The Royal Forums Coat of Arms


Join The Royal Forums Today
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #4861  
Old 01-13-2022, 03:02 PM
ACO ACO is offline
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Dec 2017
Location: New York, United States
Posts: 3,812
Quote:
Originally Posted by Denville View Post
where is he losing HRH?
He isn't. He just can't use it.
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #4862  
Old 01-13-2022, 03:09 PM
Majesty
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Pittsburgh, United States
Posts: 7,537
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tatiana Maria View Post
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:



https://www.nysd.uscourts.gov/sites/...022%200900.pdf
Thanks! So he is being cited using a similar style as used for Harry in the US (cf. Prince Harry, Duke of Sussex). That brings into the question the usual claim among royal watchers that the Queen's children and their respective male line descendants should use the family name "Mountbatten-Windsor" whenever a surname is required.

It is also interesting that the US court papers do not use the prefix HRH, but use a titular dignity (Prince) and a title (Duke of York), which are not legally recognized in the US either. My understanding is that "Prince Andrew, Duke of York" is the judge's or the plaintiff's interpretation of how the defendant is commonly known. whereas "Andrew Albert Christian Edward" (with no surname) is the judge's interpretation of what Andrew's name actually is based on his passport, although that is not exactly right.
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #4863  
Old 01-13-2022, 03:12 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: St Thomas, U.S. Minor Outlying Islands
Posts: 4,355
Quote:
Originally Posted by Denville View Post
where is he losing HRH?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Somebody View Post
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.
See this post: https://www.theroyalforums.com/forum...ml#post2447224


Quote:
Originally Posted by Mbruno View Post
Thanks! So he is being cited using a similar style as used for Harry in the US (cf. Prince Harry, Duke of Sussex). That brings into the question the usual claim among royal watchers that the Queen's children and their respective male line descendants should use the family name "Mountbatten-Windsor" whenever a surname is required.
But we can assume a surname was not required in those papers, as no surname was used.
Reply With Quote
  #4864  
Old 01-13-2022, 03:14 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: St Thomas, U.S. Minor Outlying Islands
Posts: 4,355
While the recent developments in the court proceedings and the enormous attention they attracted most likely triggered the Duke's renunciation, I wonder if the release just hours earlier of an open letter from 150 veterans, partly organized by the campaign group Republic, may have played a role in the timing of the announcement.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/...ilitary-titles

Quote:
The dramatic move comes hours after more than 150 military veterans wrote to the Queen to ask her to strip Andrew of his honorary military roles amid what they described as their “upset and anger”. The palace had said earlier on Thursday that it had no comment on their open letter.

[...]

The palace had said previously that the duke’s military appointments were in abeyance after he stepped down from public duties in 2019.

But he still retained the roles, leaving eight British regiments, including the Grenadier Guards, where he had held the title of colonel, in limbo for more than two years.

His other British honorary military titles were: honorary air commodore of RAF Lossiemouth; colonel-in-chief of the Royal Irish Regiment; colonel-in-chief of the Small Arms School Corps; commodore-in-chief of the Fleet Air Arm; royal colonel of the Royal Highland Fusiliers; deputy colonel-in-chief of the Royal Lancers (Queen Elizabeths’ Own) and royal colonel of the Royal Regiment of Scotland.

The veterans say in their letter, which was partly coordinated by the campaign group Republic: “Officers of the British armed forces must adhere to the very highest standards of probity, honesty and honourable conduct.

[...]
The letter can be read here:
https://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.ne...pdf?1642074993



Quote:
Originally Posted by ACO View Post
So basically they were shamed into finally "stripping" him though their wording makes it seem like it was more voluntary. It never should have taken this long and for military leaders penning letter demanding him cut ties. It needed to be done a while ago. Glad HM finally realized it even it it seems she needed a major push --- probably from Charles and William.
If the plethora of anonymous sources speaking to the media over the last year or two can be trusted, then seemingly the Duke of York and the Queen were the only parties insisting that he retain his ceremonial military titles, with the other senior royals, the royal household, and the members of the military unified in urging to Duke to renounce them.


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 statement on the Duke and Duchess of Sussex in February 2021 was certainly much longer and more detailed, but it resulted from weeks of bilateral negotiations. I suspect the current statement was drafted in a much shorter timeframe and, although "With The Queen's approval and agreement" implies it was the Duke's choice on which the Queen signed off, it is debatable how much of a choice he actually had given the circumstances.


Quote:
Originally Posted by xenobia View Post
Just saw the same statement. But I don't understand if it means that he will loose his HRH permanently? Or is he just going to argue this particular case as a civilian?
My interpretation of "The Duke of York [...] is defending this case as a private citizen" is that Buckingham Palace is once again affirming that it is not involved in the Duke of York's legal case. Which is to say, it is again attempting to distance the monarchy from whatever actions the Duke may take.
Reply With Quote
  #4865  
Old 01-13-2022, 03:18 PM
Majesty
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Pittsburgh, United States
Posts: 7,537
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tatiana Maria View Post
See this post: https://www.theroyalforums.com/forum...ml#post2447224




But we can assume a surname was not required in those papers, as no surname was used.

But that is exactly my point. One would assume he would need a surname in a court procedure in the US just as Prince William (allegedly) used the surname Mountbatten-Windsor in a lawsuit in France over unauthorized photos taken of his wife as I vaguely recall. Royal naming is often a complicated matter.
Reply With Quote
  #4866  
Old 01-13-2022, 03:28 PM
Claire's Avatar
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 1,728
Actually it was discussed that this would happen if the case failed to be thrown out. I think it is on legal advice as well as PR advice in the palace. If the case failed to be thrown out - he was going to be drop the military appointments and the titles. Personally I think this is to distance him from the monarchy during the case, more for the benefit of the Jubilee and the ongoing working of the monarchy than the trial.
I think this has been an agreement among the royals and their legal and PR team for a while. I actually expected it tomorrow. Bad news is usually dropped on Fridays. But yes - I was expecting it. And personally I think it should have been done when he was removed from duties.
Also I expect Beatrice and Eugenie to also remove the HRH from their personal charity work.
Reply With Quote
  #4867  
Old 01-13-2022, 03:30 PM
Majesty
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 9,711
Quote:
Originally Posted by Somebody View Post
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.
No I find it hard to believe that he would lose his HRH.. but if he has a court case it is for him as Andrew an individual not HRH the Duke fo York......
Reply With Quote
  #4868  
Old 01-13-2022, 03:31 PM
Majesty
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 9,711
Quote:
Originally Posted by Claire View Post
Actu
I think this has been an agreement among the royals and their legal and PR team for a while. I actually expected it tomorrow. Bad news is usually dropped on Fridays. But yes - I was expecting it. And personally I think it should have been done when he was removed from duties.
Also I expect Beatrice and Eugenie to also remove the HRH from their personal charity work.
Why shoudl Bea and Eugenie give up their HRHs?? They have not done anything wrong
Reply With Quote
  #4869  
Old 01-13-2022, 03:38 PM
Majesty
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Pittsburgh, United States
Posts: 7,537
Quote:
Originally Posted by Claire View Post
Actually it was discussed that this would happen if the case failed to be thrown out. I think it is on legal advice as well as PR advice in the palace. If the case failed to be thrown out - he was going to be drop the military appointments and the titles. Personally I think this is to distance him from the monarchy during the case, more for the benefit of the Jubilee and the ongoing working of the monarchy than the trial.
I think this has been an agreement among the royals and their legal and PR team for a while. I actually expected it tomorrow. Bad news is usually dropped on Fridays. But yes - I was expecting it. And personally I think it should have been done when he was removed from duties.
Also I expect Beatrice and Eugenie to also remove the HRH from their personal charity work.
What would Beatrice and Eugenie have to drop the HRH? In western countries, punishment doesn't extend beyond the person who is found guilty of an offense. We don't do collective punishment or punish children for the sins of their fathers.

