Looks like he’s going to be plain Mr, Windsor from here on in.
Wonder how much they’ll have to shell out to keep him from publishing
a tell all book.
Or will he and Fergie go the Neil and Christine Hamilton route and
do pantos (Andy as Baron Hard on and Fergie ads for Curcerin
foot powder) or reality TV (Come Dine With One)
The Banned Old Duke of York, as I’ve seen him referred to on Twitter.
His father would have been upset.
He… and I quote… ‘didn’t suffer fools gladly’.
Zat so!
He will still be Prince Andrew apparently
Is that the heir apparently?
Every day will be a bad heir dayfrom this point on
Heir today, gone tomorrow.
Sadly not.
In a related story, despite a huge outcry Windsor Council are going ahead with their planes to rename a road near a local girl’s school, “Prince Andrew Close”.
“It’s not an honorific, it’s a warning”, explained a council spokesperson
More like an admit- all book.
I can’t see him confessing to sex with underaged, trafficked girls, even if his sense of entitlement means that he would still somehow see himself as the victim if he did.
This entire situation is nonsensical.
If he’s guilty he should be in court, and ideally prison. If he’s not guilty then why is he being punished again and why is he accepting it? What’s changed?
Are we seriously supposed to be pacified by this? The notion that the royals may molest our kids, but where they do so they’ll pay by surrendering their made up titles and continuing to live free and in luxury? Nonsensical.
The Queen gave £12 million to make the charges go away. There is no legal action to be taken against him. However, everybody knows he done it and that he’s an utter rotter. Charles hopes that stripping him of his titles (no doubt Andrew will still get a brown envelope stuffed with twenties every week) keeps him out of the public eye and eventually we’ll all forget he existed.
He’s never going to see the inside of a court, never mind a prison cell.
Nor, given the fact that the normal 30-year cabinet papers disclosure rule will surely be extended to 50 or 75 years, are any of us here ever likely to find out why.
The £12m settled the civil case.
A criminal investigation and trial could still theoretically occur. Some people seem to believe that yesterday’s news suggests that charges may be incoming. I’ll believe it when I see it, particularly as you’d almost certainly need the cooperation of US authorities.
He’s a feckin’ paedophile and should face the consequences
More an ephebophile, I think.
“An ephebophile is a person who is sexually attracted to mid-to-late adolescents, generally those aged 15 to 19” going off that ephebophile and paedophile both fit his despicable behaviour
I heard this word for the first time the other day. Feels like someone, somewhere is trying to move the noncerton window downwards.
It’s an important distinction that gets overlooked. Virginia Giuffre was 17 when she had sex with Andrew. I’d say the fact that she was coerced/trafficked was the big crime. If both parties had been willing and consensual and he had been closer to her age, there’s no way the actual sex could be compared to the far more heinous crime of having sex with a pre-pubescent child (pedophilia).
The problem is that without a criminal investigation we have no idea what the extent or age range of Prince Andrew’s victims might be.
We know he’s accused of raping Virginia Giuffre at age 17, but the implication is that the event was arranged by a convicted sex trafficker with victims who ranged as young as 14, and with whom the Prince enjoyed by his own admission a very close and ongoing relationship, even after said trafficker was charged.
The accusation of paedophilia is entirely fair. Jeffrey Epstein was a sex trafficker and child sex offender. Prince Andrew has his close friend and faces credible accusations of having been trafficked at least one teenage girl. He is therefore credibly connected to, or at least in the orbit of, sex crimes against children, and we have no way of discerning where his personal water’s edge might have been.
Quibbling over terminology misses the point. We will never know whether Andrew was a paedophile or merely an ephebophile because his involvement will never be properly investigated – that much has been seen to.
In those circumstances, he deserves the widest terminology of accusation, and if that’s unfair he is free to challenge the matter in open court. But he never will, because god knows what else he’s been up to, safe in the knowledge that he’s effectively untouchable.
Spot on. He certainly has the means to fight it if he so inclined (or outraged). But he won’t.
He was known as the Duke of Nonce in this household. I have often wondered if he is known as Uncle Nonce in the Royal Family.
Uncle ‘andy, probably, although that lot would never drop an H. Although they have dropped an HRH.
Utter twat. Below Nickelback in the popularity league. Might be above Jim Davidson and Roy “Chubby” Brown, I suppose. But it’s close.
Certainly below Davidson who revealed a much more human and honest personality once he gave up the booze.
Andrew doesn’t have that excuse; ALLEGEDLY he doesn’t drink.
Hopefully he’ll take after his grandfather’s brother and piss off from the UK never to return.
Trial by media is a pretty horrible modern day occurrence. However, I suspect it may well be the only trial we get to see on this so here’s hoping it’s a full on version.
I couldn’t give a flying f**k about the royal family, but a lot of people still do apparently, and seem to be prepared to push this to one side and still support the idea of the constitutional monarchy. Mrs.T is a bit of a royalist – she has no time for Charles and Camilla for very moralistic reasons, however still seems to think it’s a good thing to have a monarchy. Frankly, I think it’s because she can’t imagine NOT having one. I actually have some sympathy for C and C in that they weren’t able to do what ordinary people did, and of course Diana sadly became the victim in all of that.
