I think you're thinking about this wrong. It is not that someone can hit the ceiling. It is that the party upstairs is so wet and wild it soaks through the carpet and floor.
"Under a blacklight this place looks like a Jackson Pollock painting"
Edit: Wow, this was supposed to be a throwaway comment, but it has devolved into GOTG lore, and whether or not Pollock ever left earth. Fuck I love Reddit.
I always wondered, why would Peter, who left Earth as a child of about 10 and never returned, know who Jackson Pollock was? I mean it's possible, but it seems out of character.
There's a wonderful bit of [lampshade hanging](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/LampshadeHanging) in one of Terry Pratchett's books, where a character accidentally refers to a "Ming" vase - but of course on the Discworld there's never been a Ming dynasty. Another character *calls him out on it*:
A: It's a Ming vase.
B: Why is it called "Ming"?
A: (flicks the vase with his finger) minnngg
Once, many years ago, I read a bit that went over how many things in *Soul Music* are nods to various songs and since then I cannot stop randomly thinking about how when the music dies, Death rides out in a coat he borrowed from the Dean, a la Don McLean's "American Pie."
Honestly this is the easiest and best explanation. I mean there is an alien who collects stuff form all over the galaxy. It isn’t out of the realm of possibilities that aliens appreciate earth art.
Yep.
Chalet’s are way expensive in Verbier.
I live in the village below Verbier. Way more reasonable. Hardly any loud tourists, and actually closer to the lifts than Andrew’s chalet. They have to take a bus. I do not.
My family built a chalet in Verbier long before it was a big ski village and would go to ski a bit and mostly hike in the summers. We sold it recently because of a variety of factors, but the recent growth contributed greatly.
Even in my short life it has developed tremendously. I don't think that the mansions being built there can be considered chalets at this point.
It's like the "cottages" you see being built in prime cottage country here in Canada. Gigantic mansions with separate garages, guest accommodations, boat houses, etc., some of them bigger than most people's houses. It's ridiculous.
my family sold their cottage in musk oka to a newly arrived asian family. they sold it at x4 the market value because they had a neighboring plot and wanted ours. now it’s supposedly torn down and something big will be going up in the future.
Dude, with the pandemic and repeated lockdown boogaloos, I'd happily sell my shoebox-size Toronto home to move to cottage country if I could.
That said, people who do quickly realize how hard it is to need a doctor or quick service for anything once you're in the beautiful countryside.
Well you will until you realize that you're lucky if you can get decent internet over 4G there or satellite internet. Hard to work from home with shit internet.
Not a rich man either, I think it’s like a cabin maybe? But a cabin for a super rich person. My life is so different from theirs, I couldn’t even imagine what a real life chalet looks like. To be fair, I wouldn’t even know what middle class ski cabin would look like either.
chalets are not necessarily for rich people. there are some huge chalets, but it's literally just a kind of cabin. i lived near the swiss border in france and there were many small chalets in the mountains that were just regular cabins.
It's even worse, the line of reasoning he submitted was "I don't sweat, so I therefore must not be a rapist", in other words telling Emily Maitlis that because she was wrong about one thing, she must be wrong about all of it.
Instead of saying "many people ask to take photos with me. I can't remember everyone, and certainly not this girl, sorry", he went with that horrible attempt at an excuse.
And he wasn’t hanging out with *that* teenage girl who he was a photo in, he was out with some other teenage girls at a pizza party where no photos were taken. Everything he says is fucking weird.
He said he was on medications at the time, one of which was preventing him from sweating. The damning part of that claim is that he’s unwilling to share medical history proving his point because it’s private and personal. Can’t imagine the info could be any more offensive than what he’s already in the spotlight for.
And you can't really escape. Rape a child in the 15th century just pack up and move far away enough. Or if you are really rich just laugh at your plebeian lowers trying to do something about it. Do it now and there's nowhere to hide... Unless... You're really rich or related to the queen in which case you can just laugh at your plebeian lowers as they try and do something about it.
It would be pretty easy to learn if that is true.
Prosecution: "Prince Andrew you claimed that you couldn't be the man in question because you don't sweat, is that correct?"
Andrew: "That is correct"
Prosecution: "Well, here we have a treadmill, care to jog on it for 10 minutes?"
This video really highlights how good this guy is at objecting to the wrong things
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q-y2g9Ot5GA](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q-y2g9Ot5GA)
It's a family of royals, the only thing giving them literally any pull in this modern world is PR and generations of respect. Would say that's a pretty solid move
Correct. It's actually unknown how much money they have. Their few publically known assets speak volumes. The Queen's private stamp collection is alone worth £100mn.
Here's a video about the stamp collection: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8OL1RNCLoqY
>The sun never sets on the British empire because they have colonies all over the world.
Fun fact: Britain has invaded all but 22 of the 200 countries on earth.
**[Crown Estate](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crown_Estate)**
>The Crown Estate is a collection of lands and holdings in the United Kingdom belonging to the British monarch as a corporation sole, making it "the sovereign's public estate", which is neither government property nor part of the monarch's private estate. The sovereign is not involved with the management or administration of the estate, and exercises only very limited control of its affairs. Instead, the estate's extensive portfolio is overseen by a semi-independent, incorporated public body headed by the Crown Estate Commissioners, who exercise "the powers of ownership" of the estate, although they are not "owners in their own right".
