The Royal Forums Coat of Arms


Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #4881  
Old 01-13-2022, 05:38 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 Queen of Quitealot View Post
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.
No such beast as a "newbie" question. All questions are how we get answers and learn things. Keep on asking questions!

The Duke of York peerage title can only be removed by an act of Parliament and is not in the wheelhouse of the Queen. To my knowledge, the last time that a peerage title was revoked was for the reason of treason. So, I think the Duke of York will keep his peerage title and it will revert to the Crown upon his death because he has no male heirs to inherit it.
__________________
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
  #4882  
Old 01-13-2022, 05:46 PM
Nobility
 
Join Date: Aug 2020
Location: San Francisco, United States
Posts: 314
My understanding is, as @Osipi stated, that the only modern removals of peerages have been by Parliament (in short, German nationals who had British peerages during WWI). (Of course, if you go way back to Tudor times, the monarchs gave and rescinded titles all the time!)

It was hinted in the tabloids a year ago (but not proven to my knowledge) that the Queen believes she can rescind any royal peerage that she herself created by letters patent. Of course, like all rumors, it was murky, and likely part of someone's agenda.

The Queen can absolutely rescind Andrew's HRH status by letters patent. She did not do that today. Parliament can absolutely rescind Andrew's Dukedom. I don't expect either of these things to occur.

(I'm going to apologize in advance if this comment has weird formatting- I'm having issues today).
Reply With Quote
  #4883  
Old 01-13-2022, 05:56 PM
Majesty
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Pittsburgh, United States
Posts: 8,504
Quote:
Originally Posted by Queen of Quitealot View Post
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.
Royal dukedoms are simply regular hereditary peerages held by princes. After two generations, they aren't actually "royal" anymore. For example, the next Dukes of Gloucester or Kent won't be princes or HRHs.

All new peerages are created by the Queen by Letters Patent, but they can only be forefeit by an act of Parliament.
Reply With Quote
  #4884  
Old 01-13-2022, 06:15 PM
Moonmaiden23's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Los Angeles, United States
Posts: 11,671
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'd like to think that you are not being serious by suggesting that Beatrice and Eugenie remove HRH from their personal charity work but I don't believe you are joking since you have previously suggested that they be evicted from any Royal residences.

But you never mention what on Earth they have done to deserve such treatment?

It's like suggesting that the Duke of Edinburgh should have been stripped of all honors....indeed prevented from marrying into the BRF period, because his sisters were Nazis married to high ranking SS officers.

Where does it end?
__________________
"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
  #4885  
Old 01-13-2022, 06:23 PM
Somebody's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: Somewhere, Suriname
Posts: 8,310
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tatiana Maria View Post
Are you arguing that he lost his title? I don't see how the press release (that I checked before making my statement as I was baffled that he could be stripped from those this quickly - and only by a press release) indicated that he lost his title. His titles would be 'prince' and 'Duke (of York)'; neither of which he has lost.

He is at least for his court case (and probably in general) not using his style (in Dutch 'predicaat') but that is to be distinguished from his title.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tatiana Maria View Post
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.
Probably official communication about the royal family? I believe Harry is still addressed as 'HRH the duke of Sussex' in those cases and I expect Andrew to remain 'HRH the duke of York'
Reply With Quote
  #4886  
Old 01-13-2022, 06:33 PM
Majesty
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Pittsburgh, United States
Posts: 8,504
Quote:
Originally Posted by Somebody View Post
Are you arguing that he lost his title? I don't see how the press release (that I checked before making my statement as I was baffled that he could be stripped from those this quickly - and only by a press release) indicated that he lost his title. His titles would be 'prince' and 'Duke (of York)'; neither of which he has lost.

He is at least for his court case (and probably in general) not using his style (in Dutch 'predicaat') but that is to be distinguished from his title.
Interestingly the Queen could take away Prince Andrew's knighthoods (he is currently a KG and a GCVO). There is even a specific model of Letters Patent to do that, but she didn't do it.
Reply With Quote
  #4887  
Old 01-13-2022, 06:40 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: St Thomas, U.S. Minor Outlying Islands
Posts: 5,440
Quote:
Originally Posted by Queen of Quitealot View Post
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BriarRose View Post
My understanding is, as @Osipi stated, that the only modern removals of peerages have been by Parliament (in short, German nationals who had British peerages during WWI). (Of course, if you go way back to Tudor times, the monarchs gave and rescinded titles all the time!)
Just as a clarification, in case Queen of Quitealot is not familiar with the context, the removals of peerages from Germans during World War I included British royal peerages. During WWI, two British dukedoms belonged to German monarchs who also happened to be, technically, princes of Great Britain and Ireland.

Thus, the most recent occasions of a monarch removing a royal peerage were authorized through an act of Parliament.

https://www.heraldica.org/topics/bri...vation1917.htm

(And I agree with Osipi. There is nothing objectionable at all about a "newbie" question!)
Reply With Quote
  #4888  
Old 01-13-2022, 06:41 PM
Moonmaiden23's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Los Angeles, United States
Posts: 11,671
I would be very surprised if Charles and HMQ take any further action against Andrew. Don't they want to use some leverage to persuade him to settle this case outside of court?

