Matthew Best
Penultimate Amazing
I presume I'm not the only person who immediately thought of this:
-
Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more
Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor has been arrested...
- Thread starter smartcooky
- Start date
P.J. Denyer
Penultimate Amazing
Thank you for that. It says Brian initiated the procedure, but was it actually completed?
P.J. Denyer
Penultimate Amazing
Meh, still better than Andrew.
Andy_Ross
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Jun 2, 2010
- Messages
- 85,268
Already posted it lol
Some more details here - https://constitution-unit.com/2025/11/08/prince-andrew-and-the-future-of-the-monarchy/
Looks like he is still Duke of York, Earl of Inverness and Baron Killyleagh, but will no longer be listed as such in the Roll of the Peerage. It will take an Act of Parliament to completely remove those. Other things, such as HRH and being a Knight of the Garter, can simply be removed by the King (and I think that has now happened).
P.J. Denyer
Penultimate Amazing
Yeah, I knew he'd lost his garter. Wait, that sounds wrong. [Shudder]
Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor charged massages to taxpayer while trade envoy, say reports
Former senior civil servants say culture of deference meant excessive expenses claims were waved through
www.theguardian.com
"Stripped of all his baubles" sounds a bit more extreme than even what his big brother has suggested so far...
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
Oh hear us when we cry to you, for those in peril from And-rew...Wudang
BOFH
Well there's someone whose hard drive needs looking at. eta: Oliver from Andy's post.
Last edited:
I think Oliver's summarising the views of Jeremy Vine's guests (whoever they are; I have no idea).
Andy_Ross
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Jun 2, 2010
- Messages
- 85,268
Not him, the guest on the show.
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
Quickest way to remove Andrew from the LOS is to perform a DNA test...? He looks nothing like his siblings.
I disagree.
Being in the line of succession is a privilege within the gift of Parliament. In the 1930s the heir to the throne was causing a crisis for the scandalous but perfectly legal behaviour of wanting to marry a divorced American (not his Nazi sympathies). Many organisations have clauses about bringing the organisation into disrepute and Nonce Andrew has managed that to the institution of the monarchy, which I guess is an achievement of sorts.
Also, although he's not been charged with any crime, he paid substantial out of court damages to his accuser, sufficiently large as to cause him financial difficulties, which also counts against him.
I would agree that he should not go to prison without a trial, but removing any and all honours is the least that should happen.
Especially ones with a higher than normal levels of consanguinity.
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
As an American I knew from the start that the line of succession was controlled by Parliament. You can't be told about the monarchy in much depth without learning about primogeniture and laws passed that effectively decided who could or couldn't sit on the throne. And I think there was a documentary a few years back, King Ralph, that poked a bit of fun at how absurd that might get.
But I think Americans generally have a poor understanding of the role of titles and positions in the aristocracy and how those interact with lawful succession. I remember hearing once that the ascending monarch's titles are all extinguished such that no one title is said to lead to the crown. Hence every Prince of Wales must be created anew. But the whole notion of creation and extinction of titles and their heredity just sounds to Americans as an undifferentiated and unimpressive cloud of dukes, princes, barons, earls, viscounts, marchionesses, monsignors, thanes, and elderberries. As my spouse said while watching the recent coronation: "I thought we fought a war so that I didn't have to remember any of this ◊◊◊◊."
What unites them all in the American view is best summed up by Dennis of the Moor: "And 'ow did you get that, eh? By exploiting the working class." That is, a perpetuation of a class of wealth and privilege by institutional means, largely maintained by and for the benefit of various Upper Class Twits. Eventually one of them gets to be king. But exactly how is murky to us, as soon as it falls outside the rules of straightforward primogeniture. It never occurred to us that Andrew is somehow in the line of succession.
The delicate ballet amongst styles, titles, and succession is largely lost on us too. The king can apparently take some of those away just by announcing it from the balcony amidst a fanfare of trumpets. But others can only be taken away by Parliament. I'm sure most of us naturally thought that the king stripping some of that privilege away from Andrew automatically withdrew him from the line of succession (even if he is only eighth in line and would probably require a King Ralph level of catastrophe to make him heir apparent—or presumptive, however that works). A lot of us thought that you have to first be prince of something in order to eventually be the king of anything. Most of us are just hoping we don't have to face the prospect of Don Jr. ascending the throne of America upon the death of our own Baron Harkonnen.
But even here in America there is the sentiment that even the credible suspicion of wrongdoing ought to be enough to remove a person from an otherwise undeserved position of privilege. It doesn't always happen. But there once was a time in the U.S. where credible suspicion of lawbreaking meant you had to fall on your sword and resign any offices of public trust. So it won't come as a surprise at least to some of us if Andrew is fully removed from his privileges before any actual legal finding issues forth.
But I think Americans generally have a poor understanding of the role of titles and positions in the aristocracy and how those interact with lawful succession. I remember hearing once that the ascending monarch's titles are all extinguished such that no one title is said to lead to the crown. Hence every Prince of Wales must be created anew. But the whole notion of creation and extinction of titles and their heredity just sounds to Americans as an undifferentiated and unimpressive cloud of dukes, princes, barons, earls, viscounts, marchionesses, monsignors, thanes, and elderberries. As my spouse said while watching the recent coronation: "I thought we fought a war so that I didn't have to remember any of this ◊◊◊◊."
What unites them all in the American view is best summed up by Dennis of the Moor: "And 'ow did you get that, eh? By exploiting the working class." That is, a perpetuation of a class of wealth and privilege by institutional means, largely maintained by and for the benefit of various Upper Class Twits. Eventually one of them gets to be king. But exactly how is murky to us, as soon as it falls outside the rules of straightforward primogeniture. It never occurred to us that Andrew is somehow in the line of succession.
The delicate ballet amongst styles, titles, and succession is largely lost on us too. The king can apparently take some of those away just by announcing it from the balcony amidst a fanfare of trumpets. But others can only be taken away by Parliament. I'm sure most of us naturally thought that the king stripping some of that privilege away from Andrew automatically withdrew him from the line of succession (even if he is only eighth in line and would probably require a King Ralph level of catastrophe to make him heir apparent—or presumptive, however that works). A lot of us thought that you have to first be prince of something in order to eventually be the king of anything. Most of us are just hoping we don't have to face the prospect of Don Jr. ascending the throne of America upon the death of our own Baron Harkonnen.
But even here in America there is the sentiment that even the credible suspicion of wrongdoing ought to be enough to remove a person from an otherwise undeserved position of privilege. It doesn't always happen. But there once was a time in the U.S. where credible suspicion of lawbreaking meant you had to fall on your sword and resign any offices of public trust. So it won't come as a surprise at least to some of us if Andrew is fully removed from his privileges before any actual legal finding issues forth.
If Andy_Ross's post is correct, Andrew M-W is a rapist, then, not a pedophile, so that makes it all OK, does it?
arthwollipot
Limerick Purist Pronouns: He/Him
'Could bring down Charles': Royal biographer's warning over Andrew's emails
The scandal surrounding Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor has the potential to end the reign of King Charles III, claims a British historian who wrote an unofficial biography of the former prince.
www.abc.net.au
angrysoba
Philosophile
Okay, but that's not really what they said. They said they hadn't seen evidence of his crimes.