• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Split Thread Virginia Guiffre v Duke of York

Upon further reflection, especially considering the case of Princess Anne, I no longer have a problem with honorary ranks for governmental figureheads. Different strokes for different folks.
 
zooterkin said:
Probably Order of the Garter or some other honour, but I'm pretty sure he has no military rank.

ETA: Ok, I'm wrong, in that he's the honorary Colonel-in-Chief of a few regiments. That is slightly different from the military ranks that Anne has, however.
Click to expand...
At least the Colonel-in-Chief actually has some ceremonial duties, such as presiding over the trooping of the colors, as opposed to Andrew's Vice Admiral rank, which just entitled him to wear the uniform.
 
THE KING has been pleased by Letters Patent under the Great Seal of the Realm dated 3 November 2025 to declare that Andrew Mountbatten Windsor shall no longer be entitled to hold and enjoy the style, title or attribute of 'Royal Highness’ and the titular dignity of ‘Prince’.

THE KING has been pleased by Warrant under His Royal Sign Manual dated 30 October 2025 to direct His Secretary of State to cause the Duke of York to be removed from the Roll of the Peerage with immediate effect.
 
catsmate said:
THE KING has been pleased by Letters Patent under the Great Seal of the Realm dated 3 November 2025 to declare that Andrew Mountbatten Windsor shall no longer be entitled to hold and enjoy the style, title or attribute of 'Royal Highness’ and the titular dignity of ‘Prince’.

THE KING has been pleased by Warrant under His Royal Sign Manual dated 30 October 2025 to direct His Secretary of State to cause the Duke of York to be removed from the Roll of the Peerage with immediate effect.
Click to expand...

What's he pleased about? Weird people, weird customs, weird entitlement all around, and weird language.

eta: Eh, not really, not in the age of the orange monstrosity and his spineless sycophants. This is completely entirely sane and normal, all of this, in comparison.
 
Last edited:
I gather from a quick browse of the last three pages of this thread that they're apparently going to paying this sleazeball money, both an upfront as well as a regular stipend/pension/salary/whatever. ...Who bears the tab? The taxpayers, whether directly or indirectly? Or directly the king, with no recourse to the taxpayers even indirectly? (Apologies if this has been discussed, didn't notice it if so.)
 
Following on the news article linked about Charles getting rid of bro's titles, was this one: Apparently, the residents want to be changing the names of two roads named after Andrew. Which is fair enough, who'd want to live on Pedophile Park and Sleazeball Street: but the equally weird thing is that these roads were named after Andrew in honor of his singular achievement at being born. (They actually named them after him when this baby was born to Elizabeth. How utterly grovelingly blindly mindlessly shamelessly sycophantic is that.) (Although again, nothing compared to the groveling of the sycophants before their vile orange master. That kind of puts things in perspective, actually, even this monarachy nonsense.)


www.theguardian.com

Calls to change ‘embarrassing’ Prince Andrew road names in Maidenhead

Residents say two roads should be renamed after former prince was censured for friendship with child sex offender
www.theguardian.com www.theguardian.com
 
So Charlie has done his Letters Patent and removed Andrew from his sight.


King Charles has officially stripped the former Duke of York, now Andrew Mountbatten Windsor, of his HRH style and his prince title.

Charles formally made the changes, which were announced a week ago, by issuing a letters patent under the great seal of the realm, which the crown office published in the Gazette, the UK’s official public record.


The entry, published on Wednesday, read: “The king has been pleased by letters patent under the great seal of the realm dated 3 November 2025 to declare that Andrew Mountbatten Windsor shall no longer be entitled to hold and enjoy the style, title or attribute of ‘royal highness’ and the titular dignity of ‘prince’.” https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news...-prince-title-officially-removed-king-charles
Click to expand...
Click to expand...


Ironic when we note the type of company Charles himself has kept in the past.
 
Chanakya said:
I gather from a quick browse of the last three pages of this thread that they're apparently going to paying this sleazeball money, both an upfront as well as a regular stipend/pension/salary/whatever. ...Who bears the tab? The taxpayers, whether directly or indirectly? Or directly the king, with no recourse to the taxpayers even indirectly? (Apologies if this has been discussed, didn't notice it if so.)
Click to expand...

