The Royal Forums Coat of Arms


Join The Royal Forums Today
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #4201  
Old 08-03-2020, 05:24 PM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Coastal California, United States
Posts: 1,230
I doubt QEII will act, but perhaps Charles or William will decide that only those currently working as members of the ‘firm’ or honorably retired from such work will henceforth be addressed as HRH. George V limited who could be an HRH in 1917, George VI denied the honor to the Duchess of Windsor, QEII denied an HRH to ex wives.
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #4202  
Old 08-03-2020, 05:40 PM
Eskimo's Avatar
Nobility
 
Join Date: Jan 2020
Location: Dallas, United States
Posts: 416
As apaling as his behavior is there’s no evidence he committed a crime. AFAIK, he has never been accused of having sex with someone HE KNEW was trafficked. So, unless some evidence comes to light that he knew, he’s just guilty of being an arrogant dumb-dumb- - which is hardly earth shattering for the Windsors.
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #4203  
Old 08-03-2020, 05:43 PM
Majesty
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 6,660
Quote:
Originally Posted by Osipi View Post
On what grounds would it be deemed the right thing to do to remove his HRH? Because he behaved badly, immorally, brought disgrace to himself and the rest of the British Royal Family?

Removal of a HRH sets a precedence. We saw that with Diana's divorce from Charles, the Queen removed her HRH *but* it was deemed that *all* divorced wives of a HRH had their HRH removed and therefore Sarah lost hers too. It involved letters patent. There has to be a solid reason to remove a HRH.

So, lets say the Queen decides that because of bad behavior, immoral activities etc, its grounds to remove Andrew's HRH. With that being the precedent set that certain behaviors deem the removal of a HRH, then it would also stand to reason that she would also then remove Charles' HRH for *his* not so upright behavior in the past. Its just logic.
are you seriously comparing Charles' behaviour to Andrews>???
Reply With Quote
  #4204  
Old 08-03-2020, 06:08 PM
Osipi's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: On the west side of North up from Back, United States
Posts: 15,334
Quote:
Originally Posted by Denville View Post
are you seriously comparing Charles' behaviour to Andrews>???
Yes. On a morality scale, Charles behaved badly in his private life. So did Andrew. So do a lot of people that don't make the news or are royals and public figures. We *know* Charles committed adultery and has admitted it himself. Andrew has been accused of illicit sex yet still proclaims his innocence.

So who is the judge to determine whose behavior is worse the the other guy's? Who deems one person's mistakes as less than the other guy? If a HRH is taken away by "bad behavior", then "bad behavior" applies equally to one and all.
__________________
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
  #4205  
Old 08-03-2020, 06:42 PM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Washington, United States
Posts: 1,315
Quote:
Originally Posted by Osipi View Post
Yes. On a morality scale, Charles behaved badly in his private life. So did Andrew. So do a lot of people that don't make the news or are royals and public figures. We *know* Charles committed adultery and has admitted it himself. Andrew has been accused of illicit sex yet still proclaims his innocence.

So who is the judge to determine whose behavior is worse the the other guy's? Who deems one person's mistakes as less than the other guy? If a HRH is taken away by "bad behavior", then "bad behavior" applies equally to one and all.
I'm sorry but I think we should be able to agree that knowingly having sex with a victim of trafficking or having sex with an underaged child (before people get excited there is no evidence that Andrew did either) is not the moral or legal equivalent of adultery.
Reply With Quote
  #4206  
Old 08-03-2020, 06:52 PM
Osipi's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: On the west side of North up from Back, United States
Posts: 15,334
Of course Andrew's foibles are/were more dastardly and morally bankrupt (if its proven that he, indeed, did participate in what he's been accused of participating in). For him, there is no excuse for that sort of behavior. With adultery, there are and can be many reasons behind said actions and are frowned upon but in some cases, can be understood why such actions were taken.

The point I was trying to make though is not to put Andrew's behavior on par with Charles' or anyone else's but to illustrate a point that if Andrew were to be deprived and stricken of his HRH for "bad behavior", then anyone else holding a HRH could also be deemed eligible to lose theirs for their own "bad behavior".

It, to me, fits into the concept that should Charles issue letters patent at the start of his reign that Camilla would be "Princess Consort", it then would apply to every Queen Consort to follow her. With removing titles and styles and such as the UK traditions dictate, it isn't done on a personal basis but as a standard way of doing things going forward.
__________________
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
  #4207  
Old 08-03-2020, 06:58 PM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Washington, United States
Posts: 1,315
Quote:
Originally Posted by Osipi View Post
Of course Andrew's foibles are/were more dastardly and morally bankrupt (if its proven that he, indeed, did participate in what he's been accused of participating in). For him, there is no excuse for that sort of behavior. With adultery, there are and can be many reasons behind said actions and are frowned upon but in some cases, can be understood why such actions were taken.

