The Royal Forums Coat of Arms


Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #4841  
Old 01-13-2022, 01:44 PM
Sunnystar's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Oregon, United States
Posts: 794
The statement from HM does not address the HRH at all. It is odd that it wasn't included though, so perhaps he will no longer be using that honorific.
Reply With Quote
  #4842  
Old 01-13-2022, 01:48 PM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: LONDON, United Kingdom
Posts: 1,229
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...y-honours.html

I would think there has been a family conference with senior Royals; i.e. Charles, at the very least.
Reply With Quote
  #4843  
Old 01-13-2022, 01:57 PM
norwegianne's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Rogaland, Norway
Posts: 6,043
The wording doesn’t really say a)that the Queen has taken them away or that b)the Duke has given them up voluntarily.

It’s sort of vague academic/ court language, designed to keep all parties somewhat happy and mollify the public.

The announcement on Harry’s military titles reverting was much more specific that the Queen wrote it to them and the titles were reverted.

This one is just vague.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #4844  
Old 01-13-2022, 01:58 PM
Majesty
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Pittsburgh, United States
Posts: 8,503
I believe the main line of the Royal Family will distance themselves from Prince Andrew as was the case in Spain with Infanta Cristina and now even with King Emeritus Juan Carlos. That is the right thing to do, not least because Andrew is only 9th in line and not really needed for royal duties.

Infanta Cristina for example retained the HRH, but was stripped of her duchy, which was easy to do in Spain since the titles of nobility belonging to the Royal House may be granted and taken away at the King's discretion under the RD 1368/1987. Andrew on the other hand kept his ducal title, which could be removed in the UK only by an act of Parliament, but agreed voluntarily to stop using the HRH style. I wonder how he will be addressed in the court papers and proceedings in New York.
Reply With Quote
  #4845  
Old 01-13-2022, 02:01 PM
ACO ACO is offline
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Dec 2017
Location: New York, United States
Posts: 3,902
Quote:
Originally Posted by norwegianne View Post
The wording doesn’t really say a)that the Queen has taken them away or that b)the Duke has given them up voluntarily.

It’s sort of vague academic/ court language, designed to keep all parties somewhat happy and mollify the public.

The announcement on Harry’s military titles reverting was much more specific that the Queen wrote it to them and the titles were reverted.

This one is just vague.
The two statements are very very different. Though to be fair, the circumstances are as well. Harry walked away. Andrew is being pushed out.
Reply With Quote
  #4846  
Old 01-13-2022, 02:06 PM
princess gertrude's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Columbia, United States
Posts: 2,883
Wow! I did not see this coming today, although I think that it might be overdue. I do not think that Andrew voluntarily gave up his patronages and would definitely not give up his HRH. This came after some "talk" with Prince Charles and Prince William.

This does make my wonder if Andrew has decided to go through with a trial and not try and settle this case. He's been stubborn about his defense saying he is not guilty
Reply With Quote
  #4847  
Old 01-13-2022, 02:11 PM
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 1,838
Quote:
Originally Posted by princess gertrude View Post
Wow! I did not see this coming today, although I think that it might be overdue. I do not think that Andrew voluntarily gave up his patronages and would definitely not give up his HRH. This came after some "talk" with Prince Charles and Prince William.


Agree absolutely about Charles and William.
Reply With Quote
  #4848  
Old 01-13-2022, 02:16 PM
Majesty
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Pittsburgh, United States
Posts: 8,503
Quote:
Originally Posted by princess gertrude View Post
Wow! I did not see this coming today, although I think that it might be overdue. I do not think that Andrew voluntarily gave up his patronages and would definitely not give up his HRH. This came after some "talk" with Prince Charles and Prince William.
He agreed to stop using the HRH in the same way as Prince Harry. You could call it "voluntarily" in the sense that he was not officially stripped of the style by any legal instrument as Diana and Fergie were for example after their respective divorces.

My understanding in particular is that he won't use the prefix HRH in his court papers under the agreement. Hence, the emphasis on Andrew arguing his case as "a private citizen". That also signals the Royal Household won't underwrite any potential settlement and Andrew is on his own.
Reply With Quote
  #4849  
Old 01-13-2022, 02:17 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
After seeing a photo of the statement from Buckingham Palace, I went in search of a credible news source to back up the photo I saw. Must not have really hit the wires too much because all that really came up for me were articles upon articles of different reports of who wanted Andrew's military titles revoked or stripped away.

I don't think this is something grabbed out of a hat to "punish" Andrew but more in line with heeding the mood of the people and the military units Andrew was affiliated with that no longer wished him to represent them.