It will be from Chucky's "private income"...

Exactly how this bunch, like all the rest of our robber baron aritocracy, acquired said income and at who's expense is A Whole Other Matter and one which all of our aristocracy tend to keep quiet about.

I mean, I'm sure Dunrobin Castle is just stuffed with exhibits and full details about what the Sutherlands did to the folk on their vast estates in northern Scorland...

When I visited Dunvegan Castle in Skye I had a good long look for information about the McLeods' role in clearing Skye and elsewhere, but those exhibits must have been down for cleaning...Still loads of stuff about how wonderful the lairds had been though, so that's alright.

(I'm currently reading Jim Hunter's Insurrection, about the Scottish potato famine, so I feel even less charitably inclined towards large land owners than I ever do.)
 
Carrot Flower King said:
It will be from Chucky's "private income"...

Exactly how this bunch, like all the rest of our robber baron aritocracy, acquired said income and at who's expense is A Whole Other Matter and one which all of our aristocracy tend to keep quiet about.

I mean, I'm sure Dunrobin Castle is just stuffed with exhibits and full details about what the Sutherlands did to the folk on their vast estates in northern Scorland...

When I visited Dunvegan Castle in Skye I had a good long look for information about the McLeods' role in clearing Skye and elsewhere, but those exhibits must have been down for cleaning...Still loads of stuff about how wonderful the lairds had been though, so that's alright.

(I'm currently reading Jim Hunter's Insurrection, about the Scottish potato famine, so I feel even less charitably inclined towards large land owners than I ever do.)
Click to expand...

Ah, private income, then.

Didn't get all, or any, of those other references, though: but I do get the gist, I think. And enjoyed the rant. (No sarcasm, actually did!)
 
Chanakya said:
Ah, private income, then.

Didn't get all, or any, of those other references, though: but I do get the gist, I think. And enjoyed the rant. (No sarcasm, actually did!)
Click to expand...

"Private Income" is, as CFK says, rather less straight forward than it implies. The Crown used to take all income from taxation and the Crown Estates but was responsible for things like the Military, Judiciary, Army etc (long before the NHS or social security) however George III wound up in such debt, as a nation and personally, that he struck a deal with Parliament handing over the income in return for Parliament taking on his debts and the financial management of the country and providing he, his family and heirs a Royal lifestyle. They kept, for indeterminant reasons, a couple of dutchies, seemingly because the revenue was already handed over under a previous arrangement and so was taken as read, but then reverted. And they've also managed to aquire a couple of private estates over the centuries even though the monarch wasn't supposed to have private property at the time, however even into the twentieth century the monarchy wasn't personally particularly rich, this seems to have changed significantly during EIIR's reign but it isn't clear exactly how as Royal finances have been shrouded in secrecy. Public payments to the Royals have been restructured so they flow through the monarch rather than being distributed directly to the extended tribe, but have increased by an order of magnitude since the 1990s but even that doesn't seem to explain all their wealth. Princess Micheal's will was unsealed due to an (insane) maternity suite and it was found that she'd left nearly £8mil, after disbursing over £12mil worth of assets while she was alive to avoid IHT (which backfired, she should have been less worried about the tax man than her heir). The Queen Mother's estate was supposedly worth over £30mil and the Queens in the £Billions but as Royal wills are sealed (in an 'ancient tradition' dating back slightly more than a hundred years) and the monarch is excempt inheritance tax we may never know the actual amount or how it was accumulated.
 