The point I was trying to make though is not to put Andrew's behavior on par with Charles' or anyone else's but to illustrate a point that if Andrew were to be deprived and stricken of his HRH for "bad behavior", then anyone else holding a HRH could also be deemed eligible to lose theirs for their own "bad behavior".

It, to me, fits into the concept that should Charles issue letters patent at the start of his reign that Camilla would be "Princess Consort", it then would apply to every Queen Consort to follow her. With removing titles and styles and such as the UK traditions dictate, it isn't done on a personal basis but as a standard way of doing things going forward.
That makes sense. However, I think a reasonable standard would be to strip the HRH from someone who commits a violent felony - murder, rape, child sexual assault, etc. That would enable the monarch to truly distance himself or herself from a truly despicable person.
Reply With Quote
  #4208  
Old 08-03-2020, 07:20 PM
Osipi's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: On the west side of North up from Back, United States
Posts: 15,334
This is what I would think would be the logical course to follow also. With this in mind, to have Andrew stripped bare of his HRH, he would have to be accused, indicted, tried and convicted of a crime. That would set a precedent for *any* HRH going into the future where felonious criminal activity would see him totally ostracized, ousted and barred from any kind of association with the institution of the monarchy and the royal family.

What this effectively points out is that Andrew should *not* be stripped of his HRH for "bad behavior" as Denville has stated that he should be. As it stands now, Andrew is pretty much ostracized from the "Firm" and working for the monarchy and to me, that is enough punishment at this time. Should he be convicted of a crime in relation to his involvement with the Epstein/Maxwell circus, I may change my mind about removing his HRH. Until then.....
__________________
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
  #4209  
Old 08-03-2020, 07:39 PM
padams2359's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: New Orleans, United States
Posts: 670
It, to me, fits into the concept that should Charles issue letters patent at the start of his reign that Camilla would be "Princess Consort", it then would apply to every Queen Consort to follow her. With removing titles and styles and such as the UK traditions dictate, it isn't done on a personal basis but as a standard way of doing things going forward. [/QUOTE]


Unless stated as a subsequent spouse of the monarch, and/or not the mother of the heir apparent.
Reply With Quote
  #4210  
Old 08-04-2020, 12:27 AM
Leopoldine's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: Apr 2017
Location: New York, United States
Posts: 698
Nope. The Royal men in line to the throne want a Queen by their side. Otherwise what is the point of being Regnant if you cannot at least elevate your wife to a Queen Consort rank. This might be the only person a King can trust day to day.
Reply With Quote
  #4211  
Old 08-04-2020, 01:02 AM
Lady Daly's Avatar
Nobility
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Sherwood, United States
Posts: 410
I'm curious, what is the actual process for one to lose their HRH? Just supposing its revealed that Andrew wasn't as much a "bystander" as we think he was or if he is found to have committed a crime. Is this something only the Queen can initiate? I remember Diana losing her HRH after her divorce to Charles. Obviously unrelated situations but the only time I'm aware a member of the BRF has lost their HRH. Would this actually change Andrews day to day life other than perhaps further disgrace him considering he's now a non working member of the family. What royal perks would be taken away that haven't all ready?
Reply With Quote
  #4212  
Old 08-04-2020, 03:46 AM
Majesty
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 6,660
Its up to the queen... she can give the HRH or take it away. Sarah and Diana both lost their HRHs as they were no longer married to royals... and the point is to disgrace him. He has behaved dreadfully. He still has his status as HRH and Duke of York. he still lives comfortably, still as far as I know has taxpayer funded security, and who know if he's still doing deals whit dubious people now that he has no royal duties.
He has had the disgrace of having to officially give up his duties, but that's all...
Reply With Quote
  #4213  
Old 08-04-2020, 05:16 AM
Nice Nofret's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Zürich, Switzerland
Posts: 665
Andrew isn't under investigation, let alone a convicted criminal. He is accused by a woman of having had sex with her, when she was 17 .. which even is true, is no reason to take away his HRH. His HRH is because he is the son of THE Queen. For no other reason he is HRH. Even if he did do a murder, he would be still The Queens son and an HRH.