I don't really think it matters if Andrew has his "HRH" or not at this point. There isn't really anywhere that Andrew will be going where he'll even need his title. The fact remains that no matter what kind of man Andrew is, he remains being a son of the monarch and that's what the HRH designates.
__________________
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
  #4850  
Old 01-13-2022, 02:23 PM
An Ard Ri's Avatar
Super Moderator
Royal Blogger
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: An Iarmhí, Ireland
Posts: 36,252
From the BBC News

Prince Andrew loses military titles and patronages
Reply With Quote
  #4851  
Old 01-13-2022, 02:29 PM
Lilyflo's Avatar
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Nov 2018
Location: England, United Kingdom
Posts: 1,395
Chris Ship on Twitter:
Quote:
This major decision to strip Andrew of all his honorary military titles follows discussions among senior members of the Royal Family - including Andrew’s mother, brothers and sister
and
Quote:
The style “His Royal Highness” is also being taken away from Prince Andrew.
Guidance from royal sources: “The Duke of York will no longer use the style ‘His Royal Highness’ in any official capacity”.
I'm pleased to see this is happening because HMQ deserves her Platinum Jubilee to be celebrated without a public outcry at the distasteful spectacle of Andrew strutting around in uniforms.
Reply With Quote
  #4852  
Old 01-13-2022, 02:31 PM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Somewhere, United States
Posts: 2,664
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mbruno View Post

My understanding in particular is that he won't use the prefix HRH in his court papers under the agreement. Hence, the emphasis on Andrew arguing his case as "a private citizen". That also signals the Royal Household won't underwrite any potential settlement and Andrew is on his own.

I wouldn’t have thought he’d be able to use HRH in United States court documents under any circumstances anyway.
Reply With Quote
  #4853  
Old 01-13-2022, 02:35 PM
Courtier
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Berlin, Germany
Posts: 864
Quote:
Originally Posted by An Ard Ri View Post
From the BBC News

Prince Andrew loses military titles and patronages
Well, the timing is at least a bit weired: In the very moment the court proceedings in the USA start, the Prince is losing an important part of his "titles".

This does not look like Her Majesty is still supporting him.

Andrew must feel like a bit of back-stabbing is going on....
Reply With Quote
  #4854  
Old 01-13-2022, 02:36 PM
Majesty
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Pittsburgh, United States
Posts: 8,503
Quote:
Originally Posted by Erin9 View Post
I wouldn’t have thought he’d be able to use HRH in United States court documents under any circumstances anyway.
As a non-US citizen, I assume he would use the name that appears on his UK passport, which is HRH Prince Andrew Albert Christian Edward, Duke of York. BTW, HRH and Prince are still part of his legal name in the UK until further notice.

He could of course use instead the name Andrew Albert Christian Edward Mountbatten-Windsor, but VG's lawyers themselves cited him as Prince Andrew. I don't recall if they used the prefix HRH or not.

Quote:
Originally Posted by victor1319 View Post
Well, the timing is at least a bit weired: In the very moment the court proceedings in the USA start, the Prince is losing an important part of his "titles".

This does not look like Her Majesty is still supporting him.

Andrew must feel like a bit of back-stabbing is going on....
That is hardly surprising to me as the interest of the Royal House outweighs family relations. As I said, it is a similar situation (albeit in a different context) to what happened to Infanta Cristina in Spain.

I guess it would be different if the implicated person were the heir to the throne or someone in direct line as he/she could not be simply disavowed short of a formal renunciation of succession rights. Given his position in the line of succession, Andrew, however, is expendable now.

It must be hurtful to the Queen personally though as Andrew was (allegedly) her favorite son after all. On the other hand, Andrew, unlike Harry, probably understands , based on his upbringing, that one has to sacrifice oneself for the good of the Crown, so I believe he accepted this outcome stoically as something that was inevitable.
Reply With Quote
  #4855  
Old 01-13-2022, 02:36 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: St Thomas, U.S. Minor Outlying Islands
Posts: 5,440
The formal statement from Buckingham Palace (refer to Sunnystar's post above or the official website of the British royal family) does not mention the Duke of York's HRH.

The information about stopping the use of his HRH originates from an anonymous "royal source", who adds that the Duke's patronages will be redistributed to other members of the royal family. I believe the source to be reliable, as his or her statements are being reported as fact by reputable media. However, it is odd that the HRH decision was not included in the official announcement (as it was for the Sussexes in 2020).

Buckingham Palace said in a statement: "With the Queen's approval and agreement, the Duke of York's military affiliations and Royal patronages have been returned to the Queen.

"The Duke of York will continue not to undertake any public duties and is defending this case as a private citizen."

All Prince Andrew's roles have been returned to the Queen with immediate effect, and will be redistributed to other members of the Royal Family, a Royal Source said.

He will stop using the title 'His Royal Highness' in any official capacity, they added.