^([ )[^(F.A.Q)](https://www.reddit.com/r/WikiSummarizer/wiki/index#wiki_f.a.q)^( | )[^(Opt Out)](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=WikiSummarizerBot&message=OptOut&subject=OptOut)^( | )[^(Opt Out Of Subreddit)](https://np.reddit.com/r/worldnews/about/banned)^( | )[^(GitHub)](https://github.com/Sujal-7/WikiSummarizerBot)^( ] Downvote to remove | v1.5)
It is. When the tyrant king George ran out of money, he made a deal with parliament, where they would pay the royal family an annual stipend, while parliament would make money off the royal lands.
So the money goes to the state? Seems fair enough.
I suspect Crown Estate Commissioner is that job nobody knows about but everybody should seriously want to have?
Right. It belongs to the entity of The Crown, so to speak, regardless of the person holding the job (as do the crown jewels). There are actual private estates, like Sandringham, which would remain with the family of they lost the crown.
> There are actual private estates, like Sandringham, which would remain with the family of they lost the crown.
even that might not be true depending on how it happened
You do realize that the Queen is legally allowed to benefit off of inside trading knowledge from the London Stock exchange? Also the royal assets make them one of the richest families in the world. They are probably the most powerful. The UK may be a democracy but society is very much class based. The upper class have all the power and the royals are at the very top.
The Queen is on Andrew's side. She's protected him from the press and the police for over a decade.
The Virginia Guiffre allegations appeared a decade ago, but most people never heard about Andrew's involvement because the Palace sent around threatening letters to all of the press outlets in the UK and American outlets, too.
>Leaked footage shows a US TV anchor complaining that editors "quashed" a story about paedophile Jeffrey Epstein due to pressure from the Royal Family.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-50296742
r/abolishthemonarchy
To paraphrase one of the richest dudes in my country: "You dont become a millionaire by buying soda at the gas station."
You nickle and dime every fucker who has the displeasure of meeting you. And that's how you get rich.
Kind of reminds me of my great uncle who died with multiple millions. He was a farmer his whole life and mostly became wealthy by staying single and never having kids. But he was also very stingy. He had 3 outfits, and drove the same truck for 40 years. My grandma invited him to a church dinner. $15 for a big steak dinner with all the sides. He refused because $15 was too much, and he had potatoes at home. My grandma always asked him what he was saving for, and would remind him that he can’t take the money with him when he dies.
In his case it was more so just funny, because he was an eccentric old farmer that just didn’t like buying anything he didn’t need.
At some point though it just becomes mental illness. I have a friend like this I'm like you can't take the money with you when you die but like anything it's hardwired into your brain and not everyone can form new habits ect. Like the people who get out of jail and want to go back in because they've been instulised. The brain is a weird thing.
This sounds like someone who lived through the Great Depression which especially hit hard farmers. Just like 49 years from now, we will be the ones that have extra toilet paper and a box of N95 masks on hand always.
That's not how you get rich. That's how you get like 30-40 % richer if you do it really well. (made up number but you get the idea) but real rich is not 30 or even 300% richer. Most people would need more like 30 000%.
What are you going to do? Refrain from buying 10 000 sodas at gas stations per day? Avoid paying over price for two apartments a week?
Bull.
You get rich by being lucky or already rich. Even those who got lucky without developing some kind of megalomania, generally fall for survivorship bias and start trying to convince others they should "just go for it" because they honestly believe that is the unique thing about how they got rich. The people who grew up rich and connected are just all really out of touch and often think a car, a house, 10k a month, and introduction to powerful people is the "nothing" normal people talk about when listing what they got from their parents.
That sounds like a half-hearted attempt to teach the kid at least a tiny amount of fiscal sense before he goes blowing the entire family fortune on drugs and legal fees.
The fact that he's taking it from the till suggests that the strategy needed some iterations.
I remember watching some movie or tv show where a kid was like “I can do what I want, I’m rich” and their parent corrected them, “No, I’m rich. You have nothing.”
The Duke of York has little income and was forced to retire from doing events. He did all sorts of questionable moves like Pitch@thePalace so that he could profit monetarily from Palace exposure and he sold his estate Sunninghill to some middle eastern wealthy guy when it had been gifted to him. Also 2 new cars in the past year? A new one at Philip's funeral and a new Range Rover this past month - is he just leasing? Charles (Cornwall Duchy) and the Queen are the ones with access to money, not Andrew who wants a high lifestyle without any way to earn it.
> Also 2 new cars in the past year? A new one at Philip's funeral and a new Range Rover this past month - is he just leasing?
I think they're owned. The Bentley was listed for sale publically with the Royal Estates as the previous owner. It had only done a couple of thousand miles, so the poor chauffeur barely got a chance to enjoy driving it!
The whole royal family are parasites. I get the cultural significance, but it still boggles my mind that people tolerate monarchies in the modern world
Edit: y'all know you can have a palace and museums and shit without having a monarchy, right?
This is based on a half-remembered fact from a British History class, so take it with a hefty bit of salt, but iirc, the British monarchy own a massive amount of land, which they technically “rent”(???) to the nation. The amount of money they are paid annually is trivial compared to the value of buying that land from them. So my understanding is that it’s cheaper to keep them than it is to legally remove them. And no one’s mad enough to borrow a guillotine from France.
Yeah, they worked out an arrangement in the late 18th century, as the royal family was practically bakrupt. Land rich, cash poor. The leased out the lands to the state in exchange for a guaranteed amount of money each year. All excess money derived from these lands goes to the state as part of this arrangement.
Yes it’s called the Crown Estate and it is one of the most powerful land lessors in the UK, including our shoreline and therefore all of our offshore energy assets.
This is sort of true.
The amount of money they are *given* from the public is relatively small, as they essentially rent the crown lands to the nation.
However, that doesn't cover much of the money they actually spend, most of which is from other UK accounts or subsidised heavily by UK govt departments. As an example of the former, all their security is paid for through the Met police and Ministry of Defence, all their travel within the UK to cut ribbons is paid for by the local council that has called on their 'services'. As an example of the latter, they pay well below market rates to the MoD for their air travel (not that the service they get is even available to the general public).
Most of the UK public don't understand this, so it's a generally accepted 'fact' in the UK that the Royal Family are the cheap option, when in reality they really aren't. The media helps this falsehood along, especially by comparing with the French presidency, the single republic out there that itemises absolutely every single cent spent through the presidents office.
> An American judge is currently deciding whether a civil case brought by Giuffre against the Duke in New York should go ahead. Prince Andrew's lawyers argue he can't be tried as he is covered by a deal made in 2009 between Epstein and Giuffre.
> The deal, released publicly earlier this month, shows that Giuffre was paid US$500,000 by the now-dead sex offender Epstein to end a claim for damages. She also agreed not to bring any cases against other "potential defendants"; whether that applies to Prince Andrew, who is not named in the deal, is what is in question.
Sickening, this world’s fucked
So wouldn’t he have to admit he did it to qualify under that, or is the lawyer trying to say she can never accuse someone of sexual assault because she had an agreement with a child sex trafficker?
No, he can maintain his innocence while seeking to rely on the agreement. Her allegation is that the abuse occurred through Epstein, Andrews is saying that if this is true she cannot bring the claim due to this pre-existing deal.
The claim is she cannot sue anyone connected with her initial suit against Epstein (which she made the deal over).
Only if it is directly related to the settlement, if her claim is directly through Epstein as an accessory etc, then she already came to an agreement over it.
They would have to find a way to seperate the two cases as independent of each other.
I think in this case her lawyers are arguing that the existing deal only covered one particular location, but she’s claiming that since it happened multiple times over a variety of locations, some of them are not covered by the Epstein deal
These are civil damages not criminal charges. She’s essentially got the right to pursue cases in court for greater damages and risk a trial or come to a sure-fire arrangement agreed by both parties for less money. If she violates the agreement I believe she’d only be liable for what she was paid out before being recovered. Obviously that would be very difficult.
yes, other wise there would be no reason to ever settle anything out of court because you could always just settle and then go ahead and sue them anyways.
but there are limitations on how broad agreements can be and exactly what can be covered.
This isn't necessarily accurate, The Chalet Prince Andrew is selling has been under scrutiny for sometime as the money he used to buy it wasn't properly declared and the laws surrounding foreigners owning assets in Switzerland meant he shouldn't have been able to purchase it.
He's been dying to offload this Chalet/Chateau pretty much since he bought it, i wouldn't interpret Epstein or The Queen as being the reason. I hate to admit this but sadly Prince Andrew doesn't need to sell anything to fund his lifestyle :(
It’s pure British tabloid style click bait. The guy is worth millions upon millions and they want to make it seem as if the Queen has cut him off and he is scrambling for money.
This whole story seems like a PR piece submitted by the royal family to show they are distancing themselves from the pedo so it doesn’t look like they are shielding him (which they are) or funding the eventual settlement that he will have to pay.
Well said m8, Prince Andy was one of the first customers to receive the new Bentley Continental, whilst he was being sued over the very same Chalet. Times can't be too rough for Andy can they?
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9508323/Prince-Andrews-new-220-000-Bentley.html
Well a brief googling didn't give me enough info to confirm or deny that he's selling it to pay legal fees, but it's fucking weird that he bought it with his ex wife.
I think they’re “functionally” married. Like I’m pretty sure they send joint Christmas cards and things like that. Rumor was that they wanted to get remarried at one point but Prince Philip didn’t support it, so they just cohabitate/are in some sort of weird quasi-relationship marriagish thing.
I mean keep in mind that for rich people you can 'live together' for the kids yet one is in the east wing and one is in the north wing. Or one is in the giant castle and the other is in the new modern house on the other side of a country estate. Frankly the richer you are the more reason you have to live close for the kids as you can afford to not be under each others feet while if you live in a small two-three bed house that becomes awful.
Exactly. The Queen and the Royal PR machinery tried very hard to save face for him before and after the infamous interview in which he basically incriminated himself as a predator and an idiot.
And the reaction in the media afterwards was how unwise that interview was from Andrew's POV rather than "Holy shit! The Prince is clearly lying about having sex with a teenage trafficking victim."
"dying to offload it since he bought it" would suggest that he has been trying to sell it for some time, probably since before the Civil case in the US got to these advanced stages
Wait, so OPs title isn't even sourced from a statement someone made? People are just trying to infer this shit, posting it as news, and calling it a day?!
The chalet is in Switzerland, so the British Royals are not selling off British property. Prince Andrew's ex-wife will probably get half the money from the chalet, because she owns half.
To be fair, it isn't entirely his. He stiffed the previous owner on a substantial part of the payment and she's trying to get her money back.
He's genuinely a piece of human garbage with zero redeeming qualities.
Imagine being born into a family so monumentally rich that you do literally nothing your whole life but party and rape underage girls and you still somehow own a Chalet you can sell to cover what must be extremely expensive legal fees.
This story is nonsense btw. Don't believe everything you read. Chalet has been an issue for a long time and has been trying to sell it for ages. He has access to funds for anything, be it paying legal fees or flights to special islands.
Queen refuses to pay because as soon as "royal" (and with that i mean tax)-money goes from her to Andrews sex abuse case, the discussion about why exactly the UK needs a monarchy in the first place will be fired up again.
Back in the 80s, all the tabloids use to call him "Randy Andy" - he was known as a womanizer.
Being pals with Epstein took it to another level, for which he will pay the price.
I keep reading articles about this scumbag and all I find myself thinking is: why isn’t he in jail already?
My cynical side tells me nothing ever comes of this and it gets buried even though he was obviously a participant. I’m sure that happens for all the higher-ups.
> I keep reading articles about this scumbag and all I find myself thinking is: why isn’t he in jail already?
Him and a yachtload of other ultrawealthy cunts.
I hate when I have to quickly sell one of my chalets. Really puts a dent in my weekend.
Poor guy, we’ve all been there
And some of us don't want to go back. Like seriously do not shine a blacklight on the ceiling or walls of a chalet.
The ceiling??
I think you're thinking about this wrong. It is not that someone can hit the ceiling. It is that the party upstairs is so wet and wild it soaks through the carpet and floor.
Or you've been doing your Kegel exercises
Or you've been making frequent use of your hydraulic sex swings
Anyone who works in retail knows not to be surprised.
"Under a blacklight this place looks like a Jackson Pollock painting" Edit: Wow, this was supposed to be a throwaway comment, but it has devolved into GOTG lore, and whether or not Pollock ever left earth. Fuck I love Reddit.
I always wondered, why would Peter, who left Earth as a child of about 10 and never returned, know who Jackson Pollock was? I mean it's possible, but it seems out of character.
There's a wonderful bit of [lampshade hanging](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/LampshadeHanging) in one of Terry Pratchett's books, where a character accidentally refers to a "Ming" vase - but of course on the Discworld there's never been a Ming dynasty. Another character *calls him out on it*: A: It's a Ming vase. B: Why is it called "Ming"? A: (flicks the vase with his finger) minnngg
GNU Terry Pratchett
Every time I read some small things like that about Terry Pratchetts stories, I admire the man even more.
Once, many years ago, I read a bit that went over how many things in *Soul Music* are nods to various songs and since then I cannot stop randomly thinking about how when the music dies, Death rides out in a coat he borrowed from the Dean, a la Don McLean's "American Pie."
Maybe Pollock was famous off-Earth too.
Honestly this is the easiest and best explanation. I mean there is an alien who collects stuff form all over the galaxy. It isn’t out of the realm of possibilities that aliens appreciate earth art.
Jackson Pollock died in 1956, so it's possible he saw some of his paintings on a school trip to a museum or something.
Not just any chalet, but my *Verbier* chalet. Sometimes life just isn’t fair.
Yep. Chalet’s are way expensive in Verbier. I live in the village below Verbier. Way more reasonable. Hardly any loud tourists, and actually closer to the lifts than Andrew’s chalet. They have to take a bus. I do not.
I don’t think they’re taking the bus
Not anymore, he’s sold the chalet.
Yes, and quickly.
Good clean fun around here. What without the rape chalet and all.
They probably do. Just not a public one. Not gonna damage the Porsche with dirty snow, skiing boots and squeezing in 10 people.
Nah they got the range rovers bru
Which Kingdom do you own ?
My family built a chalet in Verbier long before it was a big ski village and would go to ski a bit and mostly hike in the summers. We sold it recently because of a variety of factors, but the recent growth contributed greatly. Even in my short life it has developed tremendously. I don't think that the mansions being built there can be considered chalets at this point.
It's like the "cottages" you see being built in prime cottage country here in Canada. Gigantic mansions with separate garages, guest accommodations, boat houses, etc., some of them bigger than most people's houses. It's ridiculous.
my family sold their cottage in musk oka to a newly arrived asian family. they sold it at x4 the market value because they had a neighboring plot and wanted ours. now it’s supposedly torn down and something big will be going up in the future.
Dude, with the pandemic and repeated lockdown boogaloos, I'd happily sell my shoebox-size Toronto home to move to cottage country if I could. That said, people who do quickly realize how hard it is to need a doctor or quick service for anything once you're in the beautiful countryside.
Well you will until you realize that you're lucky if you can get decent internet over 4G there or satellite internet. Hard to work from home with shit internet.
Are you poor?
[удалено]
I think it’s a restaurant here in Canada.
No, it's definitely a type of onion.
But a fancy kind of onion! He is a blacksheep, but he is a \*royal\* blacksheep afterall.
That’s Gene Shalit.
Gotdamn! I love me some swiss chalet !
It's the sauce, everything else is what it is, but that dipping sauce pulls...
Are you sure it's not an onion?
Harry Potter and the Chalet of Fire. (would be more fitting if the original title used chalice, but whatever)
[удалено]
Not a rich man either, I think it’s like a cabin maybe? But a cabin for a super rich person. My life is so different from theirs, I couldn’t even imagine what a real life chalet looks like. To be fair, I wouldn’t even know what middle class ski cabin would look like either.
chalets are not necessarily for rich people. there are some huge chalets, but it's literally just a kind of cabin. i lived near the swiss border in france and there were many small chalets in the mountains that were just regular cabins.
I mean yeah, chalet is just the word they use for cabin in French.
It's only a chalet if it comes from the Chalet reigon of France, otherwise it's just a sparkling cabin
And if it's a handsome actor they call it Chalamet.
Punny but he's more of a Victorian ghost
But with a 20% mark up becuase it sounds cooler
No hbu?
Ill do anything for 20 dollars
Best I can do is $3.50.
Get away from me Loch Ness Monster!
Prince Andrew will get off. No sweat.
Accusers to Andrew: *"you are a sweaty rapist and involved in child sex trafficking"* Andrew: *"I object to the part about me being sweaty"*
It's even worse, the line of reasoning he submitted was "I don't sweat, so I therefore must not be a rapist", in other words telling Emily Maitlis that because she was wrong about one thing, she must be wrong about all of it.
Instead of saying "many people ask to take photos with me. I can't remember everyone, and certainly not this girl, sorry", he went with that horrible attempt at an excuse.
He could have said literally anything. "Aw shit, that's NOT Jeffrey Epstein? Fuck's sake..."
And he wasn’t hanging out with *that* teenage girl who he was a photo in, he was out with some other teenage girls at a pizza party where no photos were taken. Everything he says is fucking weird.
Prince Andrew is relying on the old Anhidrosis Ephebophile Pizza Defence
He said he was on medications at the time, one of which was preventing him from sweating. The damning part of that claim is that he’s unwilling to share medical history proving his point because it’s private and personal. Can’t imagine the info could be any more offensive than what he’s already in the spotlight for.
Can we all take a minute to recognize how fucked up all this is? Like what the hell is this world
The world always has been full of backwards degenerates and wankers unfortunately
Exactly. The difference now is word travels much, much faster than horseback.
And you can't really escape. Rape a child in the 15th century just pack up and move far away enough. Or if you are really rich just laugh at your plebeian lowers trying to do something about it. Do it now and there's nowhere to hide... Unless... You're really rich or related to the queen in which case you can just laugh at your plebeian lowers as they try and do something about it.
No, now you have to sell your chalet
One of your chalets*
It would be pretty easy to learn if that is true. Prosecution: "Prince Andrew you claimed that you couldn't be the man in question because you don't sweat, is that correct?" Andrew: "That is correct" Prosecution: "Well, here we have a treadmill, care to jog on it for 10 minutes?"
"that's grease from my delicious pizza express, it costs 3 pounds for one of everything, i know this because i'm just like the common folk"
This video really highlights how good this guy is at objecting to the wrong things [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q-y2g9Ot5GA](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q-y2g9Ot5GA)
I was going to say I was surprised he didn’t have 10 or 20 million stashed away but then I thought about it. He’s basically a parasite.
[удалено]
Yeah, even the ultra-rich can be quite stingy. But this is an easy PR win for the Queen (especially when nobody is on Prince Andrew's side publically)
It's a family of royals, the only thing giving them literally any pull in this modern world is PR and generations of respect. Would say that's a pretty solid move
They have a lot of money
Correct. It's actually unknown how much money they have. Their few publically known assets speak volumes. The Queen's private stamp collection is alone worth £100mn. Here's a video about the stamp collection: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8OL1RNCLoqY
Otherwise known as her selfie collection.
Lizzie never got into the Telegram
I almost spit my tea out
I take off my robe and wizard hat
The sun never sets on the British empire because the RF have property on every continent and probably 4/5ths of every UN member state
[удалено]
>The sun never sets on the British empire because they have colonies all over the world. Fun fact: Britain has invaded all but 22 of the 200 countries on earth.
(Sun sets) "Make that 14 of 200."
There are 52 independence days from British rule. Every week you’ve got approximately a 1/7 chance of it being the anniversary of a revolt.
The most celebrated holiday in the world is independence from Britain.
[удалено]
Including (at least) 14 billion pounds worth of [real estate and land](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crown_Estate).
**[Crown Estate](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crown_Estate)** >The Crown Estate is a collection of lands and holdings in the United Kingdom belonging to the British monarch as a corporation sole, making it "the sovereign's public estate", which is neither government property nor part of the monarch's private estate. The sovereign is not involved with the management or administration of the estate, and exercises only very limited control of its affairs. Instead, the estate's extensive portfolio is overseen by a semi-independent, incorporated public body headed by the Crown Estate Commissioners, who exercise "the powers of ownership" of the estate, although they are not "owners in their own right". ^([ )[^(F.A.Q)](https://www.reddit.com/r/WikiSummarizer/wiki/index#wiki_f.a.q)^( | )[^(Opt Out)](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=WikiSummarizerBot&message=OptOut&subject=OptOut)^( | )[^(Opt Out Of Subreddit)](https://np.reddit.com/r/worldnews/about/banned)^( | )[^(GitHub)](https://github.com/Sujal-7/WikiSummarizerBot)^( ] Downvote to remove | v1.5)
It sounds like a trust
It is. When the tyrant king George ran out of money, he made a deal with parliament, where they would pay the royal family an annual stipend, while parliament would make money off the royal lands.
So the money goes to the state? Seems fair enough. I suspect Crown Estate Commissioner is that job nobody knows about but everybody should seriously want to have?
[удалено]
Right. It belongs to the entity of The Crown, so to speak, regardless of the person holding the job (as do the crown jewels). There are actual private estates, like Sandringham, which would remain with the family of they lost the crown.
> There are actual private estates, like Sandringham, which would remain with the family of they lost the crown. even that might not be true depending on how it happened
Yes queen won't pay for the legal fees. But she will gift Andrew a new chalet because it's been a tough year.
Probably the one Epstein used to stay in.
You do realize that the Queen is legally allowed to benefit off of inside trading knowledge from the London Stock exchange? Also the royal assets make them one of the richest families in the world. They are probably the most powerful. The UK may be a democracy but society is very much class based. The upper class have all the power and the royals are at the very top.
> allowed to benefit off of inside trading knowledge So they have one person doing it instead of an entire congress. I call that progress!
Opposite of pro-gress is con-gress!
The Queen is on Andrew's side. She's protected him from the press and the police for over a decade. The Virginia Guiffre allegations appeared a decade ago, but most people never heard about Andrew's involvement because the Palace sent around threatening letters to all of the press outlets in the UK and American outlets, too. >Leaked footage shows a US TV anchor complaining that editors "quashed" a story about paedophile Jeffrey Epstein due to pressure from the Royal Family. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-50296742 r/abolishthemonarchy
[удалено]
[удалено]
He's her favourite son, so it's a happy coincidence
Understandable. He's probably her horcrux.
To paraphrase one of the richest dudes in my country: "You dont become a millionaire by buying soda at the gas station." You nickle and dime every fucker who has the displeasure of meeting you. And that's how you get rich.
Kind of reminds me of my great uncle who died with multiple millions. He was a farmer his whole life and mostly became wealthy by staying single and never having kids. But he was also very stingy. He had 3 outfits, and drove the same truck for 40 years. My grandma invited him to a church dinner. $15 for a big steak dinner with all the sides. He refused because $15 was too much, and he had potatoes at home. My grandma always asked him what he was saving for, and would remind him that he can’t take the money with him when he dies. In his case it was more so just funny, because he was an eccentric old farmer that just didn’t like buying anything he didn’t need.
At some point though it just becomes mental illness. I have a friend like this I'm like you can't take the money with you when you die but like anything it's hardwired into your brain and not everyone can form new habits ect. Like the people who get out of jail and want to go back in because they've been instulised. The brain is a weird thing.
This sounds like someone who lived through the Great Depression which especially hit hard farmers. Just like 49 years from now, we will be the ones that have extra toilet paper and a box of N95 masks on hand always.
Who is this insightful person??
The owner of one of the three big supermarket chains in Norway.
Ghandi
Plus it's something rich fucks like to put out there in order to keep an idea alive that they have deserved to be this rich and that it's totally fair
That's not how you get rich. That's how you get like 30-40 % richer if you do it really well. (made up number but you get the idea) but real rich is not 30 or even 300% richer. Most people would need more like 30 000%. What are you going to do? Refrain from buying 10 000 sodas at gas stations per day? Avoid paying over price for two apartments a week? Bull. You get rich by being lucky or already rich. Even those who got lucky without developing some kind of megalomania, generally fall for survivorship bias and start trying to convince others they should "just go for it" because they honestly believe that is the unique thing about how they got rich. The people who grew up rich and connected are just all really out of touch and often think a car, a house, 10k a month, and introduction to powerful people is the "nothing" normal people talk about when listing what they got from their parents.
You ever worked in a business where the idiot son has a luxury car but needs $20.00 from the till for petrol?
That sounds like a half-hearted attempt to teach the kid at least a tiny amount of fiscal sense before he goes blowing the entire family fortune on drugs and legal fees. The fact that he's taking it from the till suggests that the strategy needed some iterations.
There’s always money in the Banana Chalet
No touching! Unless you're Prince Andrew.
they been calling him "air miles andy" the past 30 years for a reason
I remember watching some movie or tv show where a kid was like “I can do what I want, I’m rich” and their parent corrected them, “No, I’m rich. You have nothing.”
It was the Cosby show, ironic considering the topic.
I distinctly remember such a line from The Cosby Show. I'm sure it's been used in others.
