[Tom Bishop]

We don't have a Prince Andrew thread, so here it is. The latest news appears to be that Prince Andrew has disgraced his family, his country, and and has been stripped of his military titles and patronages over the debacle.

New York Times - Prince Andrew Is Stripped of Military Titles as Sexual Abuse Case Proceeds

LONDON — Prince Andrew, the second son of Queen Elizabeth II, has been forced to relinquish his military titles and royal charities, Buckingham Palace said on Thursday, a stinging rebuke by the British royal family a day after a federal judge in New York allowed a sexual abuse case against him to go ahead.

The palace said that Andrew, 61, who has been accused by Virginia Giuffre of raping her while she was a teenager, would also no longer use the title “His Royal Highness,” a prized symbol of his status as a senior member of the royal family. In a terse statement, the palace said that Andrew would “continue not to undertake any public duties” and that he “is defending this case as a private citizen.”

Andrew, who is also known as the Duke of York, has denied Ms. Giuffre’s allegations, which date from a period in which he was friendly with the financier and convicted sex predator Jeffrey Epstein. The duke’s lawyers tried to get her lawsuit dismissed, but the judge, Lewis A. Kaplan, ruled against him on Wednesday.

The decision by Buckingham Palace completes a stunning fall from grace for a man who was once one of the royal family’s most popular members — a dashing war hero and eligible bachelor — but who has since become a disgraced figure, left to explain why he associated with a convicted criminal like Mr. Epstein.

The announcement by Buckingham Palace came after extensive discussions within the royal family, according to people with ties to the palace. It was designed to head off an effort by Andrew to rehabilitate himself, according to one person. The language in Buckingham Palace’s statement, officials said, was meant to underscore the permanence of the sanction against him.

Andrew had been largely banished from public life since November 2019, when he gave a disastrous interview to the BBC in which he insisted he had never met Ms. Giuffre and made several bizarre claims to deflect her charges, among them that he was medically incapable of sweating, as she had asserted.

[honk]

Oh no, he can no longer use the title "His Royal Highness." And he doesn't have the military titles that never meant anything to begin with either. This changes everything. What a devastating punishment. What a fitting comeuppance. Life must not even be worth living for him now.

I wonder if it's possible for them to go all the way and kick him out of the royal family entirely. Then we could call him the Andrew Formerly Known as Prince.

[Dr David Thork]

I'm going to guess that Giuffre received a shit ton of cash to be in the company of these men. 'Trafficked' is a fairly uncharitable term for an ambitious young women who is earning a truck load of green. Her being under 18 is the only sticking point. And she wasn't much under 18. I'm guessing it would be very hard to prove that Andrew knew she was under age beyond reasonable doubt.

Also paedophile. Mmmm. In the UK, and in fact in most countries on earth, the age of consent is 16. Its hard to look at Giuffre and decide that she looks physically like a child, rather than a woman.

So trafficked is a technicality, and paedophile is a technicality. I mean, sure, he's a dirty old man who paid to screw a young girl but he'd hardly be unique from that perspective.

I'd argue this isn't really in the public interest to charge Andrew. He isn't predating on actual children, and again trafficking suggests someone is taken against their will ... and she just looks like every other thirsty Instagram girl to me.

So it's a civil case ... and I think Giuffre has already been paid twice. Once for the work and she also took a cash settlement from Epstein many years ago in exchange for the promise not to go after any of Epstein's friends. The settlement was to cover all of them.

So it seems mostly like a witch hunt. I don't see Bill gates or indeed any US citizen getting chased. Andrew is hardly Epstein's closest or most frequent customer. If the likes of Bill Gates were facing charges, I'd be a little more sympathetic to this circus.

The truth is that Andrew is a total cock. Filled with his own self importance and utterly entitled. And no one likes him. So there isn't anyone high up who has any interest in protecting him unlike Bill Gates.

But my feeling is that this shouldn't have come to court. Giuffre already has her damages money and its not in the public interest.

[Rama Set]

I'm going to guess that Giuffre received a shit ton of cash to be in the company of these men. 'Trafficked' is a fairly uncharitable term for an ambitious young women who is earning a truck load of green. Her being under 18 is the only sticking point. And she wasn't much under 18. I'm guessing it would be very hard to prove that Andrew knew she was under age beyond reasonable doubt.

Also paedophile. Mmmm. In the UK, and in fact in most countries on earth, the age of consent is 16. Its hard to look at Giuffre and decide that she looks physically like a child, rather than a woman.

So trafficked is a technicality, and paedophile is a technicality. I mean, sure, he's a dirty old man who paid to screw a young girl but he'd hardly be unique from that perspective.

I'd argue this isn't really in the public interest to charge Andrew. He isn't predating on actual children, and again trafficking suggests someone is taken against their will ... and she just looks like every other thirsty Instagram girl to me.