Honestly the way Beatrice and Eugenie are treated on the basis of things that happen to their parents is disgusting.
Reply With Quote
  #4870  
Old 01-13-2022, 03:40 PM
Moonmaiden23's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Los Angeles, United States
Posts: 11,007
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alison H View Post
I don't either. I think that Andrew, who was very handsome when he was younger, and a naval hero, on top of being a senior Royal, is used to women falling at his feet, and, if anything did happen between him and Virginia Giuffre, I think he would have assumed that she was willing, and indeed probably that she was flattered that the great wonderful Andrew was honouring her with his attentions.

If he settles out of court, it will look like an admission of guilt. If he goes to court, he'll probably have to answer all sorts of extremely intimate and embarrassing questions, and undergo physical examinations, and it's going to be very humiliating for the Queen and the rest of the Royal Family.
That's just it though. If it goes to court he doesn't HAVE to do anything.

No-depositions. No embarrassing questions.No cooperation whatsoever. Just allow it to play out with the inevitable judgment in absentia decided against him....which it will be virtually impossible for his accuser to ever collect upon.

It is a messy outcome but so are all his other options now. Every one of them.

He is toast and has been for a while.

Andrew is a Royal with Ancien Regime pre Revolutionary France sensibilities living in the 20-21st century of constitutional monarchy


It must be really confusing for him.
__________________
"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
  #4871  
Old 01-13-2022, 03:42 PM
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Apr 2021
Location: Kopenhagen, Denmark
Posts: 133
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lilyflo View Post
Chris Ship on Twitter:
and


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.
yes, especially if nit what would it mean for future events. remember DoE funeral when rumours said uniforms were banned because Harry could not wear one, so now they'd need to strip em all of because those dishonourable men in the family get more and more.
Reply With Quote
  #4872  
Old 01-13-2022, 03:48 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Torrance, United States
Posts: 5,316
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mbruno View Post
What would Beatrice and Eugenie have to drop the HRH? In western countries, punishment doesn't extend beyond the person who is found guilty of an offense. We don't do collective punishment or punish children for the sins of their fathers.

Honestly the way Beatrice and Eugenie are treated on the basis of things that happen to their parents is disgusting.
I agree that the York Princesses should not and will not be punished for their father's decisions and actions.
Reply With Quote
  #4873  
Old 01-13-2022, 03:50 PM
Majesty
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 9,711
Quote:
Originally Posted by valeas View Post
yes, especially if nit what would it mean for future events. remember DoE funeral when rumours said uniforms were banned because Harry could not wear one, so now they'd need to strip em all of because those dishonourable men in the family get more and more.
what does that mean? What dishonourable men? Getting more nad more?

Quote:
Originally Posted by ACO View Post
He isn't. He just can't use it.
I would have said that he woudl not be using it in a US trial anyway. Thats very different from actaully losing it.
Reply With Quote
  #4874  
Old 01-13-2022, 03:55 PM
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Apr 2021
Location: Kopenhagen, Denmark
Posts: 133
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mbruno View Post
What would Beatrice and Eugenie have to drop the HRH? In western countries, punishment doesn't extend beyond the person who is found guilty of an offense. We don't do collective punishment or punish children for the sins of their fathers.

Honestly the way Beatrice and Eugenie are treated on the basis of things that happen to their parents is disgusting.
I wonder if the us court will ask Beatrice to witness the pizza story, as Andrew was (stupid ) mentioning her name in the interview. would this mean she could never go to the US again (if she does not want to witness)?
Reply With Quote
  #4875  
Old 01-13-2022, 04:02 PM
ACO ACO is offline
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Dec 2017
Location: New York, United States
Posts: 3,812
Quote:
Originally Posted by Claire View Post
Actually it was discussed that this would happen if the case failed to be thrown out. I think it is on legal advice as well as PR advice in the palace. If the case failed to be thrown out - he was going to be drop the military appointments and the titles. Personally I think this is to distance him from the monarchy during the case, more for the benefit of the Jubilee and the ongoing working of the monarchy than the trial.
I think this has been an agreement among the royals and their legal and PR team for a while. I actually expected it tomorrow. Bad news is usually dropped on Fridays. But yes - I was expecting it. And personally I think it should have been done when he was removed from duties.
Also I expect Beatrice and Eugenie to also remove the HRH from their personal charity work.
I agree with most of this except his daughters. His sins are not theirs. They will be plenty visible this summer celebrating their grandmother.
Reply With Quote
  #4876  
Old 01-13-2022, 04:05 PM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Stockholm, Sweden
Posts: 1,446
At last...... We can be sure that this decision was not taken lightly by The Queen..... Though she really did not have any other option

It was likely taken after huge pressure from Charles, Anne, Edward and especially the military regiments and organisations that Andrew was affiliated with...

We know that there has been pressure inside the Grenadier Guards to get a new Regimental Colonel (wich will likely be a non-royal this time) but i don’t think they are the only ones who has put pressure...
Reply With Quote
  #4877  
Old 01-13-2022, 04:17 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: St Thomas, U.S. Minor Outlying Islands
Posts: 4,355
It is interesting that the anonymous "royal source" briefing the media on the Duke of York's HRH reportedly stated that the Duke would cease using his HRH in any official capacity. Is there some sort of unofficial capacity in which he would remain free to use it? For comparison, the agreement with the Sussexes stated simply that they would not use their HRHs.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mbruno View Post
But that is exactly my point. One would assume he would need a surname in a court procedure in the US just as Prince William (allegedly) used the surname Mountbatten-Windsor in a lawsuit in France over unauthorized photos taken of his wife as I vaguely recall. Royal naming is often a complicated matter.
Sorry, I probably was reading too quickly. You made a good point about US papers seemingly using the "commonly known" name, which would reflect the influence of English common law in the United States. And you are right, Prince William used the surname Mountbatten-Windsor in French court papers.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Lilyflo View Post
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.
Has anything been confirmed publicly about the Duke of York's possible attendance at public Platinum Jubilee events? Given that even before the lawsuit he was excluded from the publicly released wedding photographs for his daughter, and that he was not mentioned by name in his latest grandchild's birth announcement, I would guess that he will be absent, but has the palace spoken?
Reply With Quote
  #4878  
Old 01-13-2022, 04:18 PM
Claire's Avatar
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 1,728
It is not a punishment - I think they themselves have wanted to do it for a while. And now is the time to do so. But is my opinion and not the thread
Reply With Quote
  #4879  
Old 01-13-2022, 04:40 PM
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Manchester, United Kingdom
Posts: 1,627
He hasn't actually been stripped of his HRH style. What's been said is that he will stop using it "in an official capacity". I think that that's more a practical thing than anything else - to strip him of the style officially would require legislation.

How the mighty are fallen. I can just about remember when Prince Andrew came back from the Falklands War a hero. Crowds of screaming girls used to turn out to see him, as if he were the lead singer of the latest boyband. When he married Sarah Ferguson, I and the other girls in my class at school got "Fergie bows" to wear in our hair, because the Yorks were just so cool and wonderful. And now it's come to this.
Reply With Quote
  #4880  
Old 01-13-2022, 05:23 PM
Commoner
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Somewhere, out there, United States
Posts: 49
I'm sorry to ask such a 'newbie' question, but does HM have the ability to 'revoke' or 'take back' the title of DoY?

I understand the rules for 'regular' peerages, but I though the 'royal dukedoms' were in the sole gift of the Monarch and she could 'giveth and taketh away' without parliamentary approval.
__________________

Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 10 (1 members and 9 guests)
Baylene
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
#uae #abudhabirullingfamily 18th birthday america american archie mountbatten-windsor asia birth braganza britain britannia british british royal family cadwallader camilla camilla's family camilla parker-bowles camilla parker bowles castile charles china chinese clarence house colorblindness coronation crown jewels de la cerda dresses dubai expo duchess of sussex duke of sussex family tree fashion and style gemstones george vi guzman harry and meghan history ingrid-alexandra ivrea japan japanese imperial family japan history kensington palace king edward iii king edward vii king henry iii lili mountbatten-windsor list of rulers medical mongolia norway crown princely couple orleans-braganza politics portugal prince charles prince harry prince of wales prince of wales in jordan queen victoria royal ancestry samurai solomon j solomon spanish royal family state visit st edward uae unfinished portrait united states wales welsh


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 03:01 PM.

Social Knowledge Networks

Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2022
Jelsoft Enterprises
×