Last edited:
P.J. Denyer said:
"Private Income" is, as CFK says, rather less straight forward than it implies. The Crown used to take all income from taxation and the Crown Estates but was responsible for things like the Military, Judiciary, Army etc (long before the NHS or social security) however George III wound up in such debt, as a nation and personally, that he struck a deal with Parliament handing over the income in return for Parliament taking on his debts and the financial management of the country and providing he, his family and heirs a Royal lifestyle. They kept, for indeterminant reasons, a couple of dutchies, seemingly because the revenue was already handed over under a previous arrangement and so was taken as read, but then reverted. And they've also managed to aquire a couple of private estates over the centuries even though the monarch wasn't supposed to have private property at the time, however even into the twentieth century the monarchy wasn't personally rich, this seems to have changed significantly during EIIR's reign but it isn't clear exactly how as Royal finances have been shouted in secrecy. Public payments to the Royals have been restructured so they flow through the monarch rather than being distributed directly to the extended tribe, but have increased by an order of magnitude since the 1990s but even that doesn't seem to explain all their wealth. Princess Micheal's will was unsealed due to an (insane) maternity suite and it was found that she'd left nearly £8mil, after disbursing over £12mil worth of assets while she was alive to avoid IHT (which backfired, she should have been less worried about the tax man than her heir). The Queen Mother's estate was supposedly worth over £30mil and the Queens in the £Billions but as Royal wills are sealed (in an 'ancient tradition' dating back slightly more than a hundred years) and the monarch is excempt inheritance tax we may never know the actual amount or how it was accumulated.
Click to expand...

Interesting! ...I thought @Carrot Flower King was referring generally to the fact that the monarchy as well as the aristocracy owning any wealth at all basis their past exploitation of everybody else is, in this day and age, an anachronistic and silly bit of nonsense. This clearly is more specific, and weirder actually if they've become so much richer in the last 20 or 30 years.
 
Chanakya said:
Interesting! ...I thought @Carrot Flower King was referring generally to the fact that the monarchy as well as the aristocracy owning any wealth at all basis their past exploitation of everybody else is, in this day and age, an anachronistic and silly bit of nonsense. This clearly is more specific, and weirder actually if they've become so much richer in the last 20 or 30 years.
Click to expand...

It could be longer, the Late Queen took the throne in the 1950's, the lack of transparency makes it hard to tell exactly what they have and when they got it.
 
Chanakya said:
Ah, private income, then.

Didn't get all, or any, of those other references, though: but I do get the gist, I think. And enjoyed the rant. (No sarcasm, actually did!)
Click to expand...

References explained...

I call all our aristocracy "robber barons", as the oldest names and titles all descend from Norman invaders who stole things, as does the claim of our monarchy.

Dunrobin Castle is the seat of the now Dukes, formerly Earls, of Sutherland. Said family owned pretty much the whole of the county of Sutherland (and more) and were behind some of the most notorious of the Highland Clearances (see James Hunter's Cast Adrift Upon The World for a specific history of Sutherland). There is a statue of the most infamous Duke on a huge column on a hill neighbouring Dunrobin, which is visible from across the Dornoch Firth: it has been desecrated a number of times.

Dunvegan Castle in Skye is the seat of the McLeods, as in the Clan McLeod, who owned much of Skye and some other places. They had a role in the clearing of parts of Skye. Nothing in the castle (open to the public to fleece folk a bit more - I was hiding from a torrential downpour) makes any reference at all to how they acquired land nor their role in clearances of their clan members and other folk. No books in the shop refer to any of that sort of history.

The above is true in many other places linked to large land owners in Scotland and England.

I'll let our Irish members talk about things on that side of the Irish Sea.

Suffice to say, scratch an aristocrat or hereditary large scale land owner and there will be a whole flood of unpleasantness at other folks' expense.

Jim Hunter's Making of the Scottish Crofting Community is highly recommended; Eric Richards' book on the Clearances is good, but, as Hunter points out, he can be a bit charitable towards land owning interests. Andy Wightman's The Poor Had No Lawyers is essential reading; Peter Hetherington's Whose Land Is Our Land? is the closest English equivalent I've found. Cannadine's Decline and Fall of the British Aristocracy is a good one too. And that's before we go into details of the Enclosures or essay EP Thompson's classic The Making of the English Working Class...
 
arthwollipot said:
Welcome to a thousand-year-old monarchy.

Both Mr Mountbatten-Windsor and his nephew Prince Harry saw active military combat - Andrew in the Falklands and Harry in Afghanistan.
Click to expand...
And neither was allowed to wear uniform at the late queen's funeral; while all those with no service at all did.
Not defending " Randy Andy ", of course.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom