- Joined
- Sep 25, 2007
- Messages
- 6,379
- City
- Hermosa Beach
- Country
- United States
This thread isn’t about the Sussexes. Further discussion of them will be deleted.
Traditionally they didn't precede their younger brothers in the line of succession.That has changed so the tradition of giving peerage titles to sons but not daughters should change accordingly, just as the BRF as abandoned other outdated traditions (arranged marriages, for example).and traditionally, daughters do not get royal dukedoms. So i dont think Charlotte will get it.
A member of the York City Council and the MP for York Central want the Duke of York to relinquish the York title.
https://www.standard.co.uk/news/uk/prince-andrew-york-connections-cut-b976711.html
The question of re-issuing the York dukedon will only come up after Andrew's death. Depending on how the case progresses, this may not be a dukedom that could get created again for some time.
Princess Charlotte is the future "spare" but she most likely will become HRH The Princess Royal. In my opinion the most prestigious title available of all, oustide the titles held by the Heir.
This does seem to be happening a lot with sexual assault cases now. A number of actors have been sacked from films or TV shows, or else episodes already filmed have been pulled from the TV schedules, after an allegation has been made, before there's been a trial, and the same with politicians being suspended by their parties. I'm not saying that that's right or wrong, just that it's how it is.
This does seem to be happening a lot with sexual assault cases now. A number of actors have been sacked from films or TV shows, or else episodes already filmed have been pulled from the TV schedules, after an allegation has been made, before there's been a trial, and the same with politicians being suspended by their parties. I'm not saying that that's right or wrong, just that it's how it is.
Fwiw...I also find the response of the Royal family premature and chilling, and the public braying for the man's blood by press and public in particular also very chilling considering the fact that no trial has even started...let alone no judgment rendered.
It's as if everyday some new way to punish and humiliate the guy is floated. Strip of him of x,y and z! Kick him out of Royal Lodge. Forbid him from riding at Windsor. It's an insult to see him exercise (can he ride at night under cover of darkness?) Force him to sneak unobtrusively into his mother's funeral when the time comes. Punish his daughters. Send them all to live on some remote miserable bog perhaps in Scotland.
This does seem to be happening a lot with sexual assault cases now. A number of actors have been sacked from films or TV shows, or else episodes already filmed have been pulled from the TV schedules, after an allegation has been made, before there's been a trial, and the same with politicians being suspended by their parties. I'm not saying that that's right or wrong, just that it's how it is.
It's CANCEL CULTURE and we are living in the thick of it. I am all for calling out malignant predators where they exist, and holding them accountable.
But careers can be ended and lives destroyed now because..." Mr X told me I looked lovely in that color, or winked his eye, or held the door open for me when I walked in.
I deem it sexist and offensive. It has caused me lasting emotional distress and suffering."
I am only slightly exaggerating.
I don’t have a problem with the RF’s response. Patronages and military organizations don’t want to be associated with him. So- what are they supposed to do? Keep him where he isn’t wanted?
I do think some of the public responses are OTT though. Agreed there.
Andrew, whom this pertains to, for all his other entitled behavior which might fall under "sexist and offensive, gasp", maintained a friendship with malignant predators through stupidity and excruciatingly bad judgment AT BEST, hung himself with more of the same by doing the Newsnight interview, and has dealt with the consequences ever since.
Should Beatrice and Eugenie be ostracized for it? No, of course not.
But bringing something entirely on yourself and having to pay the piper isn't cancel culture. It's "no longer being tolerated".
Agreed. Some love to scream "Cancel culture" when it is really just you being held accountable for your actions.
Alleged.
Alleged actions.
That is the crux here.
No, the friendship with Epstein and Maxwell and appalling lack of remorse and ongoing sordid legal issues and Newsnight idiocy and self-making into persona non grata are all facts, not allegations.
Personally, I find no victim-blaming here. Rather, I find the overall mood as being inclined to gloss over Giuffre's part as a victimizer which is horrifying. Teenagers aren't incapable of being whatever.
I find the overall sentiment (not here on the forum but overall) of treating Andrew like a violent rapist just because a recruiter said he slept with her knowing that she was trafficked rather baffling. This far, it's just he said, she said but he's already guilty?
Teenagers shouldn't be expected to bear responsibility for victimizing others? For real? When a teenager tells someone younger (or much younger) that they should keep silent, that's an acknowledgment that they realize they shouldn't be doing what they are doing.
Andrew might be a horrible person. But no one denies this might be the case while every sentiment that Ms Giuffre might be less than stellar is met with "victim blaming".
Many people have been victims of teenage rapists or molesters. And it's always the same thing at court (when the case even makes it to court): they're children. They didn't realize. This leaves *their* victims (some of which are literal children) in a horrible situation. And it isn't because the perpetrators were too young to understand.
It's like this with Giuffre, IMO. She was a victim but also a victimizer. And if I remember correctly, it's by her own lawyer's admission. She regretted taking part? It still happened. It's literally "she said, she said". Why shouldn't it be taken into account?
Andrew, whom this pertains to, for all his other entitled behavior which might fall under "sexist and offensive, gasp", maintained a friendship with malignant predators through stupidity and excruciatingly bad judgment AT BEST, hung himself with more of the same by doing the Newsnight interview, and has dealt with the consequences ever since.
Should Beatrice and Eugenie be ostracized for it? No, of course not.
But bringing something entirely on yourself and having to pay the piper isn't cancel culture. It's "no longer being tolerated".
Agreed. Some love to scream "Cancel culture" when it is really just you being held accountable for your actions.
The post(s) to which you replied pertained to politicians and actors, not Prince Andrew.
One question for the UK lawyers out there, didn't the investigation into Giuffre's allegations conclude that even if what Giuffre said was true, Andrew didn't commit a crime because Giuffre was above the age of consent? I don't know what the British laws are with respect to sex trafficking but in the U.S., there has to be actual knowledge of the trafficking before one can be criminally
I personally believe that he is guilty, but of course none of us can know 100%. Let's go with the theory that he might be innocent for a moment. Because he is a royal, he does need to defend himself in the court of public opinion.
No, "Andrew, to whom this thread and business pertain". Please kindly stop replying to my posts if the context is continually so difficult and confusing for you.
No, the friendship with Epstein and Maxwell and appalling lack of remorse and ongoing sordid legal issues and Newsnight idiocy and self-making into persona non grata are all facts, not allegations.
I think it's prudent to keep in mind that those who made this decision have far more information than those of us commenting on it. They may well have reason to believe he is guilty or will be found responsible at his civil trial- or may not and still took the action, but it is something to consider.
I've also seen posts here and elsewhere saying Andrew was foolish to say Beatrice's name in the BBC interview. It wouldn't have made any difference whether he said her name then or withheld it, simply saying he had an alibi. He would have had to give that detail at some point and, indeed, it may have emerged as more of a bombshell because speculation would have built over who or what the alibi was and it would have emerged at trial if there is one.
So I think Andrew can only have committed a crime if he knew that Epstein was pressurising her into it.