But he’s still in the line of succession.
In a different thread there was a lot of speculation about criminal charges. It did not appear that he could be charged with a specific crime with the information that’s public now. Most likely he will only face civil penalties.
If the seal comes off those earlier documents, who knows. Would serve him right, probably. The droit du seigneur has been abolished a long time ago. Disgusting prick.
I truly don’t understand. Isn’t He Raped Her (HRH) a more fitting title now than ever before ??
/s
Peerages can only be revoked by an act of parliament and the last time that happened was during WWI. The Queen can formally strip him of the title of prince and HRH style by letters patent, but it doesn’t seem like she’s gone that far yet’. So, Andew is now in the same position of Harry. I do wonder how he’s referred to in court documents since he’s being sued in a US court. Something like Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor aka the Duke of York? For that matter what exactly does Harry’s visa say?
After that interview I don’t think that was a question. I heard her lawyers are asking for the medical proof that he doesn’t sweat.
He already was fired, this is like adding “& don’t come back”
I wouldn’t be surprised if this were the functional equivalent of when somebody is allowed to resign, rather than being fired.
Andrew is ninth in line.
Until recently, my country had a freely elected accused rapist with the line all behind him.
I hope you didn’t then conclude we should abolish democracies worldwide.
However, if you gave this as a reason to stop having a President, and instead transition to a parliamentary constitutional monarchy, I might agree. Consider:
The Queen is thought to have been paying his legal bills privately up until now, and nothing in the statement actually precludes that from continuing. Courts are full of private citizens who are being bankrolled by family largesse.
And his lifestyle has never really matched his known income. He may have assets nobody knows about, whether due to shady business dealings or the Bank of Mummy. The sale of his Swiss ski chalet might indicate that he thinks he won’t be able to rely on his mother’s pocketbook for much longer (I guess that’s true for natural reasons no matter what), but I don’t know how much equity he even had in that. He was being sued until recently by its former owner for failing to pay the full purchase price.
But at least you had an an opportunity to reject your accused rapist at the polls. The British people have no similar opportunity to make any judgement about York’s place in the line of succession.
Sure they do. Theoretically they could elect a Parliament which would amend the law of succession, or abolish the monarchy entirely. I don’t know why they continue to tolerate this clan of parasites, but they could stop doing so whenever they wanted to.
If Elizabeth, Charles, William, Harry, and all of their children were all to die in short order, I suspect the UK would have bigger problems to deal with than which figurehead winds up on the throne.
They have a parliament that can, and did, radically limit the power of the monarchy, keeping it as a backstop in the highly unlikely event a stable government can’t be formed. (Unlikely because constitutional monarchies are more democratic and stable than the real alternative, the presidential republic.)
. . . the only presidential democracy with a long history of constitutional continuity is the United States.. And given that the last U.S. President is against respect for election results, this seems to me a heck of bad time to start railing against the practical alternative.
My message for anyone from a constitutional monarchy who wants to use this as fodder for pushing a republic is:
Don’t it always seem to go that you don’t know what you’ve got till it’s gone
Great post, and I completely agree!
The fact that Andrew appears to be the black sheep of the royal family is in no way an argument against the fundamental strengths of a constitutional monarchy as a system of government.
It’s also interesting to note that the loss of his various titles stands in stark contrast to his public statements categorically denying any wrongdoing, particularly that BBC interview. It implicitly says that even his own family doesn’t believe him.
Maybe it’s because this “clan of parasites” is an integral foundational component of the most enduring and successful form of government on earth.
We don’t know what happens to their private (as distinct from “Crown Estates”) capital and income, apart from the reasonable guess that careful investment over the 200+ years since they were officially separated still leaves them (at least collectively) still privately wealthy. Though how much of that is the capital value of land and property rather than easily realisable cash, who knows,?
Glad someone said it. Re: someone upthread, the problem/concern with hereditary monarchies isn’t that one day a rapist might become king (and honestly, that’s probably already happened many times) but that one day a hereditary monarchy will… be a hereditary monarchy. That is wrong in and of itself.
So, it’s great that Andy is now an ex-HRH. It’s unfortunate that he ever was an HRH to begin with, but most especially as it came about by coincidence of his birth.
One shouldn’t have to be accused of being associated with an underage sex trafficking ring to be “not an HRH.” Point of fact, most people are born that way.
Estimates of the Queen’s private wealth, as distinct from Crown Estates, Sovereign Grant, etc. according to wikipedia:
Forbes magazine estimated the Queen’s net worth at around $500 million (about £325 million) in 2011, while an analysis by the Bloomberg Billionaires Index put it at $425 million (about £275 million) in 2015. In 2012 the Sunday Times estimated the Queen’s wealth as being £310 million ($504 million), and that year the Queen received a Guinness World Record as Wealthiest Queen. The Sunday Times Rich List 2015 estimated her wealth at £340 million, making her the 302nd richest person in the United Kingdom.
Wealthy, but not in the same league as the thousands of billionaires in the world today.
There’s a very big difference between a constitutional monarchy and an absolute monarchy.
True. But hereditary monarchy, with all its privileges and styles, is still wrong, whether under a constitutional system or otherwise. It’s even worse than the more common problem of hereditary wealth.
Why?
(Perhaps this discussion deserves its own thread.)