• 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

Carrot Flower King said:
And, of course, Mountbatten was the anglicised version of Battenburg, given that Phil and the rest were descendants of the minor German aristocracy imposed on the Greeks after they gained independence from the Ottomans.

Not to forget that Windsor is also a piece of made up pish to avoid having to acknowledge really being Saxe-Coburg-Gotha...

It'ss all a load of wank, really.
Click to expand...
To be fair the Glucksburgs (of whom the von Battenbergs are a cadet branch, are a Danish German house). I think Handsy should be reverted to the proper form of his surname, von Battenbrg und Saxe Coburg-Gotha.
 
Gulliver Foyle said:
To be fair the Glucksburgs (of whom the von Battenbergs are a cadet branch, are a Danish German house). I think Handsy should be reverted to the proper form of his surname, von Battenbrg und Saxe Coburg-Gotha.
Click to expand...
No, the name was officially and formally changed to Mountbatten-Windsor decades ago. We don't want to be deadnaming anyone.
 
Last edited:
Carrot Flower King said:
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...
Click to expand...

Me, I’m firmly of the view that no descendants of monarchs or aristocrats, anywhere, should ever be allowed to stay wealthy beyond everyday levels on inherited wealth tracing back solely and directly from those brazenly exploitative social structures of times past. It’s …obscene, that people who’d been oppressed by their overlords and kings in times past, should acquiesce to continuing to keep these freeloaders in such obscene undeserved wealth and pomp. Which is why I find the whole monarchy and aristocracy thing you guys have so utterly revolting --- particularly how people keep bowing and scraping and Your-Majesty-ing and My-Lord-ing and Sir-ring and Madam-ing to these worthless relics of a past age, an age of exploitation and horror that we’re all well rid of. …Which is why I enjoyed your rant, back in your earlier post!

And thanks for those details in this post, made for interesting reading. :thumbsup: (I checked some of those names out some more via quick Google search to fill up the gaps.)

…And of course, the lack of transparency even in this present time as far as the personal wealth of the monarch and her/his et ceteras, that @P.J. Denyer refers to, and their apparently ballooning wealth even in the present time and from sources unknown, that makes the whole thing even uglier.
 
Last edited:
There was an emergency session of Parliament yesterday, which voted unanimously to send a petition to the King. The King's office sent out this message just now:

His Royal Majesty King Charles Hopsburg Gotha Windsor Mountbatten is pleased to proclaim that the individual known so far as Andrew has been denuded of his name, and Andrew will henceforth be known as John Smith. He will no longer be the King's brother: instead, he has now been relegated to being the King's grandson's cousin.
Click to expand...

Link: https:www.HisMajestysReallyImportantAnnouncementsWebsite.uk.gov
 
I suppose one small advantage of having a hereditary monarchy is that in a situation like this Charkes can't say "I don't know if I even met him, maybe he used to bring the coffee or something"...
 
zooterkin said:
The process of removing the HRH and Prince titles is complete.

www.theguardian.com

King Charles officially strips Andrew of HRH style and prince title

Mountbatten Windsor is no longer entitled to use the terms and has been erased from roll of peerage
www.theguardian.com www.theguardian.com
Click to expand...
"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.”

I wonder if that also means he won't appear in Debrett's, the peerage database?
 
Orphia Nay said:
"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...
Mr Mountbatten Windsor is still Duke of York?
 
arthwollipot said:
No, the name was officially and formally changed to Mountbatten-Windsor decades ago. We don't want to be deadnaming anyone.
Click to expand...

But Andrew (and the late Queen's other children) weren't Mountbatten Windsor, that was for their direct heirs, the first generation were identified by their styles and titles, so Handsy was HRH Prince Handsy before he got his Dukedom then HRH Handsy York.

This is going to be as irritating as a barbed wire g-string to him every single time he has to use his name.... 🤣🤣
 
Planigale said:
The significance of Andriano's testimony is that Giuffre boasted about having sex with a Prince, and far from appearing hurt or upset by the encounter she was pleased with herself for having done so. This would also imply she was not an unwilling* partner in the interaction.
Click to expand...
Update on this.

Journalist Jay Beecher will soon release his interviews with Carolyn Andriano's mother. She claims Andriano was indeed offered money in exchange for false testimony to help Virginia Roberts. Andriano had always been resentful of the publicity Roberts received, but this is the first time I've heard that she was actually paid to corroborate the allegations against Andrew and Maxwell.

This mirrors what Sarah Ransome claims about her former lawyers at Boies Schiller Flexner and Brad Edwards and his firm. Allegedly she was bribed into corroborating Virginia's claims or they wouldn't represent her. She had already made a formal complaint against Boies shortly after the Maxwell trial, alleging mistreatment. She's preparing to sue him now. And though Ransome isn't the most reliable person, these claims support the idea that these roving bands of high-powered lawyers controlled (and in some cases created) the narrative in this story. But that idea originated with the villains in this story so of course nobody at CNN is going to explore whether it's credible.
 
Venom said:
Update on this.

Journalist Jay Beecher will soon release his interviews with Carolyn Andriano's mother. She claims Andriano was indeed offered money in exchange for false testimony to help Virginia Roberts. Andriano had always been resentful of the publicity Roberts received, but this is the first time I've heard that she was actually paid to corroborate the allegations against Andrew and Maxwell.

This mirrors what Sarah Ransome claims about her former lawyers at Boies Schiller Flexner and Brad Edwards and his firm. Allegedly she was bribed into corroborating Virginia's claims or they wouldn't represent her. She had already made a formal complaint against Boies shortly after the Maxwell trial, alleging mistreatment. She's preparing to sue him now. And though Ransome isn't the most reliable person, these claims support the idea that these roving bands of high-powered lawyers controlled (and in some cases created) the narrative in this story. But that idea originated with the villains in this story so of course nobody at CNN is going to explore whether it's credible.
Click to expand...

Not to mention that even if true, it's quite consistent with grooming that the victim would feel flattered to have been abused by a 'high status' member of the group, more so because he was famous.
 
Venom said:
Update on this.

Journalist Jay Beecher will soon release his interviews with Carolyn Andriano's mother. She claims Andriano was indeed offered money in exchange for false testimony to help Virginia Roberts. Andriano had always been resentful of the publicity Roberts received, but this is the first time I've heard that she was actually paid to corroborate the allegations against Andrew and Maxwell.

This mirrors what Sarah Ransome claims about her former lawyers at Boies Schiller Flexner and Brad Edwards and his firm. Allegedly she was bribed into corroborating Virginia's claims or they wouldn't represent her. She had already made a formal complaint against Boies shortly after the Maxwell trial, alleging mistreatment. She's preparing to sue him now. And though Ransome isn't the most reliable person, these claims support the idea that these roving bands of high-powered lawyers controlled (and in some cases created) the narrative in this story. But that idea originated with the villains in this story so of course nobody at CNN is going to explore whether it's credible.
Click to expand...
We await actual evidence for your assertions with bated breath.....
:rolleyes:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom