The Royal Forums Coat of Arms

Go Back   The Royal Forums > Reigning Houses > British Royals > The Duke of York, Sarah Duchess of York, and Family

Join The Royal Forums Today
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #61  
Old 07-21-2011, 03:27 PM
Nobility
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Bronx, United States
Posts: 421
Quote:
Originally Posted by fascinator View Post
Sorry- I'm an attorney and unless I misunderstood your question, it does not make any sense. I started to list all of the reasons why it doesn't make sense, but it was taking too much time.

The "they" who "might wanna" question Andrew about "certain things" would necessarily be US authorities, since domestic immunity can't be claimed in a diplomat's home country. Howeber, he is not in the US or in custody here. Also, I am unaware of Andrew being suspected of any criminal acts in the United States.

His only crime, as far as I am aware, is keeping bad company. He "might wanna" question himself about that, since a moment of introspection and reflection about the company he keeps is long overdue.
Looking back at my comment I missed an "as" which makes it a little harder to decipher but not impossible. A simple, he didn't commit a crime would've sufficed despite the fact that I never claimed that he did. There were articles that claimed Andrew could claim Diplomatic Immunity, so I was going on those.

Prince Andrew may be quizzed as FBI reopen Jeffrey Epstein sex case | Mail Online

Quote:
It is highly likely that detectives will also wish to question the Prince as part of their investigation. If subpoenaed he may be forced to plead diplomatic immunity based on his role as business envoy for UK Trade and Investment. Last week David Cameron faced calls from the floor of the Commons to remove the Prince from his post.
__________________

__________________
Reply With Quote
  #62  
Old 07-21-2011, 03:32 PM
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: New York, United States
Posts: 163
Quote:
Originally Posted by Diarist View Post
So far as the UK is concerned, Andrew even in his role as the UK Special Representative for trade has NEVER been able to claim diplomatic immunity, for the simple reason that he is NOT an accredited UK Diplomat. Andrew would therefore be regarded and treated in exactly the same way as a non-royal UK Citizen: only the Queen [Sovereign] is exempt from prosecution here in the UK

It therefore follows that if it was felt that Andrew has committed an offence under British [English] law, he could be charged with an offence. This happened here in the UK with the Princess Royal, who has a couple of minor criminal convictions in relation to speeding [a traffic offence] and IIRC, the keeping of a dangerous dog.

If it was felt that he had committed an offence abroad, Andrew could EITHER be arrested and charged with the offence if he was abroad at the time of his arrest, or, if he remained in the UK and a foreign power wished him to stand trial, he would theoretically have to stand trial, he could theoretically be extradited to the foreign power concerned to face the charges.

There is one caveat: even though we say in England that 'everyone is equal under the law, so far as the Epstein case is concerned, in practice the powers-that-be in either the UK and/or the US might decide to go after Epstein and not Andrew for what I will call quasi-politcial reasons.

I thought I had an understanding of the charges against Epstein and the improprieties alleged with respect to Prince Andrew. Epstein paid underage (as young as 14) girls for sex. That is not disputed. Am I wrong in thinking that Andrew has never been accused of any such thing? An underage girl (US age of consent, not UK) was supposedly flown to England by Epstein to "entertain" Andrew, but they never had sex.

If Andrew is not even accused of committing a crime, then why would you dismiss the decision to not "go after" Andrew as "quasi-political", unless by "quasi-political" you mean rooted in facts, law and logic?

Please, help me with this, I might be missing a part of the story.
__________________

__________________
Reply With Quote
  #63  
Old 07-21-2011, 03:35 PM
Mermaid1962's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: NearTheCoast, Canada
Posts: 5,194
It seems to me that by Diarist's use of the term "if it was felt", she's speaking hypothetically. No, Andrew hasn't been charged with anything, but "if he was charged..."
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #64  
Old 07-21-2011, 04:00 PM
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: New York, United States
Posts: 163
......
These articles jumble together a number of crucial distinctions regarding the concept of diplomatic immunity and its practical application in this context. For a number of reasons, I don't believe that Andrew could have effectively invoked diplomatic immunity prior to leaving his post and due to the implications of even attempting to, I don't think he would have tried. I am also finding it difficult to imagine a scenario where this would even come up.

Don't ask a question -twice- if you don't want an answer
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #65  
Old 07-21-2011, 04:06 PM
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: New York, United States
Posts: 163
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mermaid1962 View Post
It seems to me that by Diarist's use of the term "if it was felt", she's speaking hypothetically. No, Andrew hasn't been charged with anything, but "if he was charged..."
I have to say that "if it was felt" is a pretty weak shield for discussing Andrew as a child rapist (which is what "sex" with underage girls is).

This speculative discussion is going too far and is completely uncalled for.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #66  
Old 07-21-2011, 04:28 PM
Courtier
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Berkshire, United Kingdom
Posts: 643
Quote:
Originally Posted by fascinator View Post
So Andrew cannot claim diplomatic immunity in the UK because he is not an accredited UK diplomat? Interesting ...

Or could it be that diplomatic immunity is meaningless in one's home country?
Like I said earlierk so far as Andrew is concerned the question of Diplomatic Immunity would never arise. The position so far as the UK is concerned is quite simple - British Royals are not accredited diplomats [unless the particular Royal decides formally to train for the Diplomatic Service with a view to a professional career as a diplomat rather than a 'working' royal, as in the same way that the Duke of Gloucester, when Prince Richard decided to train as an architect......

As I undertand the British Diplomatic Service, British Diplomats cannot claim diplomatic immunity in Britain, because they are NOT accredited to the Court of St James, [ as for example the US Ambassador to the UK is] but are classed as British Civil Servants and therefore subject to the laws of the land in exactly the same way as any ordinary British Citizen....

A British Diplomat working abroad in our Embassies and High Commisions is [generally speaking]
able to claim diplomatic immunity abroad.

Hope this helps

Alex

Quote:
Originally Posted by fascinator View Post
Forgive me. There is quite a bit of made up reasoning in your entry, so I am tempted to dismiss all of it as nonsense, but I might be wrong to do that.

I thought I had an understanding of the charges against Epstein and the improprieties alleged with respect to Prince Andrew. Epstein paid underage (as young as 14) girls for sex. That is not disputed. Am I wrong in thinking that Andrew has never been accused of any such thing? An underage girl (US age of consent, not UK) was supposedly flown to England by Epstein to "entertain" Andrew, but they never had sex.

If Andrew is not even accused of committing a crime, then why would you dismiss the decision to not "go after" Andrew as "quasi-political", unless by "quasi-political" you mean rooted in facts, law and logic?

Please, help me with this, I might be missing a part of the story.


There is no 'made up reasoning' in what I have said and it is certainly not nonsense. I have not considered the possibility of what Andrew might or might not have done. I have confined my responses to the general question of Prince Andrew's status as we are discussing his current affairs in the light of the decision that has apparently been taken for him to end his role as special trade representative: Andrew is a member of the Royal Family, not an accredited Diplomat and his role as a Special Trade Representative is NOT a Diplomatic post, but a role he is carrying out in his role as a member of the BRF. I have not considered in any great deal what Andrew is alleged to have done / not done in the Epstein case. All I am pointing out is that in Britain, our Sovereign has Sovereign immunity but apart from that British Royals do NOT have immunity from prosecution and can be prosecuted, and has been the case with Princess Anne. Thus Andrew is not immune from suit in this country and could theoretically like any other British Citizen find himself the subject of extradition proceedings without being able to claim Diplomatic Immunity.....

This seems simple enough to me; the US may be a common law system to but the two legal systems are apparently poles apart if this is a hard concept for you to grasp.

Alex

Quote:
Originally Posted by fascinator View Post
I have to say that "if it was felt" is a pretty weak shield for discussing Andrew as a child rapist (which is what "sex" with underage girls is).

This speculative discussion is going too far and is completely uncalled for.

I have not mentioned child rapists etc. I am just trying to explain the legal status of Andrew as a member of the BRF as we are discussing his current affairs here and I am certainly not the one speculating on what Andrew may or may not have done. All I am saying is that Andrew is NOT a diplomat and whatever he might or might have done vis a vis Epstein or anyone else he could not ever claim Diplomatic Immunity as he is not a diplomat. Simple. Or so I thought...........
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #67  
Old 07-21-2011, 04:50 PM
Courtier
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Berkshire, United Kingdom
Posts: 643
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mermaid1962 View Post
It seems to me that by Diarist's use of the term "if it was felt", she's speaking hypothetically. No, Andrew hasn't been charged with anything, but "if he was charged..."
Quite right Mermaid. I don't know why Fascinator thinks I am discussing Andrew as having been charged with anything; Seems simple enough to me.............

Alex
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #68  
Old 07-21-2011, 04:52 PM
Courtier
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Canada, Canada
Posts: 981
Britain's Prince Andrew to give up trade envoy role - CNN.com

Buckingham Palace confirms that Andrew is stepping down...Andrew releases a statement.

BBC News - Prince Andrew to stand down as UK trade envoy
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #69  
Old 07-21-2011, 04:57 PM
Courtier
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Berkshire, United Kingdom
Posts: 643
Thanks rmay. So it seems that the speculation in various sections of the tabloid press is in fact correct. The story was apparently broken here by Richard Kay, and tabloid journalist or not, he is generally regarded as a journalist with good royal contents, particularly with regard to Andrew's current affairs....

Actually, I don't think CNN's wording does much to help people understand Andrew's role as in reality he did not work for any organisation as a fomr of employee but was actually carrying out his role as a member of the BRF.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #70  
Old 07-21-2011, 05:37 PM
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: New York, United States
Posts: 163
Quote:
Originally Posted by Diarist View Post
British Diplomats cannot claim diplomatic immunity in Britain, because they are NOT accredited to the Court of St James
Please understand the difference between a bureaucratic procedure and a principal. The former reflects rather than gives rise to the latter. The quoted sentence is like saying that the issuance of a birth certificate causes a baby to be born. The point is far more fundamental than whether an individual has been accredited by the Court of Saint James.

Diplomatic Immunity, in spirit, custom, fact and codified law, is a protective shield for a diplomat granted by a foreign host government. Further, the question is not simply where the diplomat is located at present (ie "in Britain") it is whether jurisdiction is being claimed by a foreign government.

--British Diplomats can claim diplomatic immunity in Britain, as long as, for example, it is with respect to a potential prosecution by a foreign government requesting extradition

--British Diplomats cannot claim diplomatic immunity in Britain in response to a British prosecution because England is their home country and diplomatic immunity DOES NOT EXIST in this context

--British Diplomats can claim diplomatic immunity from prosecution by a foreign country while in a foreign country

--British Diplomats cannot claim diplomatic immunity from prosecution under British law by a British authority while in a foreign country, but they can attempt to defect to the foreign country to escape the reach of their home jurisdiction

Hope this helps
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #71  
Old 07-21-2011, 05:48 PM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 8,495
Having read a number of articles it seems to me that Andrew is giving up the title but that the role will still continue, although there will be more done at home. He will continue to travel to promote British trade and interests but will also be promoting British interests at home - so it seems only the title will be going (and there is no one going to replace him either).
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #72  
Old 07-21-2011, 05:52 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Edinburgh, United Kingdom
Posts: 3,500
When this story broke, I posted that Andrew was - in all likelihood - in line for a "job" involving the "Modern Apprenticeships" scheme.

