The Royal Forums

The Royal Forums (https://www.theroyalforums.com/forums/)
-   The Duke of York, Sarah Duchess of York, and Family (https://www.theroyalforums.com/forums/f113/)
-   -   Prince Andrew, Duke of York Current Events 7: February 2015 (https://www.theroyalforums.com/forums/f113/prince-andrew-duke-of-york-current-events-7-february-2015-a-38188.html)

scooter 02-12-2015 06:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lumutqueen (Post 1749463)
People will use anything to have a go.

You dont think, in light of the Epstein issue, that this is an extremely inappropriate and inauspicious time for QEII to bestow on honor on Andrew apropos of nothing? Either she's done it 1. to gloss over the controversy, 2. doesnt care what the general population thinks or 3. is completely oblivious. None of these are good for the monarchy. JMHO of course :flowers:

Rudolph 02-12-2015 06:43 PM

This seems to be a contractual obligation on the part of the MoD after Andrew left active service. The Queen just rubber stamps it. I have no issues at all with this promotion.

Prince Andrew promoted to the rank of vice-admiral*by the Queen | Daily Mail Online
Quote:

In 2009 it was agreed that Andrew – who formally left the service in 2001 after 22 years – would enjoy ‘age-related’ promotions on par with colleagues who had remained in the service.

Under the agreement, the prince was promoted to Rear Admiral when he turned 50 in 2009 and will become Vice Admiral on his 55th birthday on Thursday next week.

He is due to become Admiral at 60 but any honorary rank after that would be at the behest of the Queen. The latest appointment was announced in the London Gazette.

A Buckingham Palace spokesman said: ‘This was approved by the Queen in line with long-standing convention covering military promotions for members of the Royal Family.’

A Royal Navy spokesman added: ‘Following his active service, His Royal Highness has been hugely supportive of the Royal Navy and has undertaken a vast amount of work for the service over many years.’

A source added: ‘The Duke of York does a huge amount of work for the Royal Navy and in order for him to remain in step in terms of rank with his contemporaries... the Royal Navy established a policy in 2009 by which he is promoted in line with his peers.’

Roslyn 02-12-2015 07:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cepe (Post 1749798)
:previous:

This is what was published in the Times on the Court Page

Her Majesty The Queen has graciously agreed that: Rear Admiral His Royal Highness The Duke of York KG GCVO ADC be promoted Vice Admiral with effect from February 19, 2015, and Honorary Rear Admiral His Royal Highness Prince Michael of Kent GCVO be promoted Honorary Vice Admiral Royal Naval Reserve with effect from March 9, 2015

Are you trying to increase my blood pressure, cepe? :lol:

So Michael's promotions are expressly Honorary, yet Andrews are made out to be real. Michael served for 20 years and though I can't find out exactly what his rank was when he ceased active service, it seems he could have been a Captain since his first post-service appointment was as Commodore, though this is speculation.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rudolph (Post 1749805)
This seems to be a contractual obligation on the part of the MoD after Andrew left active service. The Queen just rubber stamps it. I have no issues at all with this promotion.

Prince Andrew promoted to the rank of vice-admiral*by the Queen | Daily Mail Online

This is not improving my disposition on the issue. If there was a long-standing tradition, why was a contract entered into in 2009, 8 years after Andrew left active service? The contract doesn't explain his "promotion" to Captain in 2005. This revelation just seems to makes it worse. His mummy can now claim she is obliged to do it under a contract. https://www.theroyalforums.com/forums...Kkz9yFAQEAOw== Totally out of touch. https://www.theroyalforums.com/forums...Kkz9yFAQEAOw==

Rudolph 02-12-2015 07:18 PM

As far as I know Prince Michael didn't serve in the RN so his rank as Vice Admiral is described as honorary
Prince Michael was an Army officer during his time in the military

Edit: Not sure this is the reason but it seems plausible

Roslyn 02-12-2015 07:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rudolph (Post 1749814)
As far as I know Prince Michael didn't serve in the RN so his rank as Vice Admiral is described as honorary
Prince Michael was an Army officer during his time in the military

Edit: Not sure this is the reason but it seems plausible

You're quite right about his service, at least based on what I can find out about it, which isn't much. I mistakenly assumed he ended up in the navy because of the appointment as Commodore. So why has he been given this Honorary navy rank at all? Why not give him army ranks? ETA. I see he was made an Honorary Colonel of the army in 2010.

Tiggersk8 02-12-2015 07:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rudolph (Post 1749814)
As far as I know Prince Michael didn't serve in the RN so his rank as Vice Admiral is described as honorary
Prince Michael was an Army officer during his time in the military

Edit: Not sure this is the reason but it seems plausible


Prince Michael's Honorary rank is w/the Naval Reserves, not the RN. Believe me, there is a difference and God help you saying there isn't to a serving member/Veteran of any Navy out there. I made that mistake once at a Veterans Event and my ears blistered for weeks afterwards.


Sent from my iPad using The Royals Community mobile app

cepe 02-12-2015 07:46 PM

I'm putting forward an alternative view (so it feels anyway) about Andrew.

Firstly, nothing of his work is ever reported in the media. This means that people reading the recent allegations think that that is all there is. Not true.

He spends considerable time with the military - across all of his "Honorary" responsibilities. This year he has already spent time with:
Fleet Air Arm
9th/12th Lancers (Prince of Wales’s)
The Yorkshire Regiment (14th/15th, 19th and 33rd/76th Foot)

as well as an associated patronage - Army Museums Ogilby Trust

In addition he is committed, and uses what Prince Charles calls "convening power", to bring together students and young entrepreneurs with business organisations. Two examples are Pitch@Palace and Inspiring Digital Enterprise Award (he attended a mentoring session today). This helps young people and boosts the technology sector.

He also has other patronages which he is committed to.

So he works hard, has causes he believes in and is getting on with his work.

The "anger" (a word used by a few posters) about his "promotion" appears to be generated merely because it is Andrew and because of the allegations (which have not been proven). If the issue is about Royals getting "promotions" then it should IMO, be on a different thread where it can be discussed without personalities being involved.

My opinion is that the work he does is good; he has some doubtful acquaintances; good father; and is innocent until proven guilty.

I'm not attempting to change anyone's mind and bring them over to my point of view
- this is just my opinion.

VictoriaB 02-12-2015 08:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cepe (Post 1749819)
I'm putting forward an alternative view (so it feels anyway) about Andrew.

Firstly, nothing of his work is ever reported in the media. This means that people reading the recent allegations think that that is all there is. Not true…

A good and reasoned post Cepe.

My issue is with Royals getting honours (including promotions) that are not merit based and I've bored on this subject on other threads. But I'm no more angered that Andrew has received the promotion than I would be if Charles or William had received it.

Mirabel 02-12-2015 10:06 PM

I know Andrew does work, but I can't help thinking the RF would be better off without him. He is the one member who is consistently under a cloud. and I think it would better serve his family if he were to retire and live quietly in the country.


(I bet that will happen once Charles succeeds).

royal rob 02-12-2015 10:23 PM

Well said Roslyn.


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community

cepe 02-12-2015 10:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roslyn (Post 1749815)
You're quite right about his service, at least based on what I can find out about it, which isn't much. I mistakenly assumed he ended up in the navy because of the appointment as Commodore. So why has he been given this Honorary navy rank at all? Why not give him army ranks? ETA. I see he was made an Honorary Colonel of the army in 2010.

They all have honorary ranks across all of the services because there are a lot of military and not a lot (in comparison)royals.

None of us has all of the answers so this stands the risk of being a circular argument!

How's the blood pressure? :flowers:;)

Iluvbertie 02-12-2015 11:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mirabel (Post 1749837)
I know Andrew does work, but I can't help thinking the RF would be better off without him. He is the one member who is consistently under a cloud. and I think it would better serve his family if he were to retire and live quietly in the country.


(I bet that will happen once Charles succeeds).

Why?

Unless Andrew is proven, in a court of law, beyond reasonable doubt, to have committed a crime then he should be allowed to continue with his work - just as any other person would do so.

The witch hunt and hatred being spewed on many other sites is appalling. Fortunately this site has been semi-sane but even so there is still a lot of posters who seem to believe in guilty until PROVEN innocent rather than the other way around.

I have never seen any suggestion - from a reliable source - that Charles intends on casting aside his siblings. The suggestion that he will reduce the size of the royal family has been shown again and again on this board to have come from a low-level staff member big noting themselves in 1992 and that throw-away line has been taken to be the gospel truth rather than a possible suggestion.

That the York Princesses won't be taking on full-time royal duties is a given but those who are currently working for the Firm won't be thrown out just because The Queen has died.

Besides which there will still be a need for them as William and Kate have shown themselves to be lazy while Harry still has a military career to complete - so no full-time for him for another 20 or so years if he gets his way.

Curryong 02-12-2015 11:53 PM

We all know that Andrew hasn't been charged with anything, though that may happen in the future. However, he was forced to resign as trade envoy due to scandal and neither he nor Fergie have exactly added lustre to the British Royal Family in the past couple of decades. I, and others, just happen to think that with his his past reputation Andrew is one of the most expendable members of the royal family.

Also, none of us know what Charles intends the makeup of the royal family to be in the new reign.

Mirabel 02-13-2015 08:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Iluvbertie (Post 1749842)
Why?


I have never seen any suggestion - from a reliable source - that Charles intends on casting aside his siblings. The suggestion that he will reduce the size of the royal family has been shown again and again on this board to have come from a low-level staff member big noting themselves in 1992 and that throw-away line has been taken to be the gospel truth rather than a possible suggestion.