The received wisdom seems to be that the Queen (as in THE Queen, not the current one) made the mistake of creating the wider royal family as the ‘Firm’ and thus attempted to protect the monarchy, but in fact made them vulnerable to this sort of thing. In the modern world this sort of behaviour is very difficult to cover up, even if you do give 12 million sovs to someone you say you never shagged. Going on TV and thinking you can lie about it doesn’t help. The whole shebang infuriates me.
I rather like Camilla as she is totally herself and doesn’t pretend to be anything else. I quite like Kate too.
Kate needs to visit Greggs more often, fill out a bit, don’t you think? And I don’t mean the Masterchef commando.
“You’re looking nice and moist tonight, Kate…”
A small gripe I have about the Royals (among many many large gripes) is that we were told she would not receive the title of Queen. Don’t know why I should expend the mental energy on being annoyed about it, they don’t give a flying one about me. Or you.
No you’re right.
‘Royal experts’ were wheeled out in droves twenty-five years or so ago and unanimously said that, I think to appease royalists who loved Princess Diana. I remember that clear as a bell, and I too am a little bit peeved by it for reasons I don’t quite understand myself.
Fuck having sympathy for C&C. If he loved her so much he could have relinquished his claim to the succession and married her.
But the role of the royal mistress is as traditional as the monarchy itself. The difference with Charles is that he was besotted with his.
He didn’t marry her because she was already married. Not that I could care but I think he probably does have a strong sense of duty, old fashioned as it may seem.
To see how callous The Firm really is one only has to look up
stories of how they treated their Royal retainers over the years – the
classic example being the ostracism of Liz and her sister’s governess
Crawfie
Lots of contributors to this site apparently still seem relatively indifferent to the antics of musical heroes whose antics seem little different to that of the wretched Andrew.
As an aside, according my Probation Office wife,who has had decades of experience dealing with them, there is a considerable difference between men ( and a few women) attracted to pre-pubescent children and those attracted to adolescents. It’s a key factor in terms of determining risk.
But those musicians are artists and producing something of value to people. I don’t think anyone condones their past (or current) behaviours and we’ve debated at length on here about the necessity to separate the art from the artist.
A cousin of mine who is a policewoman dealing specifically with child abuse says the same.
Andrew strikes me as a very unpleasant person, most likely a total scumbag, but he can’t be considered guilty of the same level of depravity and perversion as Ian Watkins. It’s his involvement in the trafficking of young girls and their coercion into having sex that is his real crime, not pedophilia.
https://learning.nspcc.org.uk/news/why-language-matters/paedophile-problematic-caution
Yes. Not so much his sexual preference but his willingness to take advantage of girls who were coerced.
The sex itself may not have been illegal but the attendant circumstances almost certainly were.
In fairness to the guy, and it’s the only ‘fairness’ I’m prepared to grant, he was born in 1960.
His record collection must be shite.
He is still called Prince in fact. Why?
He’s a prince by birth which I believe can’t be taken away.
He will retain the dukedom, which can only be removed by an act of parliament, but not use it.
I suppose we could all just call him ‘Andrew, the king’s brother’ until it sticks.
“Nonce” rightly or wrongly, already has stuck.
There’s also a pleasing continuity to Nonce Andrew
The Toerag Formerly Known As Prince
Rinsed Andrew
Just read “Persona non Garter” which I rather like.
Knight of the Gutter
I know the law says that he can still call himself Prince Andrew, but I there’s nothing that says everybody else has to call him that.
Couldn’t the media just start calling him “Andrew”? It might be a touch confusing, and I admit I haven’t thought this through, but I like to think he would die a bit inside every time he saw a headline or story that referred to him as just plain old Andrew, with no “Prince” in sight.
Who? That would be his greatest legacy, especially if in his lifetime. “Do you know who I am?” Not a clue, guv, but you can’t sit here all night. Move on!
Do you know who I used to be?
Mother!!!!!!!
In general, I find titles of all kinds an odd thing, and most people find them awkward to use. I worked for a time in a public sector organisation, where the chairman was knighted and then given a peerage. He told his secretary that she could call him by his first name when there were only the two of them but expected his titles to be used apart from that. As he was the boss you had to go along with it.
But it did seem forelock tugging when he wasn’t there. Let’s say his surname was Smith, he was often referred to just as the Chairman, Smith or even Smithy, so accepting the title, hadn’t exactly increased his dignity. Everybody else was on first name terms.
They’re a very English thing. Americans seem to love using “Sir”, but I’d imagine most non-English speaking countries dismiss English titles as completely irrelevant and/or a bit silly.
Ben Kingsley used to insist that people used his “k” when addressing him.
Not sure if he still does
You remind me of this ever-brilliant cameo appearance
“No one plays a ruthless, hard hearted prick like you do”
High praise indeed from Kri-stoh-fuh!
Currently rewatching – up to S5 but yet to see Sir Ben, Betty Bacall and the goodie bags
Still the greatest TV show ever made by some distance
Agreed. I just did season 4. Excellent.
One of my favourite lines is “Napoleon – he was a moody fuck”.
Isn’t that the first line of the lyrics to Waterloo by the Swedish hitmakers.