5) Home / Twitter

[NutLoose]

He could be in even more poo, they could charge him with bringing the forces into disrepute and give him jankers..

[b263354]

one out, another in... wonder what Tony Blair did to recieve his knighthood from "the Queen of the nation". She lost all honesty in that action lest for 'le club'

Fine if they keep their titles, but no more taxpayer money for their 'lavish lifestyles intersected with sexual misencounters' and they pay taxes just like the rest of us including their own security, special education, pref treatment in the armed forces, transportation etc.

And don't start about Harry, the spoiled **** who won't play second violin to his brother and is being played by that Hollywood scarlet of his. But then again same applies to the other 'king of the people' and his argentinian...

Vive la revolution, le roi est mort! (and the you had a Macron, after a Hollande, after Sarkozy!. . and some sheeple still believe in a fair electorial process :}​​​​​​)

[B2N2]

Innocent until proven guilty?


https://cimg7.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/960x640/af_composite_prince_andrew_v2_2ad9cfbee72724e1965023ecac4dbd 4ea9e1c6c4.jpg

[Planet Basher]

The Andrew formerly known as Prince.

[NutLoose]

Lost my HRH title? Nooo sweat.

[superplum]

Just wondering, would he go to the US to face charges or stay here. After all, Ann Sacoolas will be giving "evidence" via video link and not attending the UK on a much more serious matter - Death by Dangerous Driving!

:hmm:

[rattman]

Innocent, whilst actively evading the FBI, DoJ and the courts to preclude any chance of a criminal investigation, with the kind assistance of the Met Police, until proven guilty.


Also while hiding under the protection of his mother https://www.reddit.com/r/AbolishTheMonarchy/comments/ryb83h/leaked_clip_from_2015_abc_news_anchor_amy_robach/ and teresa May before she became PM

[Mullinax]

Would he go to the US to face charges?

He'd have it easy here. Bill Clinton isn't worried.

[campbeex]

And yet Sir Philip Green is still, somehow, a "Sir".

[Foxxster]

He'd have it easy here. Bill Clinton isn't worried.


oh, nothing will actually happen to him. Or his equally evil wife. However…

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10394863/Jeffrey-Epstein-brought-eight-women-Clinton-White-House.html

[The Helpful Stacker]

Does Her Majesty have a service Webley she can leave sat on a table somewhere appropriate?

[Una Due Tfc]

Innocent until proven guilty?

He'll get his day in court.

But his conduct by remaining friends with a convicted pedophile, his utterly disastrous performance in the BBC interview which he did against the advice of the Royal media experts, his general arrogance and unlikeability and his shockingly poor judgement throughout warrant being kicked to the curb. It also helps with general damage control for "the firm".

As I recal the FBI released files as part of an FOI in 2019 that his uncle Louis had a penchant for underage boys in sailor uniforms. That didn't get much attention.

[B2N2]

The Andrew formerly known as Prince.

You won the Internet today, bravo!

[langleybaston]

I seem to recall a nasty episode many years ago when a poor sod on security accosted Andrew in the Palace Grounds. The said Andrew said "do you know who I am?" and the poor sod, new to the job, was hauled over the coals.
From tomorrow it would be "do you know who I was?"

[Or, "I don't know who you are, but I know what you are!]

Zero sympathy from PPRUNE I note.

[langleybaston]

Does Her Majesty have a service Webley she can leave sat on a table somewhere appropriate?

and a fine single malt ....................

[Rigga]

For those worried about his Taxpayers income - I believe he’s already on ‘subsistence allowance’ of circa 250Kpa from his mom - plus his navy pension. He’s had to sell ‘his’ dodgy ski chalet to pay off his lawyers fees (to date) and his business support stuff has pancaked…and just now he’s had a lot of his dress suits taken off him and his global free ticket has been removed!
He was already jammed hard between that Rock and hard place - damned if he was sent to trial and damned if he settled out of court - and - in my view - the Pizza Hut and lack of sweat tales damned him anyway.

[Fortissimo]

Zero sympathy from PPRUNE I note.

Not surprising given that PPrune appears to be trying to out-outrage the Daily Mail, at least on this forum.

[B2N2]

Not surprising given that PPrune appears to be trying to out-outrage the Daily Mail, at least on this forum.

