muriel
Imperial Majesty
- Joined
- Jun 26, 2007
- Messages
- 14,454
- City
- London / Guildford
- Country
- United Kingdom
A jolly read though!
(in response to Alison H)
I agree. And she probably caused more embarrasment for David Cameron than anybody else.
A jolly read though!
(in response to Alison H)
This made me laugh out loud. I can't imagine Anne or Edward wanting to be burdened by someone so unpopular.
I wonder if any royals would even want to attend his funeral in decades to come, such an embarrassment he has been. Likewise, as others have said, I doubt he will be allowed to attend any future royal events including the funeral of the Queen. He doesn't deserve to be associated with the family.
For all I know they could be emotionally distant, from but this is a man they have fond memories, a man they grew up with and even care for, he is their brother. Most of the time with a man like him there is confusion, what they think they know of him through experience vs whatever crminial activity a person like that does, its difficult for family members to understand at times. but it doesnt mean the love for him immediately dies. We may view him as a criminal and they may view him as one as well, but it doesnt mean they dont care for him, it's simplifying emotions I thinks some would attend his funeral if he doesnt outlive them, especially if it's private. the man was never prosecuted anyways, not that i like him.
path again.
Family does not tell you what you want to hear. They tell you what you *need* to hear.
Why would Anne and Edward have any say on this matter? Both are less senior than Andrew within the Royal Family. If Charles wanted to consult with anyone else on what to do with Andrew, it should be with William, rather than Edward and Anne.
I'll have absolutely nothing to do with speculations of internal family machinations that may or may not have happened sometime in the dark halls of Balmoral or Windsor Castle or behind the stables at Sandringham because frankly they're just off the wall suppositions and scenarios created by inventive minds as a "what if". For all we know, Andrew could have also enlisted the help of Donald Trump to get him back into good graces with his mama and brother again. Yah right... and
For all I know they could be emotionally distant, from but this is a man they have fond memories, a man they grew up with and even care for, he is their brother/Uncle/Father. Most of the time with a man like him there is confusion, what they think they know of him through experience vs whatever crminial activity a person like that does, its difficult for family members to understand at times. but it doesnt mean the love for him immediately dies. We may view him as a criminal and they may view him as one as well, but it doesnt mean they dont care for him, it's simplifying emotions (I can only imagine how his daughters must feel.) I thinks some would attend his funeral if he doesnt outlive them, especially if it's private. The man was never prosecuted anyways, not that i like him.
Why? Andrew ilives in Windsor, its his home, he has a long lease on it and he has to live somwerhe so that is a good place. He will be keeping a low profile, and he will have privacy and security at hte Royal Lodge. Why would Charles want to send him "far away" when he has a home at Windsor.I expect that one of the first things that Charles will do as king is to order his brother to move a long way away and keep a low profile, like the similarly disgraced Duke of Windsor had to do.
I expect that one of the first things that Charles will do as king is to order his brother to move a long way away and keep a low profile, like the similarly disgraced Duke of Windsor had to do.
I expect that one of the first things that Charles will do as king is to order his brother to move a long way away and keep a low profile, like the similarly disgraced Duke of Windsor had to do.
As Osipi said, the two situations are completely different. The Duke of Windsor had to leave as otherwise it would have seemed as if there were two kings in one kingdom. Monarchs who abdicate almost always go into exile. Royals who've behaved badly don't. Andrew's keeping a low profile as it is. It's not his fault that the Times appears to find it necessary to put a picture of him driving his car on the front page of today's edition. If the press really want to print those pictures, they'll take them wherever he is ... and, surely, they'll lose interest in a while, when they realise that no-one really wants to see them.
I assume Alison H was referring to British monarchs, though I would agree that looking to other current monarchies in democratic countries would provide more suitable comparisons than dethroned English monarchs from centuries ago (when was the last British abdication prior to 1936?).
Sorry, I wasn't thinking of monarchs who'd abdicated due to old age, which I'd think of more as retiring although, yes, of course that's abdicating too. I was thinking of monarchs who'd abdicated in circumstances of scandal or regime change and needed to be "got out of the way" because they were causing some sort of embarrassment.
Why? Andrew ilives in Windsor, its his home, he has a long lease on it and he has to live somwerhe so that is a good place. He will be keeping a low profile, and he will have privacy and security at hte Royal Lodge. Why would Charles want to send him "far away" when he has a home at Windsor.
To send him far away. THAT is the point. It would be seen as not politically correct to send him to another Commonwealth country, as it would be perceived as a 1830's "banishment to Tasmania" sort of move. An insult to a country that has to take in Andrew.
When Charles ascends, that Royal Lodge lease will be shredded. He, as Monarch, will have broad powers over the Crown Estate ... and Andrew. I think Andrew might wind up in the Outer Hebrides.
Taxpayers may see it a little bit plainer.
Why pay police to protect [prince Andrew] and his [...] ex-wife to be ensconced at Royal Lodge? Would it not be less expensive for the taxpayers to park them in a quieter less-illustrious berth? Charles through the Duchy owns many properties in the southwest. Certainly Fergie and Andrew can cobble a life together on one of the Scilly Isles.
Taxpayers may see it a little bit plainer.
Why pay police to protect [Prince Andrew] and his [...] ex-wife to be ensconced at Royal Lodge? Would it not be less expensive for the taxpayers to park them in a quieter less-illustrious berth? Charles through the Duchy owns many properties in the southwest. Certainly Fergie and Andrew can cobble a life together on one of the Scilly Isles.
Taxpayers may see it a little bit plainer.
Why pay police to protect [Prince Andrew] and his [...] ex-wife to be ensconced at Royal Lodge? Would it not be less expensive for the taxpayers to park them in a quieter less-illustrious berth? Charles through the Duchy owns many properties in the southwest. Certainly Fergie and Andrew can cobble a life together on one of the Scilly Isles.
After reading through this thread and considering the points of security, finance, housing/property and public/press reaction, I don't see Andrew leaving Royal Lodge at Windsor any time soon, even after Charles ascends to the throne. A new location for Andrew's home would probably means more costs for security and renovation. Even if his new home is located at the Crown Estate, Duchy of Cornwall, Duchy of Lancaster, Sandringham or Balmoral, I could predict the press/tabloid would be gunning out headlines with "The Royal Family are using taxpayer's money to fund the disgraced prince's new home".
I cannot imagine The Royal Family putting Andrew in exile to the British Isles nor Commonwealth countries, because I doubt these countries would want to pay for his finance, housing and security. Even if the expenses are paid by The Royal Family, I don't think these countries would want to associate with the Prince whose reputation is in tatters and being forced to resign as working royal.
Royal Lodge is Grade II listed with legal protection when it comes to planning and renovation. Just from reading from the Historic England website, the I'm pretty sure it's illegal to knock down listed buildings
https://historicengland.org.uk/listing/the-list/list-entry/1323669
https://historicengland.org.uk/advice/your-home/owning-historic-property/listed-building/
https://historicengland.org.uk/advice/planning/consents/lbc/