Andrew's future outside of the working BRF

[muriel]

A jolly read though!

(in response to Alison H)

I agree. And she probably caused more embarrasment for David Cameron than anybody else.

 

[duchesschicana]

This made me laugh out loud. I can't imagine Anne or Edward wanting to be burdened by someone so unpopular.

I wonder if any royals would even want to attend his funeral in decades to come, such an embarrassment he has been. Likewise, as others have said, I doubt he will be allowed to attend any future royal events including the funeral of the Queen. He doesn't deserve to be associated with the family.

For all I know they could be emotionally distant, from but this is a man they have fond memories, a man they grew up with and even care for, he is their brother/Uncle/Father. Most of the time with a man like him there is confusion, what they think they know of him through experience vs whatever crminial activity a person like that does, its difficult for family members to understand at times. but it doesnt mean the love for him immediately dies. We may view him as a criminal and they may view him as one as well, but it doesnt mean they dont care for him, it's simplifying emotions (I can only imagine how his daughters must feel.) I thinks some would attend his funeral if he doesnt outlive them, especially if it's private. The man was never prosecuted anyways, not that i like him.

 

[Osipi]

For all I know they could be emotionally distant, from but this is a man they have fond memories, a man they grew up with and even care for, he is their brother. Most of the time with a man like him there is confusion, what they think they know of him through experience vs whatever crminial activity a person like that does, its difficult for family members to understand at times. but it doesnt mean the love for him immediately dies. We may view him as a criminal and they may view him as one as well, but it doesnt mean they dont care for him, it's simplifying emotions I thinks some would attend his funeral if he doesnt outlive them, especially if it's private. the man was never prosecuted anyways, not that i like him.

I think in a case such as Andrew´s, as far as family is concerned, I think the adage ¨love the sinner but despise the sin¨ applies here. Families continue to love each other while seriously shaking their heads in disbelief over the antics and behavior of one of their members. Without the support system of family that will, in no uncertain terms, let the family member know how badly they have misbehaved or really mucked something up, they are also there for support should the miscreant decided to strive for the straight and narrow path again.

Family does not tell you what you want to hear. They tell you what you *need* to hear.

 

[duchesschicana]

path again.

Family does not tell you what you want to hear. They tell you what you *need* to hear.

I love our old gal the Queen, but she was certainly dragging her feet when retiring him,. Up until a certain point she was still giving him types of honors, but his sibilings and others may be the type to give him that harsh love.

And to stay more on topic I dont see him doing much of anything yet until the civil case is settled. He should just stay retired.

 

[Osipi]

I think he will remain retired and out to pasture no matter what happens with any case relating to his involvement with Epstein/Maxwell. He could end up totally clearing his name and all accusations and insinuations dropped against him but the damage has already been done to his reputation to ever regain the high esteem that working royals are regarded with. Some things a person just cannot bounce back from. Credibility of character, once lost, is next to impossible to regain.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

Here is the link to the piece by Roya Nikkhah in the Times on which much of the discussion in this thread has been based.

https://www.theroyalforums.com/foru...s-7-february-2015-a-38188-54.html#post2430390

Why would Anne and Edward have any say on this matter? Both are less senior than Andrew within the Royal Family. If Charles wanted to consult with anyone else on what to do with Andrew, it should be with William, rather than Edward and Anne.

I'll have absolutely nothing to do with speculations of internal family machinations that may or may not have happened sometime in the dark halls of Balmoral or Windsor Castle or behind the stables at Sandringham because frankly they're just off the wall suppositions and scenarios created by inventive minds as a "what if". For all we know, Andrew could have also enlisted the help of Donald Trump to get him back into good graces with his mama and brother again. Yah right... and

For some royal families it is seen as unremarkable when junior royals are involved in certain family consultations. In some monarchies and families (e.g. Luxembourg or Japan) there are in fact royal or family councils where junior royals are formally represented. Is consulting younger siblings so unheard-of in the UK royal house?