Please enlighten us as to why we should be sympathetic when his own mother the Queen isn’t ?

[Union Jack]

Lost my HRH title? Nooo sweat.
But not quite all of of his appointments, since he apparently will retain the rank of Vice Admiral - and I'm not holding my breath waiting for someone to say "How appropriate".... LS&GC medal and clasps may perhaps be at risk, not to mention any future Jubilee medals.

Jack

[Mickj3]

I notice that in the most recent photographs the prince is sporting a new medal ribbon mounted in preference to the South Atlantic Medal. This is a very recent addition (2021 to date). Does anyone know what the medal is and when it was awarded? Also is he in danger of losing his Naval LS&GCM?

[Cat Techie]

I notice that in the most recent photographs the prince is sporting a new medal ribbon mounted in preference to the South Atlantic Medal. This is a very recent addition (2021 to date). Does anyone know what the medal is and when it was awarded? Also is he in danger of losing his Naval LS&GCM?

Can he have his LS&GCM taken away? Never heard of such happening before. Not that he will have reason to wear medals bar the reasons we would wear them for Remembrance. He isn't going to be needing them for duty.

[Cat Techie]

Not surprising given that PPrune appears to be trying to out-outrage the Daily Mail, at least on this forum.
Daily Mail is written for such an audience. Todays actions are something that gave HM no pleasure to do at all I wager, but she knows the duty requirements. Randy Andy burned his bridge, nobody else.

[B2N2]

oh, nothing will actually happen to him. Or his equally evil wife. However…

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10394863/Jeffrey-Epstein-brought-eight-women-Clinton-White-House.html

What are you trying to suggest? Epstein didn’t bring underage teens to the White House:

Many of the women Epstein took on his trips to Washington were known to have had romantic relationships with him.

They include Celina Midelfart, then 21, Eva Andersson-Dubin, then 33, Francis Jardine, who was believed to be in her 20s, and his one-time girlfriend turned madam, Ghislaine Maxwell, who was 32.

[Less Hair]

I agree with innocent until proven guilty.

[B2N2]

I agree with innocent until proven guilty.

Well this was a preemptive measure and not punishment….yet.
Basically put on unpaid leave pending the likely outcome.

The move came after 152 Royal Navy, British Army and RAF veterans wrote to the Queen to demand that Andrew be removed from the honorary military positions. The Queen is head of the armed forces, and honorary military appointments are in her gift. Andrew had clung to his military roles, including that of colonel of the Grenadier Guards.

The Queen took the decision to remove the duke’s royal affiliations and put his style of His Royal Highness into cold storage after talks with the Prince of Wales and the Duke of Cambridge.

[GeeRam]

I seem to recall a nasty episode many years ago when a poor sod on security accosted Andrew in the Palace Grounds. The said Andrew said "do you know who I am?" and the poor sod, new to the job, was hauled over the coals.
From tomorrow it would be "do you know who I was?"

[Or, "I don't know who you are, but I know what you are!]


That would have raised a smile with my late father had he still been around, as he was with Royal Protection at Buck House, Ken Palace & Windsor back in the early 80's, and I recall a few tales of his about Andrew's penchant for 'testing' security at Windsor and the Palace with nighttime excursions and other activities......and much use of the "Don't you know who I am" phrase.

[Saintsman]

He has done himself no favours and we all know his lifestyle has had some dubious moments, but ask yourself what you would do if someone accused you of doing something in the distant past and wanted compensation for it ( and whatever she says, I believe Andrew’s accuser is after a payday more than justice)? I suspect that most people have had a one night stand many years ago and if they were introduced to you today, you would have no idea who they were.

How do you prove that you didn’t do it and how do you fund a defence? It certainly wouldn’t be easy. There is also a good chance that your life would be ruined in the process, whether innocent or guilty and especially if you have a high profile.

He might be considered a creep by a lot of people, but he is in a no-win situation. Unlike his accuser.

[teeteringhead]

There are some - shall we say contentious? - issues in his tale which must surely be amenable to easy confirmation - or not.

Of course many of us have “brief liaisons” in our past when perhaps we can’t even remember their names, let alone what they looked like.

But:

The “no sweat” item. I’ve recently got - through FOI - all my service medical records. His must be available.