What does he have to lose at this point?'
__________________
"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
  #4889  
Old 01-13-2022, 06:47 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: St Thomas, U.S. Minor Outlying Islands
Posts: 5,440
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Somebody View Post
Are you arguing that he lost his title? I don't see how the press release (that I checked before making my statement as I was baffled that he could be stripped from those this quickly - and only by a press release) indicated that he lost his title.
No, I was linking you to reputable British sources, as it seemed from your first post that you had only consulted Dutch media reports and were unsure about their correctness.

The "royal source" in the BBC article (quoted in the post) clarified that he would stop using his title in any official capacity - not just the court case.

Quote:
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Somebody View Post
His titles would be 'prince' and 'Duke (of York)'; neither of which he has lost.

He is at least for his court case (and probably in general) not using his style (in Dutch 'predicaat') but that is to be distinguished from his title.
I see how it is distinguished in Dutch, but that is not how it is in English. In the letters patent of 1917 (a legal document that remains in force today) Royal Highness is referred to as a "style title or attribute".
shall have and at all times hold and enjoy the style title or attribute of Royal Highness with their titular dignity of Prince or Princess prefixed to their respective Christian names or with their other titles of honour And We do further
https://www.heraldica.org/topics/bri...ocs.htm#1917_2

And more recently, from the family agreement with the Duke and Duchess of Sussex:
The Sussexes will not use their HRH titles as they are no longer working members of the Royal Family.
https://www.royal.uk/statement-her-majesty-queen-0
Reply With Quote
  #4890  
Old 01-13-2022, 07:00 PM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Manchester, United Kingdom
Posts: 2,157
HRH is a style rather than a title, but people tend to use the word "title" anyway.

Diana and Sarah weren't actually stripped of their HRH style. Letters Patent were issued to say that the style of HRH would not apply to an ex-wife after a divorce: it's not the same as removing it from one individual. Formally removing the style, or his titles, would be messy and complicated and time-consuming.

I don't see for one second why either Beatrice or Eugenie should stop calling themselves HRH. They haven't done anything wrong. If somebody robs a bank, do you punish their children for it? No, of course not.
Reply With Quote
  #4891  
Old 01-13-2022, 07:02 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: St Thomas, U.S. Minor Outlying Islands
Posts: 5,440
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alison H View Post
HRH is a style rather than a title, but people tend to use the word "title" anyway.
I think we will have to disagree. If being referred to as a title (as well as a style) in a legal instrument comprehensively regulating titles does not make it a title, I have trouble imagining what would.
Reply With Quote
  #4892  
Old 01-13-2022, 07:06 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
Just throwing in a small reminder here. When King Edward VIII abdicated in 1936, he became HRH The Duke of Windsor. He still was a son of a monarch.

If the British monarchy survived the abdication and adjusted to the Duke of Windsor's title and style, I think we all can live with Andrew remaining The Duke of York. We'll mostly just see him riding a horse in Windsor every now and then or maybe driving his car. His public days are finished and he's been put out to pasture.
__________________
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
  #4893  
Old 01-13-2022, 08:02 PM
Nobility
 
Join Date: Aug 2020
Location: San Francisco, United States
Posts: 314
I ... don't know about that.

As a U.K. citizen, I would have a severe problem with Andrew keeping his dukedom if Mrs. Guiffre actually clearly proves he committed a sex crime. I imagine many rape survivors in the U.K. would have a problem with it as well. I understand that it would take an act of Parliament to remove it.

I think sex crimes are much more serious than a man choosing to turn down his birthright to be King. One is a crime of moral turpitude. The other is equivalent to quitting your job at the family business. If Andrew knowingly engaged in human sex trafficking, and it is proven that he did (which it likely won't be), then I don't see why Edward's choices should force me to accept Andrew keeping his Dukedom. (Also, Edward abdicating was a good thing for the U.K. IMHO, and I really think the current royals have it wrong on that.)

Personally, in the 21st century, I am very much in favor of all royal Dukedoms and HRH statuses being contingent on living a life of reasonable morals and service to the monarchy. I know it seems hard, but yet, I've managed to not commit crimes of moral turpitude my whole life. I don't believe these people are appointed by God. I believe in a 21st century monarchy there should be a reasonable quid pro quo: they get privileges and titles, (and often wealth), and they lose their privacy to some extent, in exchange for not committing serious crimes, not influencing politics, and serving their country.

I understand that many on this thread believe he is completely innocent. I am not stating that he is guilty. I'm not saying he should lose his Dukedom right now. I am saying that what he is accused of is not equivalent to Edward's abdication, so if it were to be proven, I don't think any precedent was created by Edward becoming HRH The Duke of Windsor.
Reply With Quote
  #4894  
Old 01-13-2022, 08:19 PM
Moonmaiden23's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Los Angeles, United States
Posts: 11,671
Great post. But outside of videotape how does Giuffre prove that Andrew forcibly raped her?

