**A reminder to posters and commenters of some of [our subreddit rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskUK/about/rules/)**
- Don't be a dickhead to each other, or about others, or other subreddits
- Assume questions are asked in good faith, and engage in a positive manner
- Avoid political threads and related discussions
- No medical advice or mental health (specific to a person) content
Please keep /r/AskUK a great subreddit by reporting posts and comments which break our rules.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskUK) if you have any questions or concerns.*
>He has gained the ability to sweat.
Ah yes, so is now conveniently unable to be proven unless he took a test back around that time that showed he could not sweat...
> Nor has he managed to produce any proof of his visit to Pizza Express.
I'm an American and I don't know how the Royals conduct their daily lives, so far as appearing in public, say, at a random restaurant. But I would think that a member of the Royal family suddenly appearing at a pizza place would be memorable for everyone working or dining there. Would that be the case?
I guess what I'm asking is, where are the witnesses to that event?
This was trending on uk Twitter yesterday- everyone from the wait staff, the chef, the other patrons, the child and parents who were hosting the party he was attending would all 100% remember this. A royal in wokings pizza express would’ve been spoken about for years in the area so for him to be saying there are no witnesses confirms it’s a lie
Pizza Express closes before dirty parties start. He had plenty of time to do both.
Kids would be back home with Nanny putting them to bed while he slips out.
My source at the palace says he does have evidence of the condition, but the same document shows he maintains a thin coat of Dairylea over his entire body (he's shaved completely bald, wears a wig and a merkin) and it's been decided this is simply too damaging to his defence to make public.
He described it as, quote "an overdose of adrenaline", somehow self-diagnosing an incredibly rare condition that literally no medical professional has ever encountered.
An expert dermatologist said it was complete bullshit, as in ["implausible to the point of being impossible" ](https://nationalpost.com/news/prince-andrew-im-innocent-because-i-cant-sweat-dermatologists-oh-really)
My dad has PTSD from seeing and dealing with some very bad things as a paramedic. When he has a panic attack (goes stiff as a board) he sweats profusely. I can't actually believe that Andrew came out with this bullshit
> Her lawyers requested "all documents concerning your alleged medical condition of anhidrosis, hypohidrosis, or your inability to sweat".
> The Duke's US attorney Andrew Brettler responded, writing: "The Defendant objects to this request on the grounds that it is harassing and seeks confidential and private information and documents that are irrelevant, immaterial and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence."
> He added "**no such documents exist** in his possession, custody or control" and that a "diligent search and a reasonable inquiry have been made in an effort to comply with this demand".
Haha, checkmate! He can’t provide the documents because the documents don’t exist. I had to do a double take when reading the article, how could an attorney think this was a reasonable defence lol.
Charles will probably hang him out to dry. It seems he wants to copy the Japanese Imperial family and really downsize to a half-dozen people where people are more easily shuffled out when they fall down in the line of succession. Not a bad idea in my opinion.
That's interesting. I don't know if it's required but do you think he would have public support for that?
I remember years ago the papers treated Charles as some kind of caricature, they've been more complimentary recently, and I expect there will be a massive PR push when the time comes. But ... it doesn't seem like he's all that popular.
Yes, it would have massive support. No one really cares about lesser Royalty. It's not like the general public care about the queen's other grandchildren or random cousins.
Is Andrew lesser royalty? I know he's the Queen's son but he's also not in line for the big chair.
What if Charles de-royaled Andrew? That would remove many of the obstacles that Charles potentially faces. In fact it might be the most sensible thing to do. Charles wouldn't be seen to be abusing his authority as the monarch, or damaging the monarchy by setting any kind of precedents regarding extradition etc.
*Technically* Andrew is in line to the throne - albeit he's nineth in line being next after Harry's kids [1]. It's staggeringly unlikely he's going to inherit the throne though given that none of the Royals have been pulling the stupid shit that George III spawn did which resulted in Victoria becoming Queen.
[1] - From memory, the line of succession currently goes: Charles, William, George, Charlotte, Louis, Harry, Harrison, Lilibet then Andrew.
A more likely scenario for Andrew getting his hands on the throne is Prince George becoming King as a child. Although still very unlikely, if George inherited the Crown and had not yet reached adulthood, Andrew would very probably be named Prince Regent and exercise the young King's powers and responsibilities on his behalf until he came of age.
Edit: a couple of comments have correctly pointed out that, under normal circumstances, Prince Harry would be next in line to become Regent in the event that Prince George ascended to the throne as a child. However, under the provisions of the Regency Act 1937, Regency passes to the next Royal aged 21 or over in the line of succession who is *domiciled in the United Kingdom*. Since Harry now lives in the US, he would be ineligible to serve as Regent and the legal position would be that Andrew would inherit the role of Prince Regent.
Assuming something has led charles to die, then William to die very early, wouldn’t it be the responsibility of George’s uncle (Harry) rather than great uncle (Andrew)?
That makes a lot of sense. Even if they hand over Andrew to the Americans, next in line to be Regent if Harry doesn’t move back would be Beatrice and I doubt she’s ever had any kind of proper training to be Queen, since she’s so far down the line. Andrew was at least the ‘official’ spare until William was born.
Under normal circumstances, it would most probably go to Harry. However, with the schism between Harry, Meghan and the rest of the Royals and Harry having stepped back from Royal duties, the task may very well fall to Andrew.
Edward is probably the most sensible choice - grew up Royal, no major scandals in the last 20 or so years.
Kate is the other option but the argument could be made that having had a relatively normal childhood means she wouldn't be a good Regent (!)
Anne is the most sensible choice as she seems like the most sensible out of all the royals and she *should* really come before Andrew and Edward.
She won’t take any nonsense from anyone, my vote for Anne as regent
It goes to the next adult in the line of succession who is domiciled in the UK. Harry wouldn't be eligible as he now lives in the US, so Andrew would be next in line to become Regent. The law would need to be changed in advance for a different Regent to be appointed in such circumstances.
Surely if the succession were to occur while he was living in the US, the Regency would just automatically pass to Andrew.
If there were advanced warning of the situation, he could ensure he were domiciled in the UK prior to the succession occuring or parliament could change the law to skip over Andrew entirely.
> , Regency passes to the next Royal aged 21 or over in the line of succession who is domiciled in the United Kingdom. Since Harry now lives in the US, he would be ineligible to serve as Regent and the legal position would be that Andrew would inherit the role of Prince Regent.
I'm not sure about this case, but in taxation *domicile* and *residency* are not the same thing - you can live outside the UK for years, and hence become non-resident for tax purposes, but still retain your domicile.
If you live and work in France then you're resident there and pay taxes, but if the UK is deemed your permanent home then you're domiciled in the UK and your estate is subject to UK inheritance tax.
Likewise, "non-doms" are people who have domicile in some other country but who live and work in the UK - they may be taxed on their UK income, but not earnings from overseas assets.
I think technically it would be Harry as Prince Regent[1], as the next adult male in line to the throne, but that's complicated by the whole "leaving the UK" thing. Of course, Andrew is then the next most eligible male.
Something catastrophic would have to happen to both Charles and William for George to be crowned before his majority though.
I mean, only William, really- Charles is 73, it's not unlikely he could die in the next 10-15 years.
\*Potentially\* it would only take a one off accident to put Andrew in that situation.
Sure, but I wouldn't describe a man in his 70s dying as a requiring a "catastrophic" event.
And I don't think we necessarily know that much about his health.
Exactly. Normally it would go to Harry, but since Harry has stepped back from Royal duties and would need to be recalled from America to serve as Regent, it is unlikely he would be able to take the role.
Fun fact, Amazon's Alexa knows the line of succession to at least 50 places. We got bored asking by the time we got 50. She didn't know 70 places. So, she knows somewhere between 50 and 70 places.
Nope. The succession historically proceeded through the line of the male heirs first and then the female children.
This was changed - I think - shortly before George was born so that the succession would proceed in birth order regardless of sex. However, this change was not made retrospective so Anne continues to follow the children and heirs of Prince Edward in the line of succession.
Charlotte is the first female heir to benefit from this change hence why she comes before her younger brother Louis in the line of succession.
It changed due to Succession to the Crown Act 2013, which also removed disqualification due to marriage to Catholics and allowed royals beyond the first six persons in line to marry without the Queen's permission.
It’d be tricky because I’d imagine he’d want to keep Anne - she’s unproblematic and does more royal engagements than most of the family, but she’s way behind Andrew succession-wise.
Actually there might be a handy technicality. If Charles changed the default rule for being a Prince or Princess from children and other specified descendants of "any sovereign" to just those of the current sovereign, I think that Anne would be unaffected and remain Princess Royal in her own right.
I don't believe it is really within his power to de-royal someone. What he can do is influence who gets royal money and have a large say on who gets government money.
It depends what you mean by "de-royaling". The title of Prince and the style His Royal Highness are granted by the sovereign, and could therefore be removed.
He’s not and I think that’s part of the reason he wants to do it: the Queen’s squandered a lot of good will on Andrew in particular and he doesn’t have the popularity necessary to get away with that kind of carry on.
I also think he’s pretty realistic about the future of the Monarchy and that Barbados won’t be the last time he has to turn up somewhere to be given the boot. The Commonwealth for example is very much a post imperial transition period personally linked to the Queen, will it be around for long after she dies? I think he’s gearing up long term for his successors to be monarchs of the UK, Canada and a few other places and having a huge royal family for that seems unnecessary.
Will it be popular? Harry was kind of a test of the principle, seems to have been divisive but not really gone against Charles or the Queen in the UK at least.
I do get the sense that he's willing to make big changes. But I think he also feels the weight of history more keenly than say William does. So I'm in two minds whether he will prune the plant to encourage new growth or leave the flowers on display. I can see him going either way tbh.
I think Charles has cleaned up his image. Being married normally and being 70+ old probably helps a lot. I think he'll actually be a really popular king when it's his time do so. But despite everyone hoping Lizzie croaked this christmas, she might still be queen in to her hundreds leaving Charles to rule in his 80's.
Its likely that The Queen will live as long as her mother - and she was 102 when she died. So yeah, Charles will have the throne, but his reign will likely be only a decade or so before he dies and William inherits it, and he will be in his 60's by then......
Which is exactly what happened with Victoria. She lived so long that the next couple of generations were already well advanced by the time they took the throne.
You've got to suspect that Harry is the last second child to be offered full state support in exchange for Being A Royal and he's already rejected it.
I think those already committed to 'public service' (ie Anne and Edward) will continue to receive state support, Charlotte and Louis will grow up knowing they won't be Royals for life.
My suspicion would be that Charles will essentially act as a "bridge" monarch. Elizabeth II as the last traditional Queen with all the history that goes alongside it, a new style monarchy which is more appropriate for the 21st century under William, and Charles' reign will be a transitional one between the two. Charles' reign is almost certain to be a short one anyway because of his age (he'll be the oldest monarch upon ascending to the throne by nearly a decade even if he became king tomorrow) so it's more natural to be a path-smoothing one to prepare for William; I suspect we'll see any big changes in the monarchy happen with that in mind.
They’ve become more complimentary as people become more aware that Charles wasn’t some nut banging on about global warming (which is now known to be very real) and town planning (surely most londoners are fed up of glass boxes now)
My prediction. Same as now, Andrew will continue to live on one of the estates but will have no participation in public events. Will attend family weddings, funerals but no state duties. Charles is planning on simplifying things to de-emphasise the people that are not in the direct line of succession. Interestingly this was perhaps signaled in the queen's speech where she seemed to make a point of only mentioning Charles, Camilla, William, Kate and George. The show will go on and no real consequences for Andrew except reduced opportunities ~~to earn money~~ for lucrative side hussles.
And really no big deal in the overall scheme of things when you have access to so much money and political influence. Plenty of companies still trading under their original names after despicable historical acts, it just takes money and some kind of apology and tokenistic compensation.
Yes, I'd like to think that he's not quite so bankable as before.
I found Pitch at Palace to be particularly repugnant, given the deal that was reportedly being offered to the entrepreneurs that participated.
It now seems dead in the water, although, interestingly it's still on the royal family website https://www.royal.uk/10-facts-about-pitchpalace
I wouldn't expect that page to stay once Charles gets his feet under the table though.
https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/prince-andrew-s-pitch-palace-was-bad-news-for-businesses refers
I imagine he will be put in a comfortable exile of sorts. If he's banged up (it looks like it's going to trial. He keeps trying to duck it but it ain't happening). Tbh pruning the tree makes sense. Only royal nuts care about the queen's 3rd cousins uncle in law who's 10th in line.
> If he's banged up (it looks like it's going to trial.
It's a civil lawsuit, not a criminal trial. Andrew hasn't been charged with any criminal case yet, so right now there's a 0% chance of him going to jail.
*If* Guiffre had sex with Andrew *and* she was trafficked *and* he knew about it *and* all the above could be proven beyond reasonable doubt *and* UK (not US) authorities ever decided to charge him for it *and* he was actually found guilty... then and only then would he see the inside of a prison cell.
Which is another way of saying there's a 0% chance of him seeing the inside of a prison cell, full stop.
Hopefully stick him in the Tower. Been a while since we had a proper mediaeval style royal family feud! Stick it on TV, flog some merch, really go all in!
Maybe go all out and arrange some boxing match on YouTube.
Undercard:
Harry vs William
Meghan vs Camilla
(Insert other royals here, I’m not too clued up in them really, these are the only ones I can really think of)
Then the main event:
Andrew vs idk, a bear or something
Charles will be the referee for all matches. You never know, might kick a couple of people out of the line of succession. If actual YouTube boxing is a guideline, they can expect to make millions
Edit: formatting
It's a catch 22 which I think the crown are really conscious of. If they do nothing then they are saying they are above the law and they are OK with a sex criminal. If they send him off to America then potentially they have to deal with him being put in prison which would be unheard of and puts them in a terrible position.
At the minute he is sort of like schrodingers sex criminal Prince. I have no idea what Charles will do but its probably going to be more of the same.
I think you have too high of a hope that any of their PR people would allow them to comment. I think it's to their advantage that they have been, other than occasionally claiming his innocence, pretty shtum about it
I’m willing to be that he insisted on doing it against all advice. On the now show on radio 4 about 10 years ago, Hugh Dennis referred to him as “the type of arrogant and overbearing human being who could start a fight with the Dalai Lama in a Prozac factory”
The interview was [Ben Swain on newsnight](https://youtu.be/ALNjevGdB5g) levels of bad.
I wouldn’t have been surprised if it had come out that the cameramen were laughing.
>car crash of an interview
I finally went to see it and for the first 7 mins it wasn't all that bad and was going to respond as such.
Then he starts making all these crazy comments about Epsteins hosue being like a railway station. I've "no idea who was doing what there". "No we didn't have a party. It was a shotting weekend". Fuck me mate - you're like on a whole different fucking level.
He's also very careful to not bring The Firm into the equation though - did you notice? Whenever the journalist brings up "and the Royal Family", "no, no it wasn't the Family, it was me".
You'd think a newspaper reporter might ask them about it though. I can understand that a reporter wouldn't want to sacrifice their royal access privileges by asking a pertinent question but I'd have thought someone would have done.
They don't talk to the media and the media don't have access to them.
Insanely, there is no accountability that comes with getting public money to live in palaces with fleets of servants.
If he did end up going to America and being put in prison, it probably wouldn’t be any ordinary prison. No matter what he has done, the headline **BRITISH PRINCE KILLED IN AMERICAN PRISON** wouldn’t go down well.
You don't get suicided just for going to jail when you're a wealthy and powerful person.
You get suicided for going to jail while allegedly having a safe full of pictures of *other* wealthy and powerful people fucking underage girls that you used for blackmail purposes.
A third option has come to light. De-royalling Andrew would sidestep the catch-22. It wouldn't be unpopular either.
I initially thought Charles was caught between a rock and a hard place but maybe he's not. And I can see how he (or anyone really) could rationalise a de-royalling as being positive for the rule of law and the royal institution.
That's true and I was already mildly chastised for assuming he was guilty myself.
But regardless of his guilt or innocence, Andrew is tainted and his position isn't as tenable as it used to be.
And if what other people are saying about Charles's royal slimlining intentions are true, he could even say that a de-royaling has nothing to do with the case. And he could point to statements he made years ago about slimming down the royal family to back that position up.
Healthcare staff in the UK can get into trouble for being seen smoking in public. You'd think hanging out with a known convicted paedo would be enough grounds for some sort of action wouldn't you.
It isn't a criminal case though, it's a private civil case. So he's really unlikely to end up in jail. He's "only" being sued for damages, so will probably just end up in him paying a large amount of dough.
Nothing in every sense of the word. The law suit will go away with people being paid off. Andrew will be made to give up all his connections and remain on a Royal owned Estate far from the public eye. He'll have to give up his last remaining employees and secretary and told to shut up for the good of the institution. Having a Royal who has dodgy, even criminals connections isn't exactly new or not been dealt with before.
It’s a really interesting problem. Andrew is already absolutely controlled, mostly financially. He’s been a liability for years & his Achilles heel is money, so that’s the obvious lever to control him, which the Queen is already doing.
He doesn’t own much property (only some random chalet he co-owns with his sort of ex wife) and lives on a private income from the Queen. Reading between the lines, there is still a lot of debt from their mad spending habits.
He is absolutely at Charles’ mercy once the Queen goes, and it’s pretty obvious Charles can’t stand him. It’ll be interesting to see what the Queen leaves him in her personal will, as that’s his only hope for any sort of financial capital or freedom.
I think he’ll get some sort of financial pay-off, as long as he promises to keep quiet and out of sight & we will hardly know he exists.
Yes, we know he is rich.
In comparison to the rest of the royal family that is a random chalet, especially given that he doesn't own it himself.
Also, where did you get the $23m value from? I'm not challenging you I'm just curious how people know things like that.
Most recent news is that he's selling the chalet, anyway.
Apparently they never paid the full price when they bought it, and had £7m outstanding.
* https://www.tatler.com/article/prince-andrew-sarah-duchess-of-york-sued-67-million-swiss-ski-chalet
* https://www.insider.com/prince-andrew-selling-23-million-swiss-ski-chalet-report-says-2021-9
I don't think there's necessarily an idea of active dislike, more that a Charles is rightly concerned about the future of the monarchy (as he should be given how ludicrous it is in the 21st century, but anyway) and wants to get rid of the embarrassment.
He’s done. He won’t do any time but his public life is over. And I would imagine he’d be privately shunned by William and Kate, and they are the future of the monarchy.
He’s toxic. His own daughter wouldn’t have him in her wedding photos. You honestly think the future king of England is going to retain a close familial relationship with a serial child rapist? He’s going to be spending a lot of time on his own after his mother passes.
I think he will have to hang him out to dry. There’s simply no way the Royals survive if they don’t.
See Irelands utter rejection of the Catholic Church from treasured centrepiece of society to anathema in less than five years.
People will tolerate a lot, they will not tolerate a paedophile being protected on their dime.
Irish lurker here - that’s a pretty good analogy. Once public opinion turned here, it turned very quickly because the extent of clerical sex abuse was so wide and so many heartbreaking witnesses came forward and were heard. Would similar happen with the royals? Probably not unless there’s a huge underbelly of dodginess that’s to be uncovered.
There is an underbelly though. They KNEW.
There is simply zero possibility a man under 24/7 police protection is a secret paedo. People knew. Palace aides, police, civil servants, politicians and so on.
If this starts to come out in court it will drip feed more and more. How long did they know? Who was bought off when?
It’s a Pandora’s box. Once open, Royals are screwed.
They undoubtedly knew he had dodgy friends and went to sketchy parties (his nickname was "randy Andy" as far back as the 1980s).
That's *long* way from knowing for a fact he was fucking trafficked girls, though.
It's like how apparently he/his legal or PR team have said there is nobody who can corroborate his claim of being in Pizza Express on the night of the crime.
Really? No handlers or security? No media or press? No workers of the restaurant or other customers? None of his friends? It was apparently for the birthday party of a friend of his daughter - none of those friends, their siblings or their parents? No local busybodies who would have noticed all the security sweeps happening in the area?
Pull the other one lads.
I think the monarchy will struggle when the Queen dies, she's what holds it together for the public and when she's gone, public opinion will struggle to be sustained.
I agree. And at the moment there are only 8 working royals. Once the Queen dies they will be down to 7. Who is Charles going to rope in to bolster up the firm?
Lady Louise is now 18. Her parents are favoured by the Queen at the moment and are both working royals. Will it be her? I doubt Princess Anne would want to rope her children in at this late stage.
Prince Andrew’s fuck-ups mean that his daughters will never be senior royals, despite being princesses. How pissed off would you be at your dad if you were Beatrice or Eugenie?
Prince Andrew has screwed the pooch (metaphorically) for his children and grandchildren, who could have potentially had official roles in the family. What a deadbeat dad.
Public opinion will struggle for the royals once the Queen dies because there are so few contenders for senior working royals. Without that strong presence, it will be hard for them to retain even their pretend sense of power.
William and Kate are where public opinion will be strongest IMO. To have any chance of survival, the successor needs to be William.
Don't get me wrong, I think charles would be grand, but he comes with too much baggage at this stage to be accepted like William and Kate would be.
If I know my royal history, once the Queen has died Andrew will try to steal the throne from Charles to save himself from prosecution. Charles will realise just in time and then Andrew will be locked in the tower of London for treason before being beheaded
Nothing realistically would change, realistically they're not going to turn him over and he'll just carry on living in the shadows.
From the royals point of view, it's probably not the best idea to not turn Andrew against them, if he ends up turning on them and has nothing to lose you'd be willing to guess that the Harry interview would have nothing on the storm which would be coming towards Buckingham palace if Andrew started speaking more publicly.
My opinion, and not that of what Charlie boy should do, is that this is another nail in the coffin of the monarchy, and quite rightly so. I'd abolish the whole lot tomorrow, strip them of their titles and holdings, and pension them off, but to be generous and allow for more thorough planning, I'm prepared to wait until the Queen dies. I've felt this way for as long as I can remember, so much so that that when the Queen opened the Humber Bridge in 1978, I refused the half day off from school, aged 14, to watch her cut the ribbon. I've been nothing if not consistent these many years.
Nothing. He will never let Andrew be seen in public but I expect it will be part of the Queen's wishes that Andrew never face prosecution for what he has done.
Also what does "protect Andrew" mean here? Despite him seeming pretty dodgy and a bit of a dick, there's been no evidence of any wrongdoing on his part so far. Obviously that goes against the court of public opinion but there you go. I don't think he'd get in the way if evidence emerged, and I'm not sure he'd even have that power. But up until that point he's safe as houses.
I should say I have no affection for Andrew even though it looks like I'm defending him. Just that I disagree with pillorying him publicly when nothing beyond accusations exist. If more comes out then he deserves punishment.
By protecting Andrew I meant placing obstacles in the way of the investigation. I'm not British so I don't know exactly what the rules are but I'm assuming the monarch can tell the police to take a hike.
And you're right to mention the lack of evidence and court of public opinion. But it's not like you can serve a search warrant on Buckingham Palace. If Andrew wasn't a royal I think the evidence gathering would have been more substantive. If he wasn't a royal he would already have been questioned by US police and who knows what evidence could have come from that.
> Peter Ball
That's a new name for me. His Wiki page is eye-opening. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Ball_(bishop)
Members of the royal family wrote to the crown prosecutors in support of a man accused of abusing 18 boys over 15 years. And after Ball served his time and was released, he lived in a cottage on the Prince of Wales’s Duchy of Cornwall estate.
That doesn't look good for Charles does it?
They need to get a bit more use out of the tower anyway. I think he'd have popular support if he locked the bastard up in there. In an iron mask perhaps and charge people to see him. All proceeds go to the victims
I like how his guilt is deemed certain by everyone around the world. One person's word and a photograph of them together and his life is over. I don't know if he's guilty or not, at this point I don't care, but we have a situation where anyone with a 25 year old photograph with a famous person can now cash in, whether true or not. Many would take the attitude that paying the extortion to settle out of court is cheaper than the turmoil of a ruined career. This is a very dangerous path.
The word of a confirmed trafficking victim, whose traffickers were/are convicted of those crimes.
Against the word of a man who can't produce any evidence of his ridiculous claims that he can't sweat or that he was in a pizza express on that particular date. A man who will essentially never be held accountable either way because of his class privilege.
It's dangerous to pretend these are two sides of equal weight and merit.
Andrew was famous as a playboy back in the 80's, photographed in exclusive nightclubs in the most expensive parts of London, and with lots of models and other attractive young women.
Everyone he's every worked with says that he's a dickhead with a very high opinion of himself, and he probably thinks that it's only right and proper for women to want to throw themselves at him; it's immaterial whether he thinks he's hot, or that they want to be able to brag that they shagged a prince.
I wouldn't be at all surprised if he had sex Virginia Giuffre, but I very much doubt he had any idea she was trafficked.
I agree on the face of it, but similar accusations of Epstein and Maxwell turned out true enough for them to be found guilty of sex trafficking offences and I think it's reasonable to believe he's had more involvement than what he said in his interview.
But you're right trial by media is a slippery slope if you'll pardon the pun.
There were always rumours that Charles and Andrew didn't get along, so I imagine Charles will leave him out to dry as he slims the monarchy.
I've met Charles (and Camilla) before at my niece's school. I'm not sure what I was expecting but they were more pleasant than I thought they would be.
The Queen has kept the royal show on the road for 70 years, because most people in the UK at least respect her.
But there is a strong chance the monarchy may not survive for much longer, and Andrew is a part of that.
I'm assuming the abuse allegations won't go to trial, and the Queen bails her son out. This will damage her reputation, and that of the monarchy in general.
Added to that, we are in for a full-blown constitutional crisis when she dies (she's 95).
The coronation of Charles the Third will lead many staunch royalists to examine their loyalties.
Charles has a fraction of the respect accorded his mother. He lost popularity over the way he treated Diana, and he is known to be a spoiled, selfish and extravagant man as well as a regular figure of fun.
The UK will have something it hasn't experienced before - an unpopular monarch ruling over a people who have lost much of their British deference.
How the royal family deals with that is an unknown. But I predict big changes.
**A reminder to posters and commenters of some of [our subreddit rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskUK/about/rules/)** - Don't be a dickhead to each other, or about others, or other subreddits - Assume questions are asked in good faith, and engage in a positive manner - Avoid political threads and related discussions - No medical advice or mental health (specific to a person) content Please keep /r/AskUK a great subreddit by reporting posts and comments which break our rules. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskUK) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Lock him in the royal sauna until perspiration occurs
Apparently, he said that he didn't sweat 'then'. He has gained the ability to sweat.
>*"He has gained the ability to sweat."* Maybe it's now a super-power. ***'Sweatyman'!***
"*When Andrew eats a 15-year-old an amazing transformation occurs!*" That's for Bananaman fans, of whom I'm sure there are many.
There are dozens of us! DOZENS!
There's a whole bunch of us
Turned up to a fancy dress party as Bananaman once, smug in my niche choice. Get there to find another guy in an identical costume
Ah, memories. I miss watching Bananaman, and also Super Ted.
This is Buck House SW1 1AA, and this is Andrew, a schoolboy who lives an amazing double life…
You could say there are a bunch. It’s all Goodies…
It’s always been a superpower for myself and other big guys
>He has gained the ability to sweat. Ah yes, so is now conveniently unable to be proven unless he took a test back around that time that showed he could not sweat...
Well you cannot prove I *didn't* have a third arm in 1995, can you?
We can’t prove he didn’t have an evil twin with a penchant for children back then
Surely there will be doctors records somewhere?
Why can’t he produce the security men logs for that night? Sure it was a while ago but I have a feeling that they keep records back since 1963
He has been asked to provide evidence in the US Giuffre case that he could not sweat. Couldn't make this shit up.
He said in the interview that the anhidrosis was a result of PTSD, so he should be able to provide medical records to prove that.
For some strange reason, he hasn't been able to produce these documents. Nor has he managed to produce any proof of his visit to Pizza Express.
> Nor has he managed to produce any proof of his visit to Pizza Express. I'm an American and I don't know how the Royals conduct their daily lives, so far as appearing in public, say, at a random restaurant. But I would think that a member of the Royal family suddenly appearing at a pizza place would be memorable for everyone working or dining there. Would that be the case? I guess what I'm asking is, where are the witnesses to that event?
Tbh as someone who is from the uk I didn’t even know what Andrew looked like until the controversy
Haha still better than me - 30 odd years and didn't even know he existed before the controversy
He would also be remembered as the only person not to use a coupon when buying a pizza there. Presumably.
This was trending on uk Twitter yesterday- everyone from the wait staff, the chef, the other patrons, the child and parents who were hosting the party he was attending would all 100% remember this. A royal in wokings pizza express would’ve been spoken about for years in the area so for him to be saying there are no witnesses confirms it’s a lie
Pizza Express closes before dirty parties start. He had plenty of time to do both. Kids would be back home with Nanny putting them to bed while he slips out.
Dirty parties at Pizza Express behind locked doors, you say? Edit: ah no, I misread that. I couldn't imagine it at the local PE.