So it's a civil case ... and I think Giuffre has already been paid twice. Once for the work and she also took a cash settlement from Epstein many years ago in exchange for the promise not to go after any of Epstein's friends. The settlement was to cover all of them.

So it seems mostly like a witch hunt. I don't see Bill gates or indeed any US citizen getting chased. Andrew is hardly Epstein's closest or most frequent customer. If the likes of Bill Gates were facing charges, I'd be a little more sympathetic to this circus.

The truth is that Andrew is a total cock. Filled with his own self importance and utterly entitled. And no one likes him. So there isn't anyone high up who has any interest in protecting him unlike Bill Gates.

But my feeling is that this shouldn't have come to court. Giuffre already has her damages money and its not in the public interest.

I am once again quite happy that you don’t get to decide anything for the public.

[Dr David Thork]

I am once again quite happy that you don’t get to decide anything for the public.

What a lousy rebuttal.

[Rama Set]

I am once again quite happy that you don’t get to decide anything for the public.

What a lousy rebuttal.

It’s all your worth.

EDIT: You should probably hear that it’s not your particular position that is shit, it’s the thought process (or lack thereof) you go through to arrive at it. Basically you make a cynical assumption, that she basically consented to this, and then use that to ignore all the other facts of the case. Facts I’m certain you are unaware of. It underlies a startlingly cruel and chauvinist mindset which you are frequently called out for and for which you have never made a proper accounting of.

[AATW]

your worth.

Also, of course Thork is being Thorky.
But he's not a million miles off here. Calling Andrew a pedo is harsh.
But he absolutely should be charged.

No-one in the UK cares much about Andrew.

[Dr David Thork]

your worth.

Also, of course Thork is being Thorky.
But he's not a million miles off here. Calling Andrew a pedo is harsh.
But he absolutely should be charged.

No-one in the UK cares much about Andrew.

Thork isn't an adjective.

I also think 'rape' is harsh. Again we are bouncing around legal technicalities and she is only a few months shy of everything being above board.

I imagine Andrew arrives at a large mansion via private jet. A concierge porter takes his bags and Epstein says "Welcome my friend. Here, have a glass of Champagne. How was your flight?". The next thing Andrew is eating olives, bullshitting about how important he is and a beautiful young girl comes over. A girl who has already been paid lots to be there.
Epstein: "Andrew, let me introduce you to Virginia".
Andrew: "Oh, hello. Pleasure to meet you. I'm a prince don't you know."
Virginia: "Oh hai!  You're a real prince, like the story books?".
Andrew: "Well almost but I'm much braver. I flew helicopters in the Falklands war."
Virginia: "Oh wow. So do you come here often?"

... a few moments later

Virginia: "Why don't you show me your room?".


'Rape' conjures images of women being held down, fists flying, tears, screaming, begging etc. This strikes me as absolutely consensual ... again but for the technicality that a 17 year old can't give consent for paid sex. Normal sex yes, paid sex no.

I've always thought this should have a different name in law. It shouldn't be classed as a rape. A man who would have sex with a 17 year old girl who agrees to do so for money is hardly the same as a monster who grabs a women in a public toilet and forces himself upon her. 

[Rama Set]

^ This post illustrates my point exactly. You start from the own fantasy of your imagination and dismiss the case based on that. That’s how children act.

[Dr David Thork]

^ This post illustrates my point exactly. You start from the own fantasy of your imagination and dismiss the case based on that. That’s how children act.

The point I'm making is 'Is Andrew evil, or is he just stupid?'. My feeling is that he is stupid, but he is facing the charges of someone who is evil. He acts out of poor decision making, not out of malice. In society we don't punish the stupid. We punish the evil. I think his lawyers can build a case around these kinds of premises.

[AATW]

^ This post illustrates my point exactly. You start from the own fantasy of your imagination and dismiss the case based on that. That’s how children act.

The point I'm making is 'Is Andrew evil, or is he just stupid?'. My feeling is that he is stupid, but he is facing the charges of someone who is evil. He acts out of poor decision making, not out of malice. In society we don't punish the stupid. We punish the evil. I think his lawyers can build a case around these kinds of premises.

I'm not a million miles away from disagreeing with you, but you're saying he shouldn't be charged.
If he did something illegal and there's good evidence of that then of course he should be charged.
It doesn't matter if it was out of stupidity or because he's a bond villain.

[Dr David Thork]

^ This post illustrates my point exactly. You start from the own fantasy of your imagination and dismiss the case based on that. That’s how children act.

The point I'm making is 'Is Andrew evil, or is he just stupid?'. My feeling is that he is stupid, but he is facing the charges of someone who is evil. He acts out of poor decision making, not out of malice. In society we don't punish the stupid. We punish the evil. I think his lawyers can build a case around these kinds of premises.

I'm not a million miles away from disagreeing with you, but you're saying he shouldn't be charged.
If he did something illegal and there's good evidence of that then of course he should be charged.