The Pizza Express defence. Apart from the fact that this may involve his daughters having to testify, I must ask:

Surely a Prince and two Princesses popping in for a pizza is sufficiently unusual - even in Woking - for it to be etched in the memories of the staff of the pizzeria.

More obviously, he would have been accompanied by his “minders” I don’t know how long they keep their records, but again, such an unusual event must be logged somewhere……

It is - of course - just a Government plot to get BoJo off the front pages [that’s a joke btw…….]

[rattman]

Surely a Prince and two Princesses popping in for a pizza is sufficiently unusual - even in Woking - for it to be etched in the memories of the staff of the pizzeria.



Or a bank card statement, cant imagine he would be the kind of person to carry cash around

[4468]

There will be many information streams available that will enable those currently with access and an interest, to check Andrew’s version of events. Her Majesty will be one such party. Travel and medical records, plus the records of Andrew’s close protection officers being just a few examples. It seems possible to presume the Queen has acted on the basis of such information.

I believe the next stage in the legal process will be disclosure? In which each party must respond to requests for information from the other. At that point it should be relatively straightforward to determine whether the case is vexatious, or whether it might justify closer scrutiny?

I think the Queen’s actions, and those of Andrew’s legal team thus far, might suggest that, on the basis of what can already be determined, the allegations are not easily dismissed?

I rather suspect Andrew is in a situation that makes it difficult to disprove/discredit what is being alleged. I imagine there’s a chance he might not even try?

[teeteringhead]

rattman

Or a bank card statement, cant imagine he would be the kind of person to carry cash around Of course. Even better as that would confirm time and date - even if the CP paid for it. (To be reimbursed of course.....)

[4468]

Or a bank card statement, cant imagine he would be the kind of person to carry cash around

If he’s anything like Harry and Meghan, he won’t be expecting anyone to have the cheek to bill him.

[Union Jack]

There will be many information streams available that will enable those currently with access and an interest, to check Andrew’s version of events. Her Majesty will be one such party. Travel and medical records, plus the records of Andrew’s close protection officers being just a few examples. It seems possible to presume the Queen has acted on the basis of such information.

I believe the next stage in the legal process will be disclosure? In which each party must respond to requests for information from the other. At that point it should be relatively straightforward to determine whether the case is vexatious, or whether it might justify closer scrutiny?

I think the Queen’s actions, and those of Andrew’s legal team thus far, might suggest that, on the basis of what can already be determined, the allegations are not easily dismissed?

I rather suspect Andrew is in a situation that makes it difficult to disprove/discredit what is being alleged. I imagine there’s a chance he might not even try?
Given that several sources suggest that Miss Giuffre's legal team are considering calling his former wife as a witness in the forthcoming case, the Duke and Duchess might both feel that this would strengthen the case for them remarrying, although the Duchess would almost certainly be a hostile witness. This is especially so since the usual ruling that “A husband or wife shall not be required, or, without consent of the other if living, allowed, to disclose a confidential communication made by one to the other during marriage.” would not be applicable to any such communications since their divorce in 1996 up to the present.

Jack

[sharpend]

'[QUOTE=Just This Once...;11169555] Innocent, to a lower burden of proof in a civil court, whilst actively evading the courts, disclosure process, actually being 'served', using the Met Police as a shield and actually played 'the card' written by a convicted and deceased co-conspirator and claimed that it was effectively a get-out-of-jail for such an obvious defendant such as he, until proven liable for his acts.'

In an criminal court the conviction must be that the evidence points towards 'Beyond all reasonable doubt'. In a civil court, which I understand this trial will be, the evidence only has to go so far as 'On the balance of probabilities' Make your own mind up when you hear the evidence.

[TLDNMCL]

I am not defending what he may or may not have done, but I will defend his statement about an inability to sweat - I have an inability to do so owing to a condition called Pityriasis Rubra Pilaris (other illnesses are available). It's bloody awful, you can't keep warm enough or cool enough. People who laughed that off are understandably ignorant as it affects only about one in half a million, but it's a little known medical condition that the Doc's are still trying to make sense of, with that in mind, that element of his argument may well be true. I agree that he has handled himself very poorly considering his position though.

[SATCOS WHIPPING BOY]

The Andrew formerly known as Prince.

Made be chuckle.
https://cimg5.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/600x533/tafkap_a982b02465c84594bc5175a5dfc615b3f9340357.jpg

I do wonder if Her Majesty's recent decision is based on content of a Mummy/Son private chat? I cannot see her taking action if she was convinced of his innocence in all this.