Especially in light of fellow Epstein victim 14 year old Carolyn Andriano's statement that not only did Giuffre recruit her, Giuffre also boasted of "getting to have sex" with Prince Andrew.

Other than he said she said...there is nothing else unless I am missing something.

For what it's worth...I do believe Andrew had sex with the young woman and does indeed remember doing so.

What I don't believe at all is that she had to be coerced in any way.
__________________
"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
  #4895  
Old 01-13-2022, 08:27 PM
Courtier
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Toronto, Canada
Posts: 603
Andrew Windsor has unbelievably bad judgement. It's good to see him kicked out of official life.
Reply With Quote
  #4896  
Old 01-13-2022, 08:36 PM
padams2359's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: New Orleans, United States
Posts: 725
I donít think the Duke of York title will be taken away, but I think the Queen maybe regretting giving him the same title as her father and grandfather. It returning to the crown after Andrew is a small relief.
Reply With Quote
  #4897  
Old 01-13-2022, 08:47 PM
Courtier
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Toronto, Canada
Posts: 603
Will this Epstein matter be the last scandal in Andrew Windsor's life?
Reply With Quote
  #4898  
Old 01-13-2022, 08:47 PM
Leopoldine's Avatar
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Apr 2017
Location: New York, United States
Posts: 1,018
Quote:
Originally Posted by Moonmaiden23 View Post
Great post. But outside of videotape how does Giuffre prove that Andrew forcibly raped her?

Especially in light of fellow Epstein victim 14 year old Carolyn Andriano's statement that not only did Giuffre recruit her, Giuffre also boasted of "getting to have sex" with Prince Andrew.

Other than he said she said...there is nothing else unless I am missing something.

For what it's worth...I do believe Andrew had sex with the young woman and does indeed remember doing so.

What I don't believe at all is that she had to be coerced in any way.

When I was 17, it would have been unheard of ... unbelievable for one of my peers, another 17 year old girl, to boast of having sex with anyone. Lots of friends dated, had relationships, had sex. But nobody was conditioned to think that having sex with a paunchy 40 year old was a boast-worthy "win."

VRG's groomed existence within Epstein's world had her living with a different set of values and mores. What 17 year old associates with a mature bossy lady pimp who sets a table with china, cutlery and sex toys?
Reply With Quote
  #4899  
Old 01-13-2022, 08:56 PM
Gretijean's Avatar
Commoner
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Austin, United States
Posts: 32
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mbruno View Post
Interestingly the Queen could take away Prince Andrew's knighthoods (he is currently a KG and a GCVO). There is even a specific model of Letters Patent to do that, but she didn't do it.
The knighthoods should be removed as well.

Ok, so I am struggling to understand what HRH really means for a royal. Why is it so significant to not have the HRH? What are the perks of being an HRH versus being the Duke of York? Prince Andrew will still lead a life a privilege.

Do you think that his contract for the Royal Lodge could be voided?
Reply With Quote
  #4900  
Old 01-13-2022, 09:11 PM
Nobility
 
Join Date: Aug 2020
Location: San Francisco, United States
Posts: 314
Quote:
Originally Posted by Moonmaiden23 View Post
Great post. But outside of videotape how does Giuffre prove that Andrew forcibly raped her?

Especially in light of fellow Epstein victim 14 year old Carolyn Andriano's statement that not only did Giuffre recruit her, Giuffre also boasted of "getting to have sex" with Prince Andrew.

Other than he said she said...there is nothing else unless I am missing something.

For what it's worth...I do believe Andrew had sex with the young woman and does indeed remember doing so.

What I don't believe at all is that she had to be coerced in any way.
One does not have to prove that they said "no" or fought off the rape, or provide video tape of their rape to bring a lawsuit. Nor is video evidence required for trial. It's much easier with video or documented injuries. But it's not required to have such evidence.

A jury is perfectly allowed to weigh the evidence, even if the evidence is only testimonial. Ms. Guiffre will have the burden of proof, as this is a civil case.

I personally, given that I have sadly worked with victims of sex crimes, don't assume that Ms. Andriano's testimony is going to decide the case. Ms. Guiffre's lawyers will likely call experts to explain that victims of sex crimes often deny that they were raped. It will make her burden of proof more difficult, but not impossible.

Also, I think this is lost sometimes: Ms. Guiffre has not yet had her day in court. She has been under no obligation to share her evidence with the public, and the discovery process has only begun on both sides. If I were her lawyer, I would not be sharing their best evidence with the world at this point- why on Earth would they be tipping off Andrew's lawyers??. I don't know if she has enough evidence, or can get enough. Time will tell I guess.

She will have to prove that Andrew knew, or reasonably should have known, that she was being trafficked. I can only guess what her lawyer's strategy is, but I think they will cast a wide net as to what exactly Andrew witnessed during his visits with Epstein. Staff and other visitors.

(And the fact that Ms. Guiffre may have participated in recruitment doesn't mean she's not a victim. One can be both victim and perpetrator. In cases of human trafficking, it's very normal to see both. That doesn't mean rapists are excused from their actions.)
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 03:52 PM.

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