The Queen could throw him out of all his knighthoods I supose, as they are batches of honor and service to the crown.
Reply With Quote
  #4214  
Old 08-04-2020, 05:22 AM
Majesty
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 6,660
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nice Nofret View Post
Andrew isn't under investigation, let alone a convicted criminal. He is accused by a woman of having had sex with her, when she was 17 .. which even is true, is no reason to take away his HRH. His HRH is because he is the son of THE Queen. For no other reason he is HRH. Even if he did do a murder, he would be still The Queens son and an HRH.



The Queen could throw him out of all his knighthoods I supose, as they are batches of honor and service to the crown.
he has behaved disgracefully. He has been involved with 2 people who were pimps and allowed Ghis Maxwell to be photographed in the palace..
He's been allowing someone to supply him with girls who were trafficked and who were borderline under age.. He possibly didn't notice but he was at the very least very close to law breaking and it wasn't for having a busted light on his car.
And if he did "do a murder" I hope he woudl certainly be stripped of his HRH.
Reply With Quote
  #4215  
Old 08-05-2020, 08:19 AM
Ista's Avatar
Super Moderator
 
Join Date: Feb 2018
Location: the West, United States
Posts: 2,926
Let's move on from the discussion about removing Prince Andrew's HRH. Any further debate about that can be taken to this thread:

https://www.theroyalforums.com/forum...s-258-259.html
Reply With Quote
  #4216  
Old 08-05-2020, 09:44 AM
Commoner
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Amsterdam, Netherlands
Posts: 40
The United Kingdom should not consider any legal request by the United States regarding Prince Andrew until the United States hands over Anne Sacoolas.
Reply With Quote
  #4217  
Old 08-05-2020, 10:28 AM
JR76's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Malmö, Sweden
Posts: 3,108
Quote:
Originally Posted by Harald View Post
The United Kingdom should not consider any legal request by the United States regarding Prince Andrew until the United States hands over Anne Sacoolas.
This is a point of view that I've seen mentioned by many British commenting on different forums. Why should the UK hand over someone to the USA who has denied doing the same.
Reply With Quote
  #4218  
Old 08-05-2020, 12:17 PM
Osipi's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: On the west side of North up from Back, United States
Posts: 15,334
Quote:
Originally Posted by Harald View Post
The United Kingdom should not consider any legal request by the United States regarding Prince Andrew until the United States hands over Anne Sacoolas.
Not even close to being in the wheelhouse to make negotiations. Anne Sacooolas has been charged with a crime. Andrew has not. There is absolutely no reason whatsoever that the UK should "hand over" Andrew to anybody.
__________________
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
  #4219  
Old 08-05-2020, 03:07 PM
Commoner
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Amsterdam, Netherlands
Posts: 40
Quote:
Originally Posted by Osipi View Post
Not even close to being in the wheelhouse to make negotiations. Anne Sacooolas has been charged with a crime. Andrew has not. There is absolutely no reason whatsoever that the UK should "hand over" Andrew to anybody.
There could be a sealed federal indictment against Prince Andrew already. Such indictment can under federal law remain sealed for up to 20 years.
Reply With Quote
  #4220  
Old 08-05-2020, 03:26 PM
Eskimo's Avatar
Nobility
 
Join Date: Jan 2020
Location: Dallas, United States
Posts: 416
Quote:
Originally Posted by Harald View Post
There could be a sealed federal indictment against Prince Andrew already. Such indictment can under federal law remain sealed for up to 20 years.
Let’s be realistic: The UK is never going over to hand over a senior member of their RF unless there is absolutely no question of their guilt in committing a serious crime. I do not see this happening any time soon
__________________

Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 2 (0 members and 2 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





Popular Tags
#royalrelatives #royalgenes abu dhabi anastasia 2020 armstrong-jones baptism biography british brownbitcoinqueen canada chittagong coronavirus countess of snowdon cover-up duke of sussex emperor fantasy movie gustaf vi adolf haakon vii heraldry hill history interesting introduction israel jack brooksbank jewelry jumma kent list of rulers luxembourg mailing maxima nepal nepalese royal family nobel 2019 norwegian royal family popularity prince charles prince constantijn prince daniel princess catharina-amalia princess chulabhorn princess dita princess elizabeth pronunciation queen consort queen maud queen maxima royal balls royal court royal events royal family royal jewels royal spouse royalty royal wedding russian court dress spain speech startling new evidence stuart swedish queen swedish royal family taiwan thailand tracts united kingdom visit from sweden von hofmannsthal wedding gown


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 05:56 AM.

Social Knowledge Networks

eXTReMe Tracker
Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2020
Jelsoft Enterprises
×