 

[royal-blue]

I expect that one of the first things that Charles will do as king is to order his brother to move a long way away and keep a low profile, like the similarly disgraced Duke of Windsor had to do.

 

[royal-blue]

For all I know they could be emotionally distant, from but this is a man they have fond memories, a man they grew up with and even care for, he is their brother/Uncle/Father. Most of the time with a man like him there is confusion, what they think they know of him through experience vs whatever crminial activity a person like that does, its difficult for family members to understand at times. but it doesnt mean the love for him immediately dies. We may view him as a criminal and they may view him as one as well, but it doesnt mean they dont care for him, it's simplifying emotions (I can only imagine how his daughters must feel.) I thinks some would attend his funeral if he doesnt outlive them, especially if it's private. The man was never prosecuted anyways, not that i like him.

I doubt anyone views him as a criminal, mor e of a disgrace, embarrassment and big liability. Plus there will always be the rumours/allegations following him for the rest of his life. Obviously he won't be doing royal duties, he would have to avoid any charities with associations to vulnerable women or even to children.

 

[Denville]

I expect that one of the first things that Charles will do as king is to order his brother to move a long way away and keep a low profile, like the similarly disgraced Duke of Windsor had to do.

Why? Andrew ilives in Windsor, its his home, he has a long lease on it and he has to live somwerhe so that is a good place. He will be keeping a low profile, and he will have privacy and security at hte Royal Lodge. Why would Charles want to send him "far away" when he has a home at Windsor.

 

[Heavs]

I expect that one of the first things that Charles will do as king is to order his brother to move a long way away and keep a low profile, like the similarly disgraced Duke of Windsor had to do.

They aren't going to send him in to exile abroad. For one thing it would be even easier for him to get involved with another dodgy billionaire (Epstein wasn't the only one) or something else.

Better to keep him "close" at Windsor where his daughters, grandchildren and others are closeby than overseas potentially selling gossip or worse.

Whatever happens with the lawsuit eventually the papers will get board of him driving or riding. And if they're so interested in that they'll find him wherever he is anyway.

Besides "Charles uses millions in Duchy funds to pay off Andrew" isn't a great headline either.

 

[Osipi]

I expect that one of the first things that Charles will do as king is to order his brother to move a long way away and keep a low profile, like the similarly disgraced Duke of Windsor had to do.

There is absolutely no reason for Charles, as king, to do anything further concerning Andrew. The decisions made already will remain in place and Andrew will continue to live out his life at Royal Lodge.

The situations of the two royal Dukes is totally different. One abdicated the throne and the other behaved badly in his private life. One caused a constitutional crisis. The other caused a fall from grace and respect due to his own actions and words. You really cannot compare the two.

 

[Alison H]

As Osipi said, the two situations are completely different. The Duke of Windsor had to leave as otherwise it would have seemed as if there were two kings in one kingdom. Monarchs who abdicate almost always go into exile. Royals who've behaved badly don't. Andrew's keeping a low profile as it is. It's not his fault that the Times appears to find it necessary to put a picture of him driving his car on the front page of today's edition. If the press really want to print those pictures, they'll take them wherever he is ... and, surely, they'll lose interest in a while, when they realise that no-one really wants to see them.

 

[Somebody]

As Osipi said, the two situations are completely different. The Duke of Windsor had to leave as otherwise it would have seemed as if there were two kings in one kingdom. Monarchs who abdicate almost always go into exile. Royals who've behaved badly don't. Andrew's keeping a low profile as it is. It's not his fault that the Times appears to find it necessary to put a picture of him driving his car on the front page of today's edition. If the press really want to print those pictures, they'll take them wherever he is ... and, surely, they'll lose interest in a while, when they realise that no-one really wants to see them.

That's a rather general statement. Especially since in the last century many monarch abdicated due to old age to make room for the younger generation. In that case there is no reason at all to go into exile. And even Juan Carlos who abdicated because of age but also 'encouraged' by the issues surrounding him only left Spain last year and not after abdication.

Which other monarchs were you thinking of specifically who abdicated and went into exile other than the later Duke of Windsor (in whose case it made perfect sense)? I assume you are referring to cases where abdication was 'necessary' to save the monarchy?! Not cases such as grandduchess Charlotte and grandduke Jean of Luxembourg, the last three queens of the Netherlands, the emeritus pope or emperor of Japan, etc..

 

[Tatiana Maria]

I assume Alison H was referring to British monarchs, though I would agree that looking to other current monarchies in democratic countries would provide more suitable comparisons than dethroned English monarchs from centuries ago (when was the last British abdication prior to 1936?).

 

[Marengo]

I assume Alison H was referring to British monarchs, though I would agree that looking to other current monarchies in democratic countries would provide more suitable comparisons than dethroned English monarchs from centuries ago (when was the last British abdication prior to 1936?).

I think that would be Richard II and Mary Queen of Scots who forced to abdicate in 1399 and 1567 respectively.

 

[Alison H]

Sorry, I wasn't thinking of monarchs who'd abdicated due to old age, which I'd think of more as retiring although, yes, of course that's abdicating too. I was thinking of monarchs who'd abdicated in circumstances of scandal or regime change and needed to be "got out of the way" because they were causing some sort of embarrassment.

 

[Denville]

Sorry, I wasn't thinking of monarchs who'd abdicated due to old age, which I'd think of more as retiring although, yes, of course that's abdicating too. I was thinking of monarchs who'd abdicated in circumstances of scandal or regime change and needed to be "got out of the way" because they were causing some sort of embarrassment.

I think that in the DOW's case, it was pretty much impossible for him to live in the UK because he was trying to interfere, and didn't seem to realise that in giivng up the throne it meant he wasn't king any more. With Juan Carlos he has been living abroad too because of embarrassment over his financial dealings and I think that it is easier for all concerned if he is not in Spain most of the time.

 

[Leopoldine]

Why? Andrew ilives in Windsor, its his home, he has a long lease on it and he has to live somwerhe so that is a good place. He will be keeping a low profile, and he will have privacy and security at hte Royal Lodge. Why would Charles want to send him "far away" when he has a home at Windsor.

To send him far away. THAT is the point. It would be seen as not politically correct to send him to another Commonwealth country, as it would be perceived as a 1830's "banishment to Tasmania" sort of move. An insult to a country that has to take in Andrew.

When Charles ascends, that Royal Lodge lease will be shredded. He, as Monarch, will have broad powers over the Crown Estate ... and Andrew. I think Andrew might wind up in the Outer Hebrides.

 

[Osipi]

To send him far away. THAT is the point. It would be seen as not politically correct to send him to another Commonwealth country, as it would be perceived as a 1830's "banishment to Tasmania" sort of move. An insult to a country that has to take in Andrew.

When Charles ascends, that Royal Lodge lease will be shredded. He, as Monarch, will have broad powers over the Crown Estate ... and Andrew. I think Andrew might wind up in the Outer Hebrides.

I totally disagree with this. The way I see it, Andrew has behaved badly and has suffered the repercussions of his words and actions. He's no longer a member of the royal family that works for the "Firm" representing the monarch. In other words, he's been canned from his job by his employer. He's now living a private life out of the public eye for the most part. That is enough.

I don't see Charles as being such a vindictive man that he'd *continue* to want to punish Andrew over and over and over again ad infinitum. After all, Andrew *is* his brother. And.... truth be told, Charles isn't really in a position to throw stones. He decides, as king, to banish Andrew to some point unknown on the planet, what that is going to do is backfire on Charles as it will recall Charles' own "bad behavior" way back when.

We pay the price for our mistakes with the repercussions from that mistake. That is enough.

 

[Leopoldine]

Taxpayers may see it a little bit plainer.

Why pay police to protect [Prince Andrew] and his [...] ex-wife to be ensconced at Royal Lodge? Would it not be less expensive for the taxpayers to park them in a quieter less-illustrious berth? Charles through the Duchy owns many properties in the southwest. Certainly Fergie and Andrew can cobble a life together on one of the Scilly Isles.

 

[Osipi]

Taxpayers may see it a little bit plainer.

Why pay police to protect [prince Andrew] and his [...] ex-wife to be ensconced at Royal Lodge? Would it not be less expensive for the taxpayers to park them in a quieter less-illustrious berth? Charles through the Duchy owns many properties in the southwest. Certainly Fergie and Andrew can cobble a life together on one of the Scilly Isles.

Not going to happen. Security is one thing that is solely up to the Metropolitan Police and the SO14 Royalty Protection Group to assess and deem the level of protection anyone in the royal family needs at any given time. It has nothing to do with being "repugnant" or having a "freakish" ex-spouse.

According to FoxBuisness, 'Andrew is still entitled to receive taxpayer-funded security despite stepping back from his own duties amid scandal, the outlet reports, but the Queen funds his security privately now."

https://www.foxbusiness.com/lifestyle/what-members-royal-family-do-not-get-full-protection

Can I ask a sincere question? Why do you think the boom should be lowered on Andrew so harshly that he'd be put into exile far, far away? He's made his mistakes and is paying for them by no longer being a part of the "Firm" and basically living a private life out of the public eye? Isn't that enough? I do think you're treating Andrew as if he has a contagious disease or is a threat to those around him which he most certainly is not.

 

[Alison H]

It's not Ancient Greece. We don't rusticate people. What exactly are they supposed to do on the Scilly Isles? All the islands together have a population of 2,000 people? Andrew sits down the pub every night, and Sarah joins the WI (if there even is a branch of the WI there), like a 1950s TV programme? And they'd need the same security everywhere. A Member of Parliament was murdered in Leigh-on-Sea last week.

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

Taxpayers may see it a little bit plainer.

Why pay police to protect [Prince Andrew] and his [...] ex-wife to be ensconced at Royal Lodge? Would it not be less expensive for the taxpayers to park them in a quieter less-illustrious berth? Charles through the Duchy owns many properties in the southwest. Certainly Fergie and Andrew can cobble a life together on one of the Scilly Isles.

There is a lady from the USA whom started a civil procedure with a claim that the Duke had abused her, 20 years ago. An accusation which is vehemently denied by him.

For so far the situation. And already now you would ban Prince Andrew to the Scilly Islands? No any British citizen is "banned" to a specific part of the country, but apparently for the Duke, no holds seem barred... It would be an utterly painful affront for the UK if an appeal leads to a defeat before the Supreme Court or the ECHR because the basic rights of no one else as the Queen's very own son have been trampled.

 

[Denville]

Taxpayers may see it a little bit plainer.

Why pay police to protect [Prince Andrew] and his [...] ex-wife to be ensconced at Royal Lodge? Would it not be less expensive for the taxpayers to park them in a quieter less-illustrious berth? Charles through the Duchy owns many properties in the southwest. Certainly Fergie and Andrew can cobble a life together on one of the Scilly Isles.

It seems the queen is payng for Andrew's security now.. and in any case it is easier and cheaper to guard him when he is living in an arlready secure area like Windsor than if he went somewhere else. And if Charles was being as venomous as you seem to see him, why should he provide any home for his brother?

 

[AC21091968]

After reading through this thread and considering the points of security, finance, housing/property and public/press reaction, I don't see Andrew leaving Royal Lodge at Windsor any time soon, even after Charles ascends to the throne. A new location for Andrew's home would probably means more costs for security and renovation. Even if his new home is located at the Crown Estate, Duchy of Cornwall, Duchy of Lancaster, Sandringham or Balmoral, I could predict the press/tabloid would be gunning out headlines with "The Royal Family are using taxpayer's money to fund the disgraced prince's new home".