I'm saying charging him with rape and paedophilia are a little extreme. I think charging him with some kind of illegal contract law or something might be more appropriate.

But mostly I do think Giuffre has already been paid twice. I don't think she should get paid 3 times for having sex with a guy just the once. She got her damages. Andrew has already had fierce damage to his reputation. I feel like the scales of justice are already balanced. I would not have allowed the case if I was a judge. I'd have upheld the waver that Giuffre signed in exchange for damages. I think it was a political verdict rather than a fair one by the US judge.

It doesn't matter if it was out of stupidity or because he's a bond villain.

It absolutely does. The stupid can learn from making mistakes. Bond villains will actively pose a threat to others in the future. My guess is that Andrew has already learned his lesson. Again, he's dumb, not wicked.

[AATW]

It doesn't matter if it was out of stupidity or because he's a bond villain.

It absolutely does. The stupid can learn from making mistakes. Bond villains will actively pose a threat to others in the future. My guess is that Andrew has already learned his lesson. Again, he's dumb, not wicked.

I dunno.
I think people have had enough of the rich and powerful being able to do what they want without consequence.
One could argue that loss of reputation is a consequence, but he's still living a life of luxury.
I don't think it's a bad idea to send a message that they aren't above the law (even though often they are).

[Dr David Thork]

It doesn't matter if it was out of stupidity or because he's a bond villain.

It absolutely does. The stupid can learn from making mistakes. Bond villains will actively pose a threat to others in the future. My guess is that Andrew has already learned his lesson. Again, he's dumb, not wicked.

I dunno.
I think people have had enough of the rich and powerful being able to do what they want without consequence.
One could argue that loss of reputation is a consequence, but he's still living a life of luxury.
I don't think it's a bad idea to send a message that they aren't above the law (even though often they are).

Then I come back to ... if I see Bill Gates facing charges, I'll be more supportive of Andrew facing charges. Andrew isn't important, doesn't pay off all the media and doesn't leverage massive financial power to engage in social engineering programs against the populace. I'd like to see Gates face charges. Gates isn't dumb. Gates is wicked.

[AATW]

I'd like to see Gates face charges. Gates isn't dumb. Gates is wicked.

I'm sure you have excellent evidence of that.

[Dr David Thork]

I'd like to see Gates face charges. Gates isn't dumb. Gates is wicked.

I'm sure you have excellent evidence of that.

I know who would be the first witness I would call to the stand.

[Tumeni]

We don't have a Prince Andrew thread, so here it is. The latest news appears to be that Prince Andrew has disgraced his family, his country, and and has been stripped of his military titles and patronages over the debacle.

Do you think anyone similarly accused of participating in the Epstein debacle should also be considered to have brought disgrace upon their country, family, et al ... ?

[Tom Bishop]

We don't have a Prince Andrew thread, so here it is. The latest news appears to be that Prince Andrew has disgraced his family, his country, and and has been stripped of his military titles and patronages over the debacle.

Do you think anyone similarly accused of participating in the Epstein debacle should also be considered to have brought disgrace upon their country, family, et al ... ?

The Queen and Royal Family has apparently already judged him. That's good enough for me.

The Queen herself is an authority above the highest law in the land -

https://royalcentral.co.uk/features/insight/is-the-queen-really-above-the-law-1625/

"To make it absolutely clear: The Queen (or the reigning Monarch) is above the law. It has been like this for centuries and remains true and practicable today."

[Dr David Thork]

The Queen and Royal Family has apparently already judged him. That's good enough for me.

Judged him by not removing his Dukedom, not removing his HRH status, not removing his Vice Admiral Position in the Navy and judged him by allowing him to continue to live at The Royal Lodge in Great Windsor Park for free? All he has lost is the ability to call himself Lord of the Sea Scouts and a bunch of charity obligations. Sounds like a not guilty verdict to me.

[Tumeni]

The Queen herself is an authority above the highest law in the land -

https://royalcentral.co.uk/features/insight/is-the-queen-really-above-the-law-1625/

From their homepage;

"Royal Central is the most popular independent source for royal news on the web. Launched back in 2012 in the wake of the Diamond Jubilee, Royal Central originally began life on Twitter under the account name @RoyalFactsUK – an account dedicated to tweeting facts about Monarchies around the world.

We produce a wide range of content about royalty all around the world, though we specialise in the British Royal Family. From opinion pieces, to breaking news stories and from royal photos to on-the-ground coverage of big engagements – we really do cover it all!

WHO RUNS ROYAL CENTRAL?
Royal Central is run by a small team of editors who are responsible for commissioning and editing all of Royal Central’s content. Our content, meanwhile, is sourced from a number of different kinds of contributor. A team of dedicated reporters deal with the majority of our news coverage, while our feature writers post anything from historical insight to commentary on current royal issues. We also accept contributions from guest writers (including in the past TV presenters, authors and other famous faces)."

.... so it has no official status; it's an extension of a Twitter gossip page.