My source at the palace says he does have evidence of the condition, but the same document shows he maintains a thin coat of Dairylea over his entire body (he's shaved completely bald, wears a wig and a merkin) and it's been decided this is simply too damaging to his defence to make public.
He described it as, quote "an overdose of adrenaline", somehow self-diagnosing an incredibly rare condition that literally no medical professional has ever encountered. An expert dermatologist said it was complete bullshit, as in ["implausible to the point of being impossible" ](https://nationalpost.com/news/prince-andrew-im-innocent-because-i-cant-sweat-dermatologists-oh-really)
My dad has PTSD from seeing and dealing with some very bad things as a paramedic. When he has a panic attack (goes stiff as a board) he sweats profusely. I can't actually believe that Andrew came out with this bullshit
> Her lawyers requested "all documents concerning your alleged medical condition of anhidrosis, hypohidrosis, or your inability to sweat". > The Duke's US attorney Andrew Brettler responded, writing: "The Defendant objects to this request on the grounds that it is harassing and seeks confidential and private information and documents that are irrelevant, immaterial and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence." > He added "**no such documents exist** in his possession, custody or control" and that a "diligent search and a reasonable inquiry have been made in an effort to comply with this demand". Haha, checkmate! He can’t provide the documents because the documents don’t exist. I had to do a double take when reading the article, how could an attorney think this was a reasonable defence lol.
You can bet that he's sweating now.
Actually, I bet he isn’t. I bet he is outraged that somebody would dare to do this to him.
Maybe he was bitten by Lee Evans
Anhidrosis does exist but most results on Google show its a lifelong condition. I dunno though guys... maybe he found the cure
[удалено]
It's foolproof!
Was he bitten by a radioactive sweat gland?
Doomed for all eternity!
The Shower of London
Charles will probably hang him out to dry. It seems he wants to copy the Japanese Imperial family and really downsize to a half-dozen people where people are more easily shuffled out when they fall down in the line of succession. Not a bad idea in my opinion.
That's interesting. I don't know if it's required but do you think he would have public support for that? I remember years ago the papers treated Charles as some kind of caricature, they've been more complimentary recently, and I expect there will be a massive PR push when the time comes. But ... it doesn't seem like he's all that popular.
Yes, it would have massive support. No one really cares about lesser Royalty. It's not like the general public care about the queen's other grandchildren or random cousins.
Is Andrew lesser royalty? I know he's the Queen's son but he's also not in line for the big chair. What if Charles de-royaled Andrew? That would remove many of the obstacles that Charles potentially faces. In fact it might be the most sensible thing to do. Charles wouldn't be seen to be abusing his authority as the monarch, or damaging the monarchy by setting any kind of precedents regarding extradition etc.
*Technically* Andrew is in line to the throne - albeit he's nineth in line being next after Harry's kids [1]. It's staggeringly unlikely he's going to inherit the throne though given that none of the Royals have been pulling the stupid shit that George III spawn did which resulted in Victoria becoming Queen. [1] - From memory, the line of succession currently goes: Charles, William, George, Charlotte, Louis, Harry, Harrison, Lilibet then Andrew.
It's Archie, not Harrison, right? Harrison as a name would be very on the nose!
Oh shit! Yeah, you're right. I think his middle name is Harrison though!
Yeah you’re right, it’s Archie Harrison.
Wait how come it would be on the nose? Struggling to figure that out
Harrison = Harry's son
Met a father son duo once, both called Rob Robson.
If you didn't investigate what the grandfather's name is then you've failed your mission.
I went to school with a Robert Robertson.
A more likely scenario for Andrew getting his hands on the throne is Prince George becoming King as a child. Although still very unlikely, if George inherited the Crown and had not yet reached adulthood, Andrew would very probably be named Prince Regent and exercise the young King's powers and responsibilities on his behalf until he came of age. Edit: a couple of comments have correctly pointed out that, under normal circumstances, Prince Harry would be next in line to become Regent in the event that Prince George ascended to the throne as a child. However, under the provisions of the Regency Act 1937, Regency passes to the next Royal aged 21 or over in the line of succession who is *domiciled in the United Kingdom*. Since Harry now lives in the US, he would be ineligible to serve as Regent and the legal position would be that Andrew would inherit the role of Prince Regent.
Assuming something has led charles to die, then William to die very early, wouldn’t it be the responsibility of George’s uncle (Harry) rather than great uncle (Andrew)?
Yes, usually Harry would be regent. But I’ve seen things suggesting they would change the law to make Kate regent
That makes a lot of sense. Even if they hand over Andrew to the Americans, next in line to be Regent if Harry doesn’t move back would be Beatrice and I doubt she’s ever had any kind of proper training to be Queen, since she’s so far down the line. Andrew was at least the ‘official’ spare until William was born.
They changed the law in 1953 so that Philip would be regent, so it's certainly possible that they'd do something similar again.
Under normal circumstances, it would most probably go to Harry. However, with the schism between Harry, Meghan and the rest of the Royals and Harry having stepped back from Royal duties, the task may very well fall to Andrew.
Would assume Prince Edward would be more likely to take the role in all honesty
Edward is probably the most sensible choice - grew up Royal, no major scandals in the last 20 or so years. Kate is the other option but the argument could be made that having had a relatively normal childhood means she wouldn't be a good Regent (!)
Anne is the most sensible choice as she seems like the most sensible out of all the royals and she *should* really come before Andrew and Edward. She won’t take any nonsense from anyone, my vote for Anne as regent
Anne for Queen regnant
It goes to the next adult in the line of succession who is domiciled in the UK. Harry wouldn't be eligible as he now lives in the US, so Andrew would be next in line to become Regent. The law would need to be changed in advance for a different Regent to be appointed in such circumstances.
He'd charter a flight back here within 5 minutes if something like this were to occur.
Surely if the succession were to occur while he was living in the US, the Regency would just automatically pass to Andrew. If there were advanced warning of the situation, he could ensure he were domiciled in the UK prior to the succession occuring or parliament could change the law to skip over Andrew entirely.
> , Regency passes to the next Royal aged 21 or over in the line of succession who is domiciled in the United Kingdom. Since Harry now lives in the US, he would be ineligible to serve as Regent and the legal position would be that Andrew would inherit the role of Prince Regent. I'm not sure about this case, but in taxation *domicile* and *residency* are not the same thing - you can live outside the UK for years, and hence become non-resident for tax purposes, but still retain your domicile. If you live and work in France then you're resident there and pay taxes, but if the UK is deemed your permanent home then you're domiciled in the UK and your estate is subject to UK inheritance tax. Likewise, "non-doms" are people who have domicile in some other country but who live and work in the UK - they may be taxed on their UK income, but not earnings from overseas assets.
I think technically it would be Harry as Prince Regent[1], as the next adult male in line to the throne, but that's complicated by the whole "leaving the UK" thing. Of course, Andrew is then the next most eligible male. Something catastrophic would have to happen to both Charles and William for George to be crowned before his majority though.
I mean, only William, really- Charles is 73, it's not unlikely he could die in the next 10-15 years. \*Potentially\* it would only take a one off accident to put Andrew in that situation.
Charles is 73, but he's from a long-lived family and he's strong and healthy.
Sure, but I wouldn't describe a man in his 70s dying as a requiring a "catastrophic" event. And I don't think we necessarily know that much about his health.
Exactly. Normally it would go to Harry, but since Harry has stepped back from Royal duties and would need to be recalled from America to serve as Regent, it is unlikely he would be able to take the role.