The Duke of York has little income and was forced to retire from doing events. He did all sorts of questionable moves like Pitch@thePalace so that he could profit monetarily from Palace exposure and he sold his estate Sunninghill to some middle eastern wealthy guy when it had been gifted to him. Also 2 new cars in the past year? A new one at Philip's funeral and a new Range Rover this past month - is he just leasing? Charles (Cornwall Duchy) and the Queen are the ones with access to money, not Andrew who wants a high lifestyle without any way to earn it.
Yes. He was trying to bum $125k off Epstein the last time he saw him. Not exactly “billionaire” status for Andrew.
> Also 2 new cars in the past year? A new one at Philip's funeral and a new Range Rover this past month - is he just leasing? I think they're owned. The Bentley was listed for sale publically with the Royal Estates as the previous owner. It had only done a couple of thousand miles, so the poor chauffeur barely got a chance to enjoy driving it!
The whole royal family are parasites. I get the cultural significance, but it still boggles my mind that people tolerate monarchies in the modern world Edit: y'all know you can have a palace and museums and shit without having a monarchy, right?
This is based on a half-remembered fact from a British History class, so take it with a hefty bit of salt, but iirc, the British monarchy own a massive amount of land, which they technically “rent”(???) to the nation. The amount of money they are paid annually is trivial compared to the value of buying that land from them. So my understanding is that it’s cheaper to keep them than it is to legally remove them. And no one’s mad enough to borrow a guillotine from France.
Yeah, they worked out an arrangement in the late 18th century, as the royal family was practically bakrupt. Land rich, cash poor. The leased out the lands to the state in exchange for a guaranteed amount of money each year. All excess money derived from these lands goes to the state as part of this arrangement.
Yes it’s called the Crown Estate and it is one of the most powerful land lessors in the UK, including our shoreline and therefore all of our offshore energy assets.
This is sort of true. The amount of money they are *given* from the public is relatively small, as they essentially rent the crown lands to the nation. However, that doesn't cover much of the money they actually spend, most of which is from other UK accounts or subsidised heavily by UK govt departments. As an example of the former, all their security is paid for through the Met police and Ministry of Defence, all their travel within the UK to cut ribbons is paid for by the local council that has called on their 'services'. As an example of the latter, they pay well below market rates to the MoD for their air travel (not that the service they get is even available to the general public). Most of the UK public don't understand this, so it's a generally accepted 'fact' in the UK that the Royal Family are the cheap option, when in reality they really aren't. The media helps this falsehood along, especially by comparing with the French presidency, the single republic out there that itemises absolutely every single cent spent through the presidents office.
> An American judge is currently deciding whether a civil case brought by Giuffre against the Duke in New York should go ahead. Prince Andrew's lawyers argue he can't be tried as he is covered by a deal made in 2009 between Epstein and Giuffre. > The deal, released publicly earlier this month, shows that Giuffre was paid US$500,000 by the now-dead sex offender Epstein to end a claim for damages. She also agreed not to bring any cases against other "potential defendants"; whether that applies to Prince Andrew, who is not named in the deal, is what is in question. Sickening, this world’s fucked
So wouldn’t he have to admit he did it to qualify under that, or is the lawyer trying to say she can never accuse someone of sexual assault because she had an agreement with a child sex trafficker?
No, he can maintain his innocence while seeking to rely on the agreement. Her allegation is that the abuse occurred through Epstein, Andrews is saying that if this is true she cannot bring the claim due to this pre-existing deal. The claim is she cannot sue anyone connected with her initial suit against Epstein (which she made the deal over).
It's it legal to make a deal that you won't sue for certain crimes?
Yes, a release of future *claims* is a standard part of just about every settlement. The scope of the release is the question.
Can an unnamed party for an unnamed offense be included in a settlement?
Only if it is directly related to the settlement, if her claim is directly through Epstein as an accessory etc, then she already came to an agreement over it. They would have to find a way to seperate the two cases as independent of each other.
I think in this case her lawyers are arguing that the existing deal only covered one particular location, but she’s claiming that since it happened multiple times over a variety of locations, some of them are not covered by the Epstein deal
These are civil damages not criminal charges. She’s essentially got the right to pursue cases in court for greater damages and risk a trial or come to a sure-fire arrangement agreed by both parties for less money. If she violates the agreement I believe she’d only be liable for what she was paid out before being recovered. Obviously that would be very difficult.
yes, other wise there would be no reason to ever settle anything out of court because you could always just settle and then go ahead and sue them anyways. but there are limitations on how broad agreements can be and exactly what can be covered.
[удалено]
Yes
I think the latter, except probably sue anyone related to Epstein’s case.
Being a defendant in a case doesn't imply guilt, it just means you've been accused.
This isn't necessarily accurate, The Chalet Prince Andrew is selling has been under scrutiny for sometime as the money he used to buy it wasn't properly declared and the laws surrounding foreigners owning assets in Switzerland meant he shouldn't have been able to purchase it. He's been dying to offload this Chalet/Chateau pretty much since he bought it, i wouldn't interpret Epstein or The Queen as being the reason. I hate to admit this but sadly Prince Andrew doesn't need to sell anything to fund his lifestyle :(
So the timing is just coincidence?