Home - Apprenticeships - Opening doors to a better future
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #73  
Old 07-21-2011, 05:53 PM
Nobility
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 353
Watch this video. A voice of support for Prince Andrew

BBC News - Prince Andrew: Envoy career plagued with controversy
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #74  
Old 07-21-2011, 05:55 PM
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: New York, United States
Posts: 163
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mermaid1962 View Post
It seems to me that by Diarist's use of the term "if it was felt", she's speaking hypothetically. No, Andrew hasn't been charged with anything, but "if he was charged..."
I was, in truth, surprised by the level of baseless insinuation and thought it would be wise to remember what the underlying crimes were. I have read quite a bit about what Epstein did to these very young women. I suppose that I have a different comfort level in discussing Epstein and Andrew interchangeably, then asserting that the only reason Andrew would not also be arrested would be "quasi political".
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #75  
Old 07-21-2011, 06:15 PM
StoneCold's Avatar
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Wales, United Kingdom
Posts: 172
Quote:
Originally Posted by Diarist View Post
So far as the UK is concerned, Andrew even in his role as the UK Special Representative for trade has NEVER been able to claim diplomatic immunity, for the simple reason that he is NOT an accredited UK Diplomat.
Actually, Prince Andrew has diplomatic immunity, just like any other members of the Royal Family.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #76  
Old 07-21-2011, 06:19 PM
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: New York, United States
Posts: 163
Quote:
Originally Posted by StoneCold View Post
Actually, Prince Andrew has diplomatic immunity, just like any other members of the Royal Family.
incorrect

and sovereign immunity, which the queen has, is not diplomatic immunity. entirely different.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #77  
Old 07-21-2011, 07:03 PM
Courtier
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Berkshire, United Kingdom
Posts: 643
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iluvbertie View Post
Having read a number of articles it seems to me that Andrew is giving up the title but that the role will still continue, although there will be more done at home. He will continue to travel to promote British trade and interests but will also be promoting British interests at home - so it seems only the title will be going (and there is no one going to replace him either).

This brings into mind one very interesting consequence of Charles' reported desire for a streamlined monarchy: Even at the present time [with a near-capacity number of working Royals] there is no one to replace Prince Andrew in his 'full' role as trade 'envoy'.

Alex
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #78  
Old 07-21-2011, 07:41 PM
Vanya Trubetskoy's Avatar
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Evanston, United States
Posts: 172
Well it seems the Duke Of York is finished with his role as Trade Rep for the UK!
I wonder if this will be seen as a good thing in Britain???
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #79  
Old 07-21-2011, 07:45 PM
Courtier
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Berkshire, United Kingdom
Posts: 643
The Duke of York in recent months has been on the receiving end of a lot of criticism in the UK for possible conflicts of Interest, and so on balance I think that the apparent decision to scale down his role WILL be welcomed. Time will tell.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #80  
Old 07-21-2011, 07:53 PM
Russophile's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Portland, United States
Posts: 4,077
I have said before that it would do HRH well--and go a long way to help his current situation-- to go back to his roots: His military service and support the troops.
__________________

__________________
"Not MGM, not the press, not anyone can tell me what to do."--Ava Gardner
Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off





Additional Links
Popular Tags
abdication birth charlene crown prince frederik crown prince haakon crown princess mary crown princess mette-marit duchess of cambridge dutch royal history engagement fashion grand duchess maria teresa grand duke henri hohenzollern infanta leonor infanta sofia jewellery jordan king abdullah ii king carl xvi gustav king constantine ii king felipe king felipe vi king harald king juan carlos king philippe king willem-alexander luxembourg olympic games olympics ottoman poland pom prince albert prince albert ii prince carl philip prince constantijn prince felipe prince floris prince maurits prince pieter-christiaan princess aimee princess anita princess astrid princess beatrix princess charlene princess claire princess laurentien princess letizia princess madeleine princess margriet princess marilene princess mary princess of asturias queen anne-marie queen letizia queen mathilde queen maxima queen paola queen rania queen silvia royal royal fashion russia sofia hellqvist spain state visit the hague visit wedding



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 01:05 PM.

Social Knowledge Networks

eXTReMe Tracker
Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2014
Jelsoft Enterprises

Royal News Delivered to your Email!

You can get the latest Royal News right in your inbox.

unsusbcribe at anytime with one click

Close [X]