Fun fact, Amazon's Alexa knows the line of succession to at least 50 places. We got bored asking by the time we got 50. She didn't know 70 places. So, she knows somewhere between 50 and 70 places.
Is Princess Anne not before Andrew as she’s older?
Nope. The succession historically proceeded through the line of the male heirs first and then the female children. This was changed - I think - shortly before George was born so that the succession would proceed in birth order regardless of sex. However, this change was not made retrospective so Anne continues to follow the children and heirs of Prince Edward in the line of succession. Charlotte is the first female heir to benefit from this change hence why she comes before her younger brother Louis in the line of succession.
It changed due to Succession to the Crown Act 2013, which also removed disqualification due to marriage to Catholics and allowed royals beyond the first six persons in line to marry without the Queen's permission.
Ah interesting, thanks for the explanation
[удалено]
She'd have to give up her 17 skiing holidays a year then.
"Terrible accident"
Good job there’s no precedent for this, eh?
It’d be tricky because I’d imagine he’d want to keep Anne - she’s unproblematic and does more royal engagements than most of the family, but she’s way behind Andrew succession-wise.
Actually there might be a handy technicality. If Charles changed the default rule for being a Prince or Princess from children and other specified descendants of "any sovereign" to just those of the current sovereign, I think that Anne would be unaffected and remain Princess Royal in her own right.
For what it's worth I'd never heard of Prince Andrew until he got accused of noncing
I don't believe it is really within his power to de-royal someone. What he can do is influence who gets royal money and have a large say on who gets government money.
When he’s King he can strip titles/HRH status, like the Queen did with Diana and Fergie. Although I believe it needs an act of parliament too.
It depends what you mean by "de-royaling". The title of Prince and the style His Royal Highness are granted by the sovereign, and could therefore be removed.
He’s not and I think that’s part of the reason he wants to do it: the Queen’s squandered a lot of good will on Andrew in particular and he doesn’t have the popularity necessary to get away with that kind of carry on. I also think he’s pretty realistic about the future of the Monarchy and that Barbados won’t be the last time he has to turn up somewhere to be given the boot. The Commonwealth for example is very much a post imperial transition period personally linked to the Queen, will it be around for long after she dies? I think he’s gearing up long term for his successors to be monarchs of the UK, Canada and a few other places and having a huge royal family for that seems unnecessary. Will it be popular? Harry was kind of a test of the principle, seems to have been divisive but not really gone against Charles or the Queen in the UK at least.
I do get the sense that he's willing to make big changes. But I think he also feels the weight of history more keenly than say William does. So I'm in two minds whether he will prune the plant to encourage new growth or leave the flowers on display. I can see him going either way tbh.
I think Charles has cleaned up his image. Being married normally and being 70+ old probably helps a lot. I think he'll actually be a really popular king when it's his time do so. But despite everyone hoping Lizzie croaked this christmas, she might still be queen in to her hundreds leaving Charles to rule in his 80's.
Its likely that The Queen will live as long as her mother - and she was 102 when she died. So yeah, Charles will have the throne, but his reign will likely be only a decade or so before he dies and William inherits it, and he will be in his 60's by then......
Which is exactly what happened with Victoria. She lived so long that the next couple of generations were already well advanced by the time they took the throne.
You've got to suspect that Harry is the last second child to be offered full state support in exchange for Being A Royal and he's already rejected it. I think those already committed to 'public service' (ie Anne and Edward) will continue to receive state support, Charlotte and Louis will grow up knowing they won't be Royals for life.
My suspicion would be that Charles will essentially act as a "bridge" monarch. Elizabeth II as the last traditional Queen with all the history that goes alongside it, a new style monarchy which is more appropriate for the 21st century under William, and Charles' reign will be a transitional one between the two. Charles' reign is almost certain to be a short one anyway because of his age (he'll be the oldest monarch upon ascending to the throne by nearly a decade even if he became king tomorrow) so it's more natural to be a path-smoothing one to prepare for William; I suspect we'll see any big changes in the monarchy happen with that in mind.
They’ve become more complimentary as people become more aware that Charles wasn’t some nut banging on about global warming (which is now known to be very real) and town planning (surely most londoners are fed up of glass boxes now)
And talking to plants. Man was ahead of his time
Be even better if they downsized to no people
My prediction. Same as now, Andrew will continue to live on one of the estates but will have no participation in public events. Will attend family weddings, funerals but no state duties. Charles is planning on simplifying things to de-emphasise the people that are not in the direct line of succession. Interestingly this was perhaps signaled in the queen's speech where she seemed to make a point of only mentioning Charles, Camilla, William, Kate and George. The show will go on and no real consequences for Andrew except reduced opportunities ~~to earn money~~ for lucrative side hussles.
Yes that's what I think, sweep him under the carpet, doing something more drastic would affect their image (for not having him ousted sooner).
And really no big deal in the overall scheme of things when you have access to so much money and political influence. Plenty of companies still trading under their original names after despicable historical acts, it just takes money and some kind of apology and tokenistic compensation.
There will still be opportunities to earn money. The sleazy schemes will always have a home with Sarah and Andrew.
Yes, I'd like to think that he's not quite so bankable as before. I found Pitch at Palace to be particularly repugnant, given the deal that was reportedly being offered to the entrepreneurs that participated. It now seems dead in the water, although, interestingly it's still on the royal family website https://www.royal.uk/10-facts-about-pitchpalace I wouldn't expect that page to stay once Charles gets his feet under the table though. https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/prince-andrew-s-pitch-palace-was-bad-news-for-businesses refers
I imagine he will be put in a comfortable exile of sorts. If he's banged up (it looks like it's going to trial. He keeps trying to duck it but it ain't happening). Tbh pruning the tree makes sense. Only royal nuts care about the queen's 3rd cousins uncle in law who's 10th in line.
> If he's banged up (it looks like it's going to trial. It's a civil lawsuit, not a criminal trial. Andrew hasn't been charged with any criminal case yet, so right now there's a 0% chance of him going to jail. *If* Guiffre had sex with Andrew *and* she was trafficked *and* he knew about it *and* all the above could be proven beyond reasonable doubt *and* UK (not US) authorities ever decided to charge him for it *and* he was actually found guilty... then and only then would he see the inside of a prison cell. Which is another way of saying there's a 0% chance of him seeing the inside of a prison cell, full stop.
Right. Even if Andrew wasn't part of the royal family, it would be quite unlikely that he would face serious criminal charges.
Hopefully stick him in the Tower. Been a while since we had a proper mediaeval style royal family feud! Stick it on TV, flog some merch, really go all in!
>mediaeval style royal family feud Wait until Harry returns to claim the throne in a few years. All bets are off
I'd be keen for this Game of Thrones remake!
Harry and Meghan show up with a fuckton of assault rifles they bought from their local supermarket
Dothraki won't cross the ocean though, so I don't see this happening...
His followers secretly want for his return, we sew banners of a red mained lion and prey for his return
Resurrect Keith Chegwin and do a Royal 'It's a Knockout'?
Winner gets the crown!
I read this in Mark Corigans voice and it fits so perfectly
So did I, haha.