Having watched the Emily Maitlis interview again, in light of the Epstein and Maxwell events, and the pending release of the list of sealed names... things really are not looking good for him.

[Darkmouse]

I am entirely ambivalent about his plight, but I am confused about what he's in trouble for - is bedding a girl who was 17 at the time and therefore old enough to make her own mind up, who subsequently boasted to her friends about bedding a prince, some sort of offence? I'm not talking about the moral aspect here, but it strikes me that it wasn't against her will and it wasn't in way illegal - What's the problem?

[BlackIsle]

Darkmouse the problem, as you put it, is that a 17 year old in the US is a minor.....

[212man]

Darkmouse the problem, as you put it, is that a 17 year old in the US is a minor.....
Depends on the State, so also raises the question about acts occurring in the UK, where the age of consent is 16

[ehwatezedoing]

I am entirely ambivalent about his plight, but I am confused about what he's in trouble for - is bedding a girl who was 17 at the time and therefore old enough to make her own mind up, who subsequently boasted to her friends about bedding a prince, some sort of offence? I'm not talking about the moral aspect here, but it strikes me that it wasn't against her will and it wasn't in way illegal - What's the problem?
Case closed then :rolleyes:

[Darkmouse]

Case closed then :rolleyes:
I aught to be a lawyer ;-).

From what I gather, the liaison in question occured in the UK, to which the alleged victim travelled voluntarily. Whilst the whole thing is morally extremely grubby, I really don't see what 'offence' has been committed. If Andrew turns round and say, "Yes alright, I did s**g her, I knew she was 17, but she was keen," what does that mean as far as the law is concerned? Nothing as far as I know.

[alfred_the_great]

I aught to be a lawyer ;-).

From what I gather, the liaison in question occured in the UK, to which the alleged victim travelled voluntarily. Whilst the whole thing is morally extremely grubby, I really don't see what 'offence' has been committed. If Andrew turns round and say, "Yes alright, I did s**g her, I knew she was 17, but she was keen," what does that mean as far as the law is concerned? Nothing as far as I know.

apart from the fact that she was transported from somewhere where she wasn’t legally above the age of consent, to somewhere where she was. It’s a US based case, so their rules apply.

[212man]

apart from the fact that she was transported from somewhere where she wasn’t legally above the age of consent, to somewhere where she was. It’s a US based case, so their rules apply.
But there is no single age as it’s based on states law so how does it work? I see NY is 17

States where the age of consent is 16 : Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas, Connecticut, Georgia, Hawaii, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, North Carolina, Ohio,[a] (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ages_of_consent_in_the_United_States#cite_note-Ohio-126)Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ages_of_consent_in_the_United_States#cite_note-Pennsylvania-127)Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Vermont, Washington, and West Virginia.
[b]States where the age of consent is 17 : Colorado, Illinois, Louisiana, Missouri, New York, and Wyoming.
States where the age of consent is 18): Arizona, California, Delaware, Florida, Idaho, Kentucky, North Dakota, Oregon, Tennessee, Texas,[c] (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ages_of_consent_in_the_United_States#cite_note-Texas-130)Utah, Virginia, and Wisconsin.

[NutLoose]

I’m surprised he hasn’t tried the diplomatic immunity route, he has tried everything else, I’m also surprised he hasn’t brought up the mowing down of the lad on a bike and the US’s complicity in evading justice as a distraction.

I do wonder who else is in the wings awaiting for their turn, and who else may end up in the dock.

[Asturias56]

His continued friendship with Epstein and Maxwell doesn't do him a lot of good either.

[pasta]

From what I gather, the liaison in question occured in the UK, to which the alleged victim travelled voluntarily. Whilst the whole thing is morally extremely grubby, I really don't see what 'offence' has been committed. If Andrew turns round and say, "Yes alright, I did s**g her, I knew she was 17, but she was keen," what does that mean as far as the law is concerned? Nothing as far as I know.
It's a civil case, so the consequences of losing are financial and reputational. In this case the defendant is probably better able to weather the financial impact than most, it's the reputational impact that will really hurt. From that perspective, 'fessing up doesn't make sense because he'd take the reputational hit anyway; even worse, she then has carte blanche to sell her story to the press, with whatever embellishments she cares to add. Contesting the case at least retains some possibility of winning and escaping with his reputation relatively intact, and even if he loses he can continue to claim (however implausibly) that the verdict was wrong and he didn't really do anything.