That the York Princesses won't be taking on full-time royal duties is a given but those who are currently working for the Firm won't be thrown out just because The Queen has died.


By the time Charles succeeds, even if it is relatively soon, Anne will be retirement age. (The Duke of Kent, Princess Alexandra, and the Gloucesters are already past retirement age). They may wish to step down.

I may be wrong, but I think Charles would prefer to get rid of Andrew by sidelining him to the country. I don't think he cares much about getting rid of Edward, but if he keeps him and drops Andrew questions may be asked. If both are sidelined, Charles can simply say he is streamlining the monarchy.

From what I've read, not many of the public will object to that.

Dman 02-13-2015 08:41 AM

Richard Palmer @RoyalReporter · 4h 4 hours ago
By promoting Prince Andrew to Vice Admiral, the Queen, always blind to his shortcomings, shows utter contempt for the British public.

Richard Palmer @RoyalReporter · 4h 4 hours ago
Isn't it time for the Queen to end the convention of promoting her family members to ranks they would have held if still in the forces?

Jacknch 02-13-2015 09:50 AM

Just a quick reminder that if anyone wishes to discuss the roles of Andrew, Anne, and Edward etc when Charles becomes king you can do it in the Monarchy Under Charles thread:

https://www.theroyalforums.com/forums...ml#post1749939

Duc_et_Pair 02-13-2015 11:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dman (Post 1749960)
Richard Palmer @RoyalReporter · 4h 4 hours ago
By promoting Prince Andrew to Vice Admiral, the Queen, always blind to his shortcomings, shows utter contempt for the British public.

Richard Palmer @RoyalReporter · 4h 4 hours ago
Isn't it time for the Queen to end the convention of promoting her family members to ranks they would have held if still in the forces?

Mr Palmer from The Daily Express is probably one of the worst royal "journalists" around as the contents of his blabbing tweets already show. Little chance that Her Majesty will even tremble one eyelash because of his views.

Dman 02-13-2015 11:53 AM

Martin @CourtierUK · 3h 3 hours ago
Royal appointments/ranks within Armed Forces are an important means for fostering close bonds and relations to each branch of forces.

Martin @CourtierUK · 3h 3 hours ago
Talk to members of Forces about it and they say they appreciate the relationship with their royal colonel. It’s another form of recognition.

Martin @CourtierUK · 3h 3 hours ago
It’s to be stressed these appointments within the Forces by The Queen are honorary, not substantive.

Duc_et_Pair 02-13-2015 12:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mirabel (Post 1749957)
By the time Charles succeeds, even if it is relatively soon, Anne will be retirement age. (The Duke of Kent, Princess Alexandra, and the Gloucesters are already past retirement age). They may wish to step down.

I may be wrong, but I think Charles would prefer to get rid of Andrew by sidelining him to the country. I don't think he cares much about getting rid of Edward, but if he keeps him and drops Andrew questions may be asked. If both are sidelined, Charles can simply say he is streamlining the monarchy.

From what I've read, not many of the public will object to that.

When The Prince of Wales succeeds today, we will see these royals ending their public role sooner or later:

The Duke of Edinburgh
The Duke of Gloucester
The Duchess of Gloucester
The Duke of Kent
The Duchess of Kent
Princess Alexandra, the Hon. Lady Ogilvy
Prince Michael of Kent
Princess Michael of Kent

This means that then the circle is narrowed to the following adult members of the royal family:

The King
The Queen
The Prince of Wales
The Princess of Wales
The Prince Henry of Wales
The future Princess Henry of Wales
The Princess Royal
The Duke of York
The Earl of Wessex
The Countess of Wessex

As the Princess Royal, the Duke of York and the Earl of Wessex will of course also reach a certain age in one-two decades, I think we can safely assume that they will fade away when Prince George and his brother or sister reach their twenties. The group is really not that big. My assumption is that the new King will continue to make use of his siblings for the royal representation, all three of them.

The rest of the royal family (the children of the Duke of York and the Earl of Wessex) will only play secondary roles. The rest does effectively no longer belong to the real royal family: the Phillips family, the Tindall family, the Chatto family, the Linley family, etc.

ROYAL NORWAY 02-13-2015 12:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duc_et_Pair (Post 1750006)
Mr Palmer from The Daily Express is probably one of the worst royal "journalists" around as the contents of his blabbing tweets already show. Little chance that Her Majesty will even tremble one eyelash because of his views.

I agree.

He accused the Queen of having interfered in the Scottish referendum. And he said it was strange that the Queen thought of the poor when she was so rich. And each time the group republic says something he writes articles or tweets about it etc.


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 02:30 PM.

Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2022
Jelsoft Enterprises