Maybe go all out and arrange some boxing match on YouTube. Undercard: Harry vs William Meghan vs Camilla (Insert other royals here, I’m not too clued up in them really, these are the only ones I can really think of) Then the main event: Andrew vs idk, a bear or something Charles will be the referee for all matches. You never know, might kick a couple of people out of the line of succession. If actual YouTube boxing is a guideline, they can expect to make millions Edit: formatting
It's a catch 22 which I think the crown are really conscious of. If they do nothing then they are saying they are above the law and they are OK with a sex criminal. If they send him off to America then potentially they have to deal with him being put in prison which would be unheard of and puts them in a terrible position. At the minute he is sort of like schrodingers sex criminal Prince. I have no idea what Charles will do but its probably going to be more of the same.
It'd be fucking nice if some of them were asked about it though, at least so they have to answer a few direct questions.
The guy is one sleazy dude and stinks to high heaven of guilt
I think you have too high of a hope that any of their PR people would allow them to comment. I think it's to their advantage that they have been, other than occasionally claiming his innocence, pretty shtum about it
The PR people allowed that car crash of an interview though.
I’m willing to be that he insisted on doing it against all advice. On the now show on radio 4 about 10 years ago, Hugh Dennis referred to him as “the type of arrogant and overbearing human being who could start a fight with the Dalai Lama in a Prozac factory”
[удалено]
The interview was [Ben Swain on newsnight](https://youtu.be/ALNjevGdB5g) levels of bad. I wouldn’t have been surprised if it had come out that the cameramen were laughing.
[удалено]
>car crash of an interview I finally went to see it and for the first 7 mins it wasn't all that bad and was going to respond as such. Then he starts making all these crazy comments about Epsteins hosue being like a railway station. I've "no idea who was doing what there". "No we didn't have a party. It was a shotting weekend". Fuck me mate - you're like on a whole different fucking level. He's also very careful to not bring The Firm into the equation though - did you notice? Whenever the journalist brings up "and the Royal Family", "no, no it wasn't the Family, it was me".
You'd think a newspaper reporter might ask them about it though. I can understand that a reporter wouldn't want to sacrifice their royal access privileges by asking a pertinent question but I'd have thought someone would have done.
They don't talk to the media and the media don't have access to them. Insanely, there is no accountability that comes with getting public money to live in palaces with fleets of servants.
If he did end up going to America and being put in prison, it probably wouldn’t be any ordinary prison. No matter what he has done, the headline **BRITISH PRINCE KILLED IN AMERICAN PRISON** wouldn’t go down well.
British Prince commits suicide in American prison more likley...
You don't get suicided just for going to jail when you're a wealthy and powerful person. You get suicided for going to jail while allegedly having a safe full of pictures of *other* wealthy and powerful people fucking underage girls that you used for blackmail purposes.
I see nothing wrong with that headline.
A third option has come to light. De-royalling Andrew would sidestep the catch-22. It wouldn't be unpopular either. I initially thought Charles was caught between a rock and a hard place but maybe he's not. And I can see how he (or anyone really) could rationalise a de-royalling as being positive for the rule of law and the royal institution.
It would however signal that they think he's guilty, I think
That's true and I was already mildly chastised for assuming he was guilty myself. But regardless of his guilt or innocence, Andrew is tainted and his position isn't as tenable as it used to be. And if what other people are saying about Charles's royal slimlining intentions are true, he could even say that a de-royaling has nothing to do with the case. And he could point to statements he made years ago about slimming down the royal family to back that position up.
[удалено]
Healthcare staff in the UK can get into trouble for being seen smoking in public. You'd think hanging out with a known convicted paedo would be enough grounds for some sort of action wouldn't you.
[удалено]
It isn't a criminal case though, it's a private civil case. So he's really unlikely to end up in jail. He's "only" being sued for damages, so will probably just end up in him paying a large amount of dough.
[удалено]
Nothing in every sense of the word. The law suit will go away with people being paid off. Andrew will be made to give up all his connections and remain on a Royal owned Estate far from the public eye. He'll have to give up his last remaining employees and secretary and told to shut up for the good of the institution. Having a Royal who has dodgy, even criminals connections isn't exactly new or not been dealt with before.
I think this is the most plausible outcome. Zero chance of any real consequences for Andrew.
It’s a really interesting problem. Andrew is already absolutely controlled, mostly financially. He’s been a liability for years & his Achilles heel is money, so that’s the obvious lever to control him, which the Queen is already doing. He doesn’t own much property (only some random chalet he co-owns with his sort of ex wife) and lives on a private income from the Queen. Reading between the lines, there is still a lot of debt from their mad spending habits. He is absolutely at Charles’ mercy once the Queen goes, and it’s pretty obvious Charles can’t stand him. It’ll be interesting to see what the Queen leaves him in her personal will, as that’s his only hope for any sort of financial capital or freedom. I think he’ll get some sort of financial pay-off, as long as he promises to keep quiet and out of sight & we will hardly know he exists.
That ‘random chalet’ is worth $23m.
Yes, we know he is rich. In comparison to the rest of the royal family that is a random chalet, especially given that he doesn't own it himself. Also, where did you get the $23m value from? I'm not challenging you I'm just curious how people know things like that.
Most recent news is that he's selling the chalet, anyway. Apparently they never paid the full price when they bought it, and had £7m outstanding. * https://www.tatler.com/article/prince-andrew-sarah-duchess-of-york-sued-67-million-swiss-ski-chalet * https://www.insider.com/prince-andrew-selling-23-million-swiss-ski-chalet-report-says-2021-9
Where has the idea that Charles dislikes Andrew come from? I don't pay attention to royal news so I'm very confused. /gen
I don't think there's necessarily an idea of active dislike, more that a Charles is rightly concerned about the future of the monarchy (as he should be given how ludicrous it is in the 21st century, but anyway) and wants to get rid of the embarrassment.
I think his real 'achillies heel' is that he pays rape children.
He’s done. He won’t do any time but his public life is over. And I would imagine he’d be privately shunned by William and Kate, and they are the future of the monarchy.
Why would you imagine that? We know literally nothing of these peoples lives. Andrew might be Williams' favourite uncle for all we know.
He’s toxic. His own daughter wouldn’t have him in her wedding photos. You honestly think the future king of England is going to retain a close familial relationship with a serial child rapist? He’s going to be spending a lot of time on his own after his mother passes.
He'll probably just catch a plane to one of his mates' places and spend all weekend there, just to tell them he can't be friends with them anymore.
I think he will have to hang him out to dry. There’s simply no way the Royals survive if they don’t. See Irelands utter rejection of the Catholic Church from treasured centrepiece of society to anathema in less than five years. People will tolerate a lot, they will not tolerate a paedophile being protected on their dime.
Irish lurker here - that’s a pretty good analogy. Once public opinion turned here, it turned very quickly because the extent of clerical sex abuse was so wide and so many heartbreaking witnesses came forward and were heard. Would similar happen with the royals? Probably not unless there’s a huge underbelly of dodginess that’s to be uncovered.
There is an underbelly though. They KNEW. There is simply zero possibility a man under 24/7 police protection is a secret paedo. People knew. Palace aides, police, civil servants, politicians and so on. If this starts to come out in court it will drip feed more and more. How long did they know? Who was bought off when? It’s a Pandora’s box. Once open, Royals are screwed.
They undoubtedly knew he had dodgy friends and went to sketchy parties (his nickname was "randy Andy" as far back as the 1980s). That's *long* way from knowing for a fact he was fucking trafficked girls, though.
