The Royal Forums Coat of Arms


Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #101  
Old 10-12-2021, 04:03 PM
Osipi's Avatar
Member - in Memoriam
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: On the west side of North up from Back, United States
Posts: 17,267
Quote:
Originally Posted by royal-blue View Post
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.
__________________
To be yourself in a world that is constantly trying to make you something else is the greatest accomplishment. ~~ Ralph Waldo Emerson ~~
Reply With Quote
  #102  
Old 10-12-2021, 04:16 PM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Manchester, United Kingdom
Posts: 2,158
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.
Reply With Quote
  #103  
Old 10-12-2021, 05:00 PM
Somebody's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: Somewhere, Suriname
Posts: 8,310
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alison H View Post
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..
Reply With Quote
  #104  
Old 10-12-2021, 05:37 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: St Thomas, U.S. Minor Outlying Islands
Posts: 5,440
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?).
Reply With Quote
  #105  
Old 10-12-2021, 05:43 PM
Marengo's Avatar
Administrator
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: S„o Paulo, Brazil
Posts: 24,641
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tatiana Maria View Post
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.
__________________
TRF Rules and FAQ
Reply With Quote
  #106  
Old 10-12-2021, 05:44 PM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Manchester, United Kingdom
Posts: 2,158
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.
Reply With Quote
  #107  
Old 10-14-2021, 11:08 AM
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 10,526
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alison H View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
  #108  
Old 10-23-2021, 01:01 AM
Leopoldine's Avatar
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Apr 2017
Location: New York, United States
Posts: 1,018
Quote:
Originally Posted by Denville View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
  #109  
Old 10-23-2021, 01:14 AM
Osipi's Avatar
Member - in Memoriam
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: On the west side of North up from Back, United States
Posts: 17,267
Quote:
Originally Posted by Leopoldine View Post
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.
__________________
To be yourself in a world that is constantly trying to make you something else is the greatest accomplishment. ~~ Ralph Waldo Emerson ~~
Reply With Quote
  #110  
Old 10-23-2021, 02:01 AM
Leopoldine's Avatar
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Apr 2017
Location: New York, United States
Posts: 1,018
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.
Reply With Quote
  #111  
Old 10-23-2021, 02:32 AM
Osipi's Avatar
Member - in Memoriam
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: On the west side of North up from Back, United States
Posts: 17,267
Quote:
Originally Posted by Leopoldine View Post
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/lifestyl...ull-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.
__________________
To be yourself in a world that is constantly trying to make you something else is the greatest accomplishment. ~~ Ralph Waldo Emerson ~~
Reply With Quote
  #112  
Old 10-23-2021, 03:53 AM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Manchester, United Kingdom
Posts: 2,158
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.
Reply With Quote
  #113  
Old 10-23-2021, 06:21 AM
Duc_et_Pair's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: City, Netherlands
Posts: 12,419
Quote:
Originally Posted by Leopoldine View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
  #114  
Old 10-23-2021, 08:24 AM
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 10,526
Quote:
Originally Posted by Leopoldine View Post
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?
Reply With Quote
  #115  
Old 10-23-2021, 09:17 AM
AC21091968's Avatar
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Aug 2020
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 1,599
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/listi...-entry/1323669
https://historicengland.org.uk/advic...sted-building/
https://historicengland.org.uk/advic.../consents/lbc/
Reply With Quote
  #116  
Old 10-23-2021, 09:51 AM
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 10,526
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
Reply With Quote
  #117  
Old 10-23-2021, 09:55 AM
Duc_et_Pair's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: City, Netherlands
Posts: 12,419
Quote:
Originally Posted by AC21091968 View Post
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/listi...-entry/1323669
https://historicengland.org.uk/advic...sted-building/
https://historicengland.org.uk/advic.../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.
Reply With Quote
  #118  
Old 10-23-2021, 10:07 AM
Courtier
 
Join Date: Nov 2020
Location: N/A, Bulgaria
Posts: 571
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.
Reply With Quote
  #119  
Old 10-23-2021, 10:32 AM
Moonmaiden23's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Los Angeles, United States
Posts: 11,671
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....
__________________
"Be who God intended you to be, and you will set the world on fire" St. Catherine of Siena

"If your dreams don't scare you, they are not big enough" Sir Sidney Poitier
1927-2022
Reply With Quote
  #120  
Old 10-23-2021, 11:18 AM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Manchester, United Kingdom
Posts: 2,158
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!
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


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Stephanie's image (in and outside Monaco ) michelle Princess Stephanie and Family 49 12-29-2015 11:22 PM
the casiraghi trio dating outside their race stephanie201985 Princess Caroline and Family 81 08-13-2009 08:37 AM
Do you think Harry (or Wills) will ever date outside their race? babybird The Duke and Duchess of Sussex and Family 167 03-14-2006 08:22 AM




Popular Tags
abdullah ii all tags america arcadie austria braganza british royal family brythonic assoc. non-reigning houses +- camilla caribbean caroline castile charles iii claret congo current events death de la cerda denmark duarte pio dubai expo duchess of kent duke of cambridge emperor naruhito espana garsenda genealogy general news grace kelly grimaldi guzman hamdan bin ahmed history identifying india introduction ivrea jordan royal family king charles king edward iii king henry iii king philippe king willem-alexander leopold ier louis mountbatten monaco monarchy mountbatten need help official visit order of precedence orleans-braganza portugal prince charles princess of orange queen camilla queen elizabeth queen ena of spain queen mathilde queen maxima republics restoration spain spanish history spanish royal family state visit switzerland uae visit wine glass


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 10:28 PM.

Social Knowledge Networks
Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2022
Jelsoft Enterprises