Prince Andrew to lose HRH and military titles - just breaking

I was taught that the Duke of York had ten thousand men.
Nobody mentioned schoolgirls.

Is it a coincidence that seems to be offline now? Maybe it’s been down for some time but I just noticed.

I don’t think that republics are necessarily superior to constitutional monarchies. The US in on the verge of collapse because it elected a psychopath and had a party that no longer has any interest in governing behind him. I think the next US government is quite likely to be a fascist dictatorship and we’re going to regret not having a constitutional monarchy.

I think the site you are looking for is

IANAL, but if my grandmother had wheels and ran on tracks and got her energy from a trolley pole, then yes, she would be a streetcar, and no, in that world, Andrew would not be guilty of a crime. Although he would still be guilty of lying.

Thanks! I feel relieved now.

The age of consent in the UK is 16. Giuffre said she was 17 when she was with Andrew.

I think one encounter was at Epstein’s townhouse in NY? Age of consent there is 17.

Andrew was about 47? He’s 61 now. The difference in ages is concerning and certainly unbecoming. But, it’s legal.

IMHO Andrew probably didn’t know anything Giuffre’s arrangement with Ghislaine Maxwell and Jeffrey Epstein. That’s something the court will have to decide.

This is primarily a political and social disaster for Prince Andrew. The Royals are expected to hold themselves to a higher moral standard.

I’m an American, thus don’t really have a dog in this fight. But this statement seems unfair. Charles was a naval aviator, flying both helicopters and planes, then commanded a coastal minesweeper. Andrew had a 12 year career in the Royal Navy, where flew a Sea King helicopter in the Falklands War and later commanded another minesweeper. Harry served two tours in Afghanistan, one as an Apache helicopter pilot. William was a search-and-rescue pilot, and later a pilot for the East Anglian Air Ambulance. Elizabeth famously served as an ambulance driver and mechanic in the Second World War. That’s just various members’ military service; it leaves out their civilian activites.

Whatever you might feel about the pros and cons of a hereditary monarchy, you can’t really call the Mountbatten-Windsors parasites; they’re pretty much the exemplars of what calls “Royals Who Actually Do Something”.

And wrenched her royal Land Rover until quite late, which was so hot!

And the day she pwned then-Crown Prince Abdullah of Saudi Arabia:

According to at least one article I saw, Giuffre got paid a pile of money for these encounters. ($15,000 IIRC.) That sounds like these were acts of consensual prostitution. If so, it’s hard to find any sympathy if Giuffre now claims she was “traumatized” (unless there was some really weird shit going down).

But what is the law here? Is it legal to transport young girls across state lines for immoral (but legal at the destination point) purposes? What about transporting young girls who are of-age across state lines for consensual prostitution, if the prostitution is illegal? Is that a felony? Or simply a misdemeanor? What about transporting internationally?

Sounds kinda-sorta like the worst Giuffre and H-formerly-RH Andrew did might have been some misdemeanor prostitution.

At least currently – the criminal law that would apply would normally be that which was in effect at the time – New York State law makes patronizing prostitution a class A misdemeanor. But,
Pandering someone under 18 is a Class C felony
Trafficking (pimping that involves indenture or otherwise violation of consent) someone under 18 is a class B felony

Of course part of the big deal is the operation did not limit itself to NY,

Well yeah – taking people across state lines for purposes of illegal prostitution triggers the federal statute which for these purposes sets the age for “minor” at <18 regardless of the states’ own ages of consent.

A quick Google/Wiki search gives me:

18 USC 2421 - Whoever knowingly transports any individual in interstate or foreign commerce, or in any Territory or Possession of the United States, with intent that such individual engage in prostitution, or in any sexual activity for which any person can be charged with a criminal offense, or attempts to do so, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 10 years, or both.

18 USC 2422 - (a) Whoever knowingly persuades, induces, entices, or coerces any individual to travel in interstate or foreign commerce, or in any Territory or Possession of the United States, to engage in prostitution, or in any sexual activity for which any person can be charged with a criminal offense, or attempts to do so, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both.

(b) Whoever, using the mail or any facility or means of interstate or foreign commerce, or within the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States knowingly persuades, induces, entices, or coerces any individual who has not attained the age of 18 years, to engage in prostitution or any sexual activity for which any person can be charged with a criminal offense, or attempts to do so, shall be fined under this title and imprisoned not less than 10 years [to life].

(emphasis and edits mine) Again, what would apply in a criminal case would be the laws in effect at the time of the events but I don’t see how they would have been much different in this time frame.

Personally, I’d disagree. I’m not saying she was traumatized, but I can totally accept that she might be. A lot of teenagers are over-confidant and think they’re tough as nails in the moment. People generally, really - but teenagers much more so. Then it turns out some time later (hours, days, weeks, months, years) they actually internalized things in a bad way and/or figure out they were manipulated and are in fact traumatized. That’s partially why age of consent and anti-pandering laws exist.

A 17 year-old might be perfectly eager to enter into a brokered “consensual” sugar-daddy arrangement at 17 or at least be convinced they are. They might feel very, very differently about what happened at 37. Meanwhile Giuffre says she was actually coerced and they was nothing consensual about it. Regardless if she was paid or not, that’s still a whole 'nother kettle of fish.

Which is why when Frank Sinatra sings, “I’ve got no regrets”, is totally unbelievable!

Frank Sinatra was sex-trafficked?

He drove the fuckin’ Pilot Car!

How does losing his HRH effect Andrew’s daughters?.

Beatrice and Eugene were doing some Royal appearances. Do they have any Royal privileges now?

As far as their titles are concerned, nothing. Both are HRH because of Letters Patent by King George V which stipulated that all the grandchildren of a Monarch, in the male line (Andrew, previously known as ‘Prince’), be Royal Highnesses and Princes or Princesses.

However, while they get involved with the normal things (for them, not me!) I don’t think they actually carry out any Royal Duties themselves. They may be ‘in attendance’ but that will be along with whichever (more senior) Royal is there.

" Beatrice and the Duke of Edinburgh accompanied the Queen to the traditional Royal Maundy services on 5 April 2012 in York. There, Beatrice interacted with parishioners, received flowers from the public, and assisted the Queen as she passed out the official Maundy money to the pensioners…"

It’s uncharted territory, but I’d guess there’d be no chance of their being involved in any state/constitutional ceremonies (might not have been anyway).

They might well get associated with assorted good cause organisations in the wider community, just as anyone else might.

If the much-trailed idea of slimming down “the Firm” goes ahead, then a lot of such community associations/patronages are going to have to be delegated out or abandoned anyway.

I think Beatrice and Eugenie will avoid the cameras for awhile. It’s going to be awkward for anyone closely associated with Andrew.

Slimming down the monarchy sounds good on paper. But who’s going to show up at all the ribbon cuttings and other public ceremonies? Less people means more work.

They didn’t have a choice with Andrew. He’s a major embarrassment to the monarchy.

The Royals stay busy… William and his kids probably won’t reach the numbers of his late grandfather. Prince Philip retiring from solo appearances Wednesday |

Nature is going to slim down the royal family no matter what. The age pyramid is very top-heavy, with nearly half of them over the age of 70, and three of the under-70s are no longer involved in official life.