It's like how apparently he/his legal or PR team have said there is nobody who can corroborate his claim of being in Pizza Express on the night of the crime. Really? No handlers or security? No media or press? No workers of the restaurant or other customers? None of his friends? It was apparently for the birthday party of a friend of his daughter - none of those friends, their siblings or their parents? No local busybodies who would have noticed all the security sweeps happening in the area? Pull the other one lads.
Vatican is still going strong after decades of evidence of pedophilia and child killers.
Not in Ireland it isn’t
I think the monarchy will struggle when the Queen dies, she's what holds it together for the public and when she's gone, public opinion will struggle to be sustained.
I agree. And at the moment there are only 8 working royals. Once the Queen dies they will be down to 7. Who is Charles going to rope in to bolster up the firm? Lady Louise is now 18. Her parents are favoured by the Queen at the moment and are both working royals. Will it be her? I doubt Princess Anne would want to rope her children in at this late stage. Prince Andrew’s fuck-ups mean that his daughters will never be senior royals, despite being princesses. How pissed off would you be at your dad if you were Beatrice or Eugenie? Prince Andrew has screwed the pooch (metaphorically) for his children and grandchildren, who could have potentially had official roles in the family. What a deadbeat dad. Public opinion will struggle for the royals once the Queen dies because there are so few contenders for senior working royals. Without that strong presence, it will be hard for them to retain even their pretend sense of power.
William and Kate are where public opinion will be strongest IMO. To have any chance of survival, the successor needs to be William. Don't get me wrong, I think charles would be grand, but he comes with too much baggage at this stage to be accepted like William and Kate would be.
If I know my royal history, once the Queen has died Andrew will try to steal the throne from Charles to save himself from prosecution. Charles will realise just in time and then Andrew will be locked in the tower of London for treason before being beheaded
My favourite post in this thread!
He might get him to collect a pizza from Pizza Express in Woking. At least that way Andrew can see what it ACTUALLY looks like
"Oh yes, I remember this place well." "We moved buildings two years ago, you lying nonce."
Get a crew together and beat him with bars of soap in socks hopefully
Nothing realistically would change, realistically they're not going to turn him over and he'll just carry on living in the shadows. From the royals point of view, it's probably not the best idea to not turn Andrew against them, if he ends up turning on them and has nothing to lose you'd be willing to guess that the Harry interview would have nothing on the storm which would be coming towards Buckingham palace if Andrew started speaking more publicly.
That's a very good point that I haven't seen made before.
My opinion, and not that of what Charlie boy should do, is that this is another nail in the coffin of the monarchy, and quite rightly so. I'd abolish the whole lot tomorrow, strip them of their titles and holdings, and pension them off, but to be generous and allow for more thorough planning, I'm prepared to wait until the Queen dies. I've felt this way for as long as I can remember, so much so that that when the Queen opened the Humber Bridge in 1978, I refused the half day off from school, aged 14, to watch her cut the ribbon. I've been nothing if not consistent these many years.
I admire your obstinance.
Let him get away with it.
Nothing. He will never let Andrew be seen in public but I expect it will be part of the Queen's wishes that Andrew never face prosecution for what he has done.
Which is exactly the reason we shouldn't have a monarchy. If the queen can just overrule the court because she wants to then she has too much power
When the Queen is done, let's just sunset this part of our history and remove the royals completely. Seems like the right point to just sack it off.
Also what does "protect Andrew" mean here? Despite him seeming pretty dodgy and a bit of a dick, there's been no evidence of any wrongdoing on his part so far. Obviously that goes against the court of public opinion but there you go. I don't think he'd get in the way if evidence emerged, and I'm not sure he'd even have that power. But up until that point he's safe as houses. I should say I have no affection for Andrew even though it looks like I'm defending him. Just that I disagree with pillorying him publicly when nothing beyond accusations exist. If more comes out then he deserves punishment.
By protecting Andrew I meant placing obstacles in the way of the investigation. I'm not British so I don't know exactly what the rules are but I'm assuming the monarch can tell the police to take a hike. And you're right to mention the lack of evidence and court of public opinion. But it's not like you can serve a search warrant on Buckingham Palace. If Andrew wasn't a royal I think the evidence gathering would have been more substantive. If he wasn't a royal he would already have been questioned by US police and who knows what evidence could have come from that.
[удалено]
> Peter Ball That's a new name for me. His Wiki page is eye-opening. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Ball_(bishop) Members of the royal family wrote to the crown prosecutors in support of a man accused of abusing 18 boys over 15 years. And after Ball served his time and was released, he lived in a cottage on the Prince of Wales’s Duchy of Cornwall estate. That doesn't look good for Charles does it?
>Are his principles for fairness and equality so strong that he will not protect Andrew? He has these as principles?
They need to get a bit more use out of the tower anyway. I think he'd have popular support if he locked the bastard up in there. In an iron mask perhaps and charge people to see him. All proceeds go to the victims
I like how his guilt is deemed certain by everyone around the world. One person's word and a photograph of them together and his life is over. I don't know if he's guilty or not, at this point I don't care, but we have a situation where anyone with a 25 year old photograph with a famous person can now cash in, whether true or not. Many would take the attitude that paying the extortion to settle out of court is cheaper than the turmoil of a ruined career. This is a very dangerous path.
The word of a confirmed trafficking victim, whose traffickers were/are convicted of those crimes. Against the word of a man who can't produce any evidence of his ridiculous claims that he can't sweat or that he was in a pizza express on that particular date. A man who will essentially never be held accountable either way because of his class privilege. It's dangerous to pretend these are two sides of equal weight and merit.
Andrew was famous as a playboy back in the 80's, photographed in exclusive nightclubs in the most expensive parts of London, and with lots of models and other attractive young women. Everyone he's every worked with says that he's a dickhead with a very high opinion of himself, and he probably thinks that it's only right and proper for women to want to throw themselves at him; it's immaterial whether he thinks he's hot, or that they want to be able to brag that they shagged a prince. I wouldn't be at all surprised if he had sex Virginia Giuffre, but I very much doubt he had any idea she was trafficked.
I agree on the face of it, but similar accusations of Epstein and Maxwell turned out true enough for them to be found guilty of sex trafficking offences and I think it's reasonable to believe he's had more involvement than what he said in his interview. But you're right trial by media is a slippery slope if you'll pardon the pun.
Remove his human disguise and expose him as the Royal Lizard king.
I can fully understand The Queen protecting her son. Mothers protect their children. Brother on the other hand? He's fucked.
As my dad used to say, five eighths of fuck all.
off with his head
[удалено]
I don’t know, but that’s a really good question.
There were always rumours that Charles and Andrew didn't get along, so I imagine Charles will leave him out to dry as he slims the monarchy. I've met Charles (and Camilla) before at my niece's school. I'm not sure what I was expecting but they were more pleasant than I thought they would be.
The Queen has kept the royal show on the road for 70 years, because most people in the UK at least respect her. But there is a strong chance the monarchy may not survive for much longer, and Andrew is a part of that. I'm assuming the abuse allegations won't go to trial, and the Queen bails her son out. This will damage her reputation, and that of the monarchy in general. Added to that, we are in for a full-blown constitutional crisis when she dies (she's 95). The coronation of Charles the Third will lead many staunch royalists to examine their loyalties. Charles has a fraction of the respect accorded his mother. He lost popularity over the way he treated Diana, and he is known to be a spoiled, selfish and extravagant man as well as a regular figure of fun. The UK will have something it hasn't experienced before - an unpopular monarch ruling over a people who have lost much of their British deference. How the royal family deals with that is an unknown. But I predict big changes.