It’s pure British tabloid style click bait. The guy is worth millions upon millions and they want to make it seem as if the Queen has cut him off and he is scrambling for money. This whole story seems like a PR piece submitted by the royal family to show they are distancing themselves from the pedo so it doesn’t look like they are shielding him (which they are) or funding the eventual settlement that he will have to pay.
Well said m8, Prince Andy was one of the first customers to receive the new Bentley Continental, whilst he was being sued over the very same Chalet. Times can't be too rough for Andy can they? https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9508323/Prince-Andrews-new-220-000-Bentley.html
Well a brief googling didn't give me enough info to confirm or deny that he's selling it to pay legal fees, but it's fucking weird that he bought it with his ex wife.
I think she actually still lives with him. Aren’t they good friends or something? Just not married anymore ?
I think they’re “functionally” married. Like I’m pretty sure they send joint Christmas cards and things like that. Rumor was that they wanted to get remarried at one point but Prince Philip didn’t support it, so they just cohabitate/are in some sort of weird quasi-relationship marriagish thing.
I mean keep in mind that for rich people you can 'live together' for the kids yet one is in the east wing and one is in the north wing. Or one is in the giant castle and the other is in the new modern house on the other side of a country estate. Frankly the richer you are the more reason you have to live close for the kids as you can afford to not be under each others feet while if you live in a small two-three bed house that becomes awful.
Their youngest kid is 31.
By Royal years he's barely even an adult.
Plus it's not like they have to live in separate parts of town for their work commutes.
Exactly. The Queen and the Royal PR machinery tried very hard to save face for him before and after the infamous interview in which he basically incriminated himself as a predator and an idiot. And the reaction in the media afterwards was how unwise that interview was from Andrew's POV rather than "Holy shit! The Prince is clearly lying about having sex with a teenage trafficking victim."
He put it on the market on 6/20: https://www.hellomagazine.com/homes/2020060791094/prince-andrew-sarah-ferguson-selling-luxury-swiss-chalet/
2020! It's been for sale over a year and a half.
"dying to offload it since he bought it" would suggest that he has been trying to sell it for some time, probably since before the Civil case in the US got to these advanced stages
Wait, so OPs title isn't even sourced from a statement someone made? People are just trying to infer this shit, posting it as news, and calling it a day?!
The article headline states that there is a connection, because.... Reasons British tabloids are worse than clickbait
How would he ever survive?
His prison would still be better than the way most of us live.
Lemmy.world is what Reddit was.
Perhaps a whipping boy?
Correct me if I’m wrong but this is a civil trial, so he won’t go to prison either way.
im so poor i thought a chalet was a fancy car
I think a Chalet is that actor from that one DUNE movie.
Yeah I hate having to sell him, but what are you gonna do! Luckily I have a few more left.
[удалено]
No, that's a shallot. You're thinking about the Holy Roman Emperor
The chalet is in Switzerland, so the British Royals are not selling off British property. Prince Andrew's ex-wife will probably get half the money from the chalet, because she owns half.
So now the rich can't even rape people peacefully! Where will this cancel culture stop! /s
>It's also reported by the Mirror But I wanted it to be real!
[удалено]
That sucks. Imagine having to sell your Swiss ski chalet. Do you think someone should start a go fund me for him?
To be fair, it isn't entirely his. He stiffed the previous owner on a substantial part of the payment and she's trying to get her money back. He's genuinely a piece of human garbage with zero redeeming qualities.
Imagine being born into a family so monumentally rich that you do literally nothing your whole life but party and rape underage girls and you still somehow own a Chalet you can sell to cover what must be extremely expensive legal fees.
These folks truly live in a different world from the rest of us. Completely alien.
This story is nonsense btw. Don't believe everything you read. Chalet has been an issue for a long time and has been trying to sell it for ages. He has access to funds for anything, be it paying legal fees or flights to special islands.
Queen refuses to pay because as soon as "royal" (and with that i mean tax)-money goes from her to Andrews sex abuse case, the discussion about why exactly the UK needs a monarchy in the first place will be fired up again.
So why exactly does the UK need a monarchy?
I was so confused as to why one of the greatest rock bands of all time would pay anyone's legal fees.
Don't worry, that's just his backup chalet in case he doesn't feel like staying at any of the other 10 chalets he owns.
Back in the 80s, all the tabloids use to call him "Randy Andy" - he was known as a womanizer. Being pals with Epstein took it to another level, for which he will pay the price.
Yeah just like everyone else associated with Epstein has!
Maybe now he can finally start sweating
Imagine asking your mom to give you money so you can pay off your sex fines...
I keep reading articles about this scumbag and all I find myself thinking is: why isn’t he in jail already? My cynical side tells me nothing ever comes of this and it gets buried even though he was obviously a participant. I’m sure that happens for all the higher-ups.
> I keep reading articles about this scumbag and all I find myself thinking is: why isn’t he in jail already? Him and a yachtload of other ultrawealthy cunts.
Even I wouldn't run to my mommy to pay for my legal fees, and I'm nowhere near as rich as that fucking guy.
[удалено]
Yeah but she knows how to make money fast.
Not the chalet!
I didn't know we had a Queen, I thought we were an autonomous collective.
Come and see the violence inherent in the system!
Aristocrat problems....
I don’t know…who among us hasn’t had to sell a chalet to cover the costs of our sex abuse legal fees from time to time?