I seem to recall hearing about some people in Scotland, early in Elizabeth II’s reign, complaining about having to call her Elizabeth “the Second,” because Scotland had no previous queen named Elizabeth.
Although you’d think the same complaint would have applied to William IV and to the various Edwards, but I only remember hearing it in reference to Elizabeth.
The last I heard, they’re still not going to bother Parliament with it, just remove him from the Roll of the Peerage (a relatively new creation) which means his peerage will still exist but won’t be recognized officially. I think he could still theoretically stand for a by-election to the House of Lords, but those are soon to be abolished anyways.
Andrew has already been struck off from the Roll of the Peerage:
Not unknown elsewhere, of course. For a time, the Netherlands and Luxembourg, not to mention Austria-Hungary.
If by some set of tragedies Andy gets much closer than #8, they can bother with it at that time. No point worrying about it now.
The process for removing Andrew’s honours will include the removal of his knighthoods. He has already renounced the use of the titles associated with his honours, so he wouldn’t be addressed as “Sir Andrew” even now.
In most cases, the defendant would have known the sex worker was paid because they themselves made the payment, or because the sex takes place in a context in which payment is obvious — e.g. in a brothel, or arranged through an escort service. So I don’t think it would have come up very much. But the legislation is clear; to be guilty the defendant must know about the payment; there’s no requirement that the defendant must have made the payment.
Essentially, sex with an underaged, trafficked sex worker. He hasn’t been charged, and almost certainly won’t be because, his status aside, the principal prosecution witness is dead. But if, hypothetically, he were to be charged then, based on what Giuffre says in her book, this is what the charge would be.
So, in this context, “trafficked” basically means enslaved, right? She was not able to leave and do something else for a living. Even if she’d been 25 that would be seriously wrong.
In that case, I’m surprised it matters whether she’s “paid”.
In this jurisdiction (the UK) they have a specific legal definition.
Human trafficking involves the recruitment or movement of people for exploitation by the use of threat, force, fraud, or the abuse of vulnerability.
That doesn’t necessarily equate to “slavery” as it has typically been defined, but it does involve a lack of consent. In this case, she was a minor, may have been threatened, or tricked, or forcefully taken in a physical matter.
You are right that being trafficked at age 25 would have been wrong, of course, but I believe her age plays into her vulnerability as an element of a trafficking accusation.
I also believe this may play into being forced, or being vulnerable; do this or you starve in an unfamiliar place where you know nobody, are not here legally, and have no income. That’s a big reason why people are taken so far in being trafficked; they are removed from any kind of support they might have, and so are completely dependent on the people exploiting them.
He’s now been scrubbed from the Royal Family website.
Austria-Hungary, a reorganization of the more unitary (but still somewhat jurisdictionally divided) Austrian Empire (a conglomerate of formerly independent kingdoms and territories acquired over time by the Habsburg / Habsburg-Lorraine dynasty) in 1867, was a combination of a personal and real union.
There were two co-states, the “Kingdoms and Lands Represented in the Imperial Council”, and “The Lands of the Holy Hungarian Crown” (That is, the Kingdom of Hungary, the Kingdom of Croatia-Slavonia, and the Free city of Fiume). Internally, each functioned as its own state. There was no joint parliament (laws affecting joint affairs were negotiated between the Imperial Council and the Hungarian Diet), and there were separate Austrian and Hungarian citizenships.
The Austrian state and the Hungarian state were in a personal union with the head of the house of Habsburg-Lorraine (Franz Josef I till 1916 and Karl I from 1916 to 1918) reigning over both states jointly, but subject to the laws of each state.
They were also in a partial real union, as they shared the following joint affairs: 1) a foreign policy; 2) an army and a navy; 3) finances for funding the former two.
Austria-Hungary was thus a single subject in international law, and had three joint executive-level departments or ministries - of foreign affairs, of war, and of finance. It also shared a few other common institutions, such as a currency (the Gulden till 1892, then the Crown) and a customs union.
My paternal grandfather was born in a village or rural area called Grbalj. Today, it is located in Montenegro, to which it was re-assigned after the federalization of Jugoslavia, but back at the time, it was on the edge of the Austrian crownland of Dalmatia (the bulk of which is now part of Croatia, but it wasn’t in the days of Austria-Hungary). I believe he was born shortly before World War I, which would have made him a subject of old Emperor Franz Josef.
Personal unions were not merely not unknown, but in the time of James VI and I, they were the norm. Almost every major European monarchy of that period, including France, Spain (plus its Italian lands), Denmark, Sweden, Savoy, Poland-Lithuanian, never mind the extreme messiness of the German principalities, consisted of conglomerations of territories ruled separately by single rulers. England, Scotland, Wales and Ireland was actually one of the simpler cases.
And between 1714 and 1837, the British kings were also rulers (first Electors, then Kings) of Hanover, a German territory, in the form of a personal union. It was a messy affair because as part of Germany, Hanover was integrated into the wider political framework of that country - allegiance to the Holy Roman Emperor at first, then being a member of the not-quite-a-federal-state German Confederation. Both British and Hanoverian subjects disliked the set-up and were keen to run their respective countries without interference from the other.
And ‘Hanover’ itself consisted of a personal union between Calenberg, Göttingen and Saxe-Lauenburg.
I just realised that his civilian surname is not even hyphenated. Appalled as we all are about his behaviour, there is a guaranteed descent to an even deeper and hotter circle of Hell for people with double-barrelled surnames without hyphens. I hope if he ever goes back to that pizza joint they completely cock up his order.
That’s… pretty insulting to people of latin American ancestry, where two surnames are common. And where our lack of acceptance, even outright ridicule of the same, has led many to feel compelled to abandon their second surname, often informally, which can then have knock-on effects making it difficult for them to obtain IDs now that we have this push to REAL ID.
I hadn’t realised that was the situation for Latin naming. No offence was intended for my flippancy.
For example people (even fans) refer to AOC instead of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez as they find the full name a bit difficult to speak/write out.
Don’t Latin American surnames usually include hyphens?
Well, in that case I hope I didn’t come on a bit too strong. The things one picks up as an immigration attorney along the border…
I don’t think so. Our HRIS and HR folks struggle mightily with this. And I mean struggle because they are idiots and cannot accept that you can have an unhyphenated double barreled surname.
Oddly enough a Spanish (European) expat had absolutely no issue with her double barreled unhyphenated last name.