I cannot imagine The Royal Family putting Andrew in exile to the British Isles nor Commonwealth countries, because I doubt these countries would want to pay for his finance, housing and security. Even if the expenses are paid by The Royal Family, I don't think these countries would want to associate with the Prince whose reputation is in tatters and being forced to resign as working royal.

Royal Lodge is Grade II listed with legal protection when it comes to planning and renovation. Just from reading from the Historic England website, the I'm pretty sure it's illegal to knock down listed buildings

https://historicengland.org.uk/listing/the-list/list-entry/1323669
https://historicengland.org.uk/advice/your-home/owning-historic-property/listed-building/
https://historicengland.org.uk/advice/planning/consents/lbc/

 

[Denville]

Of course it can't be knocked down... He
has a long lease on Royal Lodge, and I doubt if Charles would waste his time and energy trying to break it, just to send A somehwere else. Its easier and cheaper to leave him where he is.. and Charles was seen walkign with him on Xmas day, as I recall so while he (Im sure) disapproves of A's behaviour, he is not going to throw A out in the street

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

After reading through this thread and considering the points of security, finance, housing/property and public/press reaction, I don't see Andrew leaving Royal Lodge at Windsor any time soon, even after Charles ascends to the throne. A new location for Andrew's home would probably means more costs for security and renovation. Even if his new home is located at the Crown Estate, Duchy of Cornwall, Duchy of Lancaster, Sandringham or Balmoral, I could predict the press/tabloid would be gunning out headlines with "The Royal Family are using taxpayer's money to fund the disgraced prince's new home".

I cannot imagine The Royal Family putting Andrew in exile to the British Isles nor Commonwealth countries, because I doubt these countries would want to pay for his finance, housing and security. Even if the expenses are paid by The Royal Family, I don't think these countries would want to associate with the Prince whose reputation is in tatters and being forced to resign as working royal.

Royal Lodge is Grade II listed with legal protection when it comes to planning and renovation. Just from reading from the Historic England website, the I'm pretty sure it's illegal to knock down listed buildings

https://historicengland.org.uk/listing/the-list/list-entry/1323669
https://historicengland.org.uk/advice/your-home/owning-historic-property/listed-building/
https://historicengland.org.uk/advice/planning/consents/lbc/

It is not even possible to "exile" a British citizen. There is nothing that stops the Duke of York to live in any city, village or hamlet wherever he wants to reside.

 

[Moran]

Doing anything re: Andrew would attract new headlines, rehash the old scandals, rinse, repeat. He hasn't been convicted of anything, unless I've missed the American having won her case. I see no reason why the RF should play the judge, executioner and so on to show how moral they are. There is a pending case. Let it take its course. Why should it concern Andrew's situation with his family? It has already been changed once and each new change would only remind the world about the situation the RF tried to mitigate by taking him out of the royal workforce.

 

[Moonmaiden23]

I have to admit that the idea of banishing an individual who has been accused of a serious crime but never convicted is chilling. Not to mention that he has denied what he is accused of.

The idea seems to be that because the DoY is considered unpopular and is something of a jerk...not to mention a Royal jerk...he is not entitled to basic human rights.

The late Princess Margaret, Princess Michael of Kent, the late Princess of Wales, even Charles himself have brought disgrace and scandal to the BRF.

No one spoke of banishing them to the Scilly Islands....

 

[Alison H]

It's the 21st century. People do not get banished from court and told to betake themselves to a house in the depths of the countryside because they've offended one of the Tudors. Nor do they get transported to Botany Bay. And houses, unless structurally unsafe or being removed to make way for something else, are only demolished if they were once inhabited by genocidal dictators or someone's carried out multiple murders in the cellar. What next - putting him in the stocks so that people can throw rotten tomatoes at him, or making him walk through the streets in a hair shirt to atone for his sins?! No offence, but I think people are getting a bit carried away!