[dervish]

I can't help feeling his dad will be up there saying 'That's my boy'. Probably part of the problem.

[SATCOS WHIPPING BOY]

I don't think it is an "age of consent" issue but one of "she didn't willingly consent" issue. Trafficked by Maxwell and Epstein for the pleasure of their rich and influential friends.

[GeeRam]

And by all accounts not long after said incident she met and married an Aussie, and has been living in Perth area ever since...?

Have to feel for HMQ.

[NutLoose]

They’re after his Dukedom now as well, I do hope it’s catching and they strip the bearded wonder of his as well.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-york-north-yorkshire-59987648

[B2N2]

I am entirely ambivalent about his plight, but I am confused about what he's in trouble for - is bedding a girl who was 17 at the time and therefore old enough to make her own mind up, who subsequently boasted to her friends about bedding a prince, some sort of offence? I'm not talking about the moral aspect here, but it strikes me that it wasn't against her will and it wasn't in way illegal - What's the problem?

You mean a previously abused child that was groomed and emotionally blackmailed by two abusers including a woman to justify what was being done, then trafficked ( transported) out of the country with her passport being held and introduced to the powerful and the famous?
Pressured into agreeing?
A Prince using his position and his friends in dark places to have sexual relations with a teenager the age of his own daughters?
You don’t see any problem with that?

[Nige321]

You mean a previously abused child that was groomed and emotionally blackmailed by two abusers including a woman to justify what was being done, then trafficked ( transported) out of the country with her passport being held and introduced to the powerful and the famous?
Pressured into agreeing?
A Prince using his position and his friends in dark places to have sexual relations with a teenager the age of his own daughters?
You don’t see any problem with that?

It's worth doing a bit of research into Ms Roberts story (She's written a book), the MSM seem to be blind to the numerous inconsistencies in her story.
It's worth asking yourself why this is a civil case, not a criminal one.
Why she was never called in the Maxwell trial.

I'm no apologist for Randy Andy, but I do think he's become clickbait for a rabid mainstream media...
How on earth he'll ever get a fair trial in the US is a mystery.

[B2N2]

It's worth doing a bit of research into Ms Roberts story (She's written a book), the MSM seem to be blind to the numerous inconsistencies in her story.
It's worth asking yourself why this is a civil case, not a criminal one.
Why the US police have never mnoved forward with any charges against anyone having heard her story.
Why she was never called in the Maxwell trial.

I'm no apologist for Randy Andy, but I do think he's become clickbait for a rabid mainstream media...
How on earth he'll ever get a fair trial in the US is a mystery.

The answer

Giuffre filed a civil suit against Andrew on 9 August last year, using a New York state law that provides a window for survivors of childhood sexual abuse to sue, even if the alleged crimes took place outside the statute of limitations.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/jan/12/prince-andrew-virginia-giuffre-case-court-trial-testimony-what-happens-next

Fair trial? To begin with we don’t consider “royalty” to be holy and above the law of the commoners.

[NutLoose]

I wonder, can Epstein’s estate now sue her for the return of the cash payment due to breach of contract.

[Darkmouse]

You mean a previously abused child that was groomed and emotionally blackmailed by two abusers including a woman to justify what was being done, then trafficked ( transported) out of the country with her passport being held and introduced to the powerful and the famous?
Pressured into agreeing?
A Prince using his position and his friends in dark places to have sexual relations with a teenager the age of his own daughters?
You don’t see any problem with that?

I think the behaviour of the lot of them is disgusting, but you are supposing that it was as clear cut as Andrew asking for someone to be sent over for him. 17 year old girls and thinking with my dick aren't my thing, but if they were, I were single and a friend introduced me to one who seemingly had a penchant for middle aged helicopter pilots, would I be doing anything wrong?

[packapoo]

I don't think it is an "age of consent" issue but one of "she didn't willingly consent" issue. Trafficked by Maxwell and Epstein for the pleasure of their rich and influential friends.
Just think of the bragging rights she scored......

[NutLoose]

Just think of the bragging rights she scored......
is that what you call it?