A spokesperson for the Ministry of Defence said it had no comment about the duke's military titles being handed back to the Queen, and that it was a matter for the Palace.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-59987935
Reply With Quote
  #4856  
Old 01-13-2022, 02:45 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: St Thomas, U.S. Minor Outlying Islands
Posts: 5,440
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mbruno View Post
Andrew on the other hand kept his ducal title, which could be removed in the UK only by an act of Parliament, but agreed voluntarily to stop using the HRH style. I wonder how he will be addressed in the court papers and proceedings in New York.
Practically speaking, it appears the Duke of York has not been using the HRH style for a long time. It was noticed that the palace's tweet on his birthday in 2020 (after his disastrous interview but before he was sued) omitted the HRH, which had been used in previous years. The palace did not deny that the omission was intentional.

https://www.dailystar.co.uk/news/lat...title-21528005


As for the New York court, I have not read all the court papers, but the ones I did read did not use the Duke's HRH.

Judge Lewis Kaplan's verdict filed two days ago used:

Quote:
Virginia L. Giuffre,
Plaintiff,

against

PRINCE ANDREW, Duke of York, in his personal capacity,
also known as Andrew Albert Christian Edward,
Defendant.
https://www.nysd.uscourts.gov/sites/...022%200900.pdf
Reply With Quote
  #4857  
Old 01-13-2022, 02:45 PM
Saragli's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Arctica, Antarctica
Posts: 2,240
Very happy to hear this. Honestly, the best and most "honourable" way to settle this as, since the Duke of York views himself as being so honorable, is to settle out of court and make a public apology to VG, Her Majesty, and the British people. Just come clean, remarry Sarah, and retire peacefully to the countryside. Out of site and out of mind. It cannot be forgotten that VG was a young girl from a troubled background that was selected and groomed by a known trafficker and Andrew willing and continuously kept a friendship with Epstein and Maxwell even after this was all public knowledge. Hes an arrogant fool and it's time to pay the price of his past actions and put Queen and Country first.
Reply With Quote
  #4858  
Old 01-13-2022, 02:45 PM
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Apr 2021
Location: Kopenhagen, Denmark
Posts: 135
Quote:
Originally Posted by WillVictoria View Post
I'm sorry, but the tenor of this discussion feels very "victim blame-y".

Why sue Prince Andrew and not Clinton or Trump? She hasn't claimed those men assulted her. I find it weird people are assuming she chose to persue him over US political figures rather then the simpler explination that she is sueing the man she claims assulted her, and the other two men did not.

This whole age of consent debate is also, I think, missing the forrest for the trees. Virginia was a sex traffic victim. She claims she was coerced to have sex with Andrew by Epstein and Maxwell (who apparently had a history of threatening the girls). She can not consent if she has a metephorical gun to her head. The key assertion here, correct me if I'm wrong, is that Virginia claims Andrew knew what was going on. If Andrew knows his friends are trafficing girls and brought one to have sex with him, then it doesn't matter if Virginia was 17 or 70 as Andrew would be knowingly having sex with someone he knew could not consent.

As to why she didn't leave, this all feels like asking a battered woman why they did not leave their abusive partner. This girl came from a rough home life and was mainpulated by people who seemed to offer things a vulnerable teenage runaway would crave: money and feeling she mattered to someone. Other victims describing Ghislaine acting at times like a sisterly figure to help groom the girls. Even vulnerable women in their twenties were victims of Maxwell and Epstein. I can understand how a young woman with no job skills, no money, and no stable family support network would feel trapped into that system.

Did something happen between Giuffre and Prince Andrew? I don't know. However I think there's a way to debate the accusations while being respectful to Giuffre.
Thank you! I hold my breath while reading what some are writing here and it's kind of flashback to medievaltimes when of course the woman was to be blamed, and by the way even if Guiffre did this for money- she has every right to.
Reply With Quote
  #4859  
Old 01-13-2022, 02:54 PM
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 10,526
Quote:
Originally Posted by Erin9 View Post
My impression is he can’t use it period. But I may have mis interpreted that.
where is he losing HRH?
Reply With Quote
  #4860  
Old 01-13-2022, 03:01 PM
Somebody's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: Somewhere, Suriname
Posts: 8,309
The Dutch media write that he is loosing his title and I don't think that's correct. It seems that he won't use HRH for the court case (somewhat similar to H&M being forbidden to use HRH for their business endeavours) but so far neither of them has been stripped from their style.

This announcement did come quickly. It must have been in the making long before today's outcone was known.
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





Popular Tags
abdullah ii africa albert prince consort all tags america arcadie claret austria braganza british royal family caribbean caroline castile charles iii claret congo current events danish royal family death de la cerda denmark duchess of kent duke of cambridge elizabeth ii emperor naruhito empress masako espana garsenda genealogy 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 louis mountbatten maria ii matrilineal monarchy need help official visit order of precedence orleans-braganza pedro ii prince albert monaco prince andrew prince charles queen camilla queen elizabeth queen margrethe ii queen mathilde queen maxima queen victoria republics restoration royal initials spain spanish history spanish royal family state visit switzerland visit wine glass


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 02:43 PM.

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