I'm not, usually, very interested in the Royal family and their doings but this is hardcore. Two houses you don't fuck with - the House of Mouse, and the House of Windsor.
I'm not, usually, very interested in the Royal family and their doings but this is hardcore.
Two houses you don't fuck with - the House of Mouse, and the House of Windsor.
Yeah but that makes it sounds like James Bond is going to "deal" with Virginia Giuffre or something. "Don't fuck with the House of Windsor." In this case, it's more, "Don't piss off the Queen!"
Two houses you don't fuck with - ... the House of Windsor.
Yeah but that makes it sounds like James Bond is going to "deal" with Virginia Giuffre or something. "Don't fuck with the House of Windsor."
In this case, it's more, "Don't piss off the Queen!"
Ah, yes. I realise now it could be read that way. Andrew is the one messing with the Windsor's "good" name. They don't care about Giuffre, she's nobody. But basically you are correct, don't fuck...
Ah, yes. I realise now it could be read that way. Andrew is the one messing with the Windsor's "good" name. They don't care about Giuffre, she's nobody.
But basically you are correct, don't fuck with the Queen.
Can you be excommunicated from the Royal Family? Is this as close as it gets to that? My first thought was, "Why hasn't the Queen of England just disavowed him and kicked him out completely?" But...
Can you be excommunicated from the Royal Family? Is this as close as it gets to that?
My first thought was, "Why hasn't the Queen of England just disavowed him and kicked him out completely?" But there's been so much evidence over the years that this man is a pedophile and that it has been covered up for quite some time. Maybe they're just okay with it?
I suspect more can happen, but whether the Palace will think it necessary is another question. In terms of royal protocol, I suspect Liz can probably do whatever she wants when it comes to her own...
I suspect more can happen, but whether the Palace will think it necessary is another question. In terms of royal protocol, I suspect Liz can probably do whatever she wants when it comes to her own family.
There have been a lot of suggestions and allegations of all sorts of things, but I don't believe anything a court would consider actual evidence. This case isn't about him being a paedophile, it's about him being involved with young, but legal, women. Fucking actual kids is a very different and far more serious thing.
It's easy to make someone look guilty on TV though. Personally I need little convincing that Andrew is a massive shit for any number of reasons, but there's a world of difference between even good...
It's easy to make someone look guilty on TV though. Personally I need little convincing that Andrew is a massive shit for any number of reasons, but there's a world of difference between even good documentary TV (I haven't seen and am not interested in the Epstein thing so I have no idea where it ranks as investigative journalism) and the sort of legally totally watertight evidence which would lead to the conviction of an actual prince of the realm.
It's easy, but there's a spectrum. Some documentaries are more credible than others. But, as I say, this documentary do not prove anything. They merely present a persuasive theory, which is...
It's easy, but there's a spectrum. Some documentaries are more credible than others. But, as I say, this documentary do not prove anything. They merely present a persuasive theory, which is entirely valid for journalism and documentaries to do. The bar is much lower than a legal case.
Because Prince Andrew's attempts to stop the court case reached their final failure a day before this. For months, Andrew's legal team has been raising one legal argument after another to stop...
I wonder, why now?
Because Prince Andrew's attempts to stop the court case reached their final failure a day before this. For months, Andrew's legal team has been raising one legal argument after another to stop this civil lawsuit proceeding to court - and, one by one, they've all been rejected by judges. This was the final one.
Before this point, there was a possibility that this case would never go to court, and the whole thing would fade away.
Now, Prince Andrew will have to appear in court and answer questions under oath about his behaviour.
Yes, I thought it was obvious to everyone that this was simply a delaying tactic. Judges don´t like to toss cases out without very good reason. And the queen must have some of the best legal...
Yes, I thought it was obvious to everyone that this was simply a delaying tactic. Judges don´t like to toss cases out without very good reason. And the queen must have some of the best legal council on both sides of the pond.
Perhaps that was the agreement the queen came to with her brother, that he had until all requests to dismiss had been rejected.
But you asked why Prince Andrew and the Queen agreed to him relinquishing his titles and honours now, rather than earlier. It's because now they've reached the point of no return in his court...
Yes, I thought it was obvious to everyone that this was simply a delaying tactic.
But you asked why Prince Andrew and the Queen agreed to him relinquishing his titles and honours now, rather than earlier. It's because now they've reached the point of no return in his court case. Before now, there was a possibility this lawsuit might not end up in court. Now, it will end up in court. So, now, Prince Andrew has to give up his titles and honours.
the queen came to with her brother
Prince Andrew is the Queen's son, not her brother. He's Charles's younger brother.
Prince Andrew is Charles's younger brother? Sheesh. You might be surprised, but I am reasonably familiar with what happened, and I still think you are glossing over why it happened. The queens...
Prince Andrew is Charles's younger brother? Sheesh.
You might be surprised, but I am reasonably familiar with what happened, and I still think you are glossing over why it happened.
So while it seems clear that one event preceded the other, I'm not sure it really explains why it happened so unexpectedly now, if even royal experts were surprised.
It's worth noting, that Prince Andrew can still avoid court. He can still avoid being questioned under oath. He still has options.
Settle.
Default Judgement.
Litigate.
Clearly the queen now expects him to litigate. If she expected that all along, then why did she wait?
If litigation was to be expected, Prince Andrew will clearly face a grueling deposition. No attorney in the world would recommend that, given his demonstrated ability to completely fall apart during the friendliest of interviews.
It seems to me either the Queen was mislead, or had some other motivation to defer what obviously had to happen.
I heard in some news that it's due to the upcoming celebration of elizabeth's 70 year reign (platinum jubilee). Since the royal family's source of power has shifted from politicking to public...
I heard in some news that it's due to the upcoming celebration of elizabeth's 70 year reign (platinum jubilee). Since the royal family's source of power has shifted from politicking to public media, the tacit consent of the British public to hold them in higher regard is more vulnerable to these controversies. I imagine they wouldn't want any news from his case to overshadow the celebration.
I imagine she's got a lot on, plus she's been ill, and I think making the decision to kick your own son out of the family is a tricky one, not to be rushed into. Also she is 95. I gather she's...
I imagine she's got a lot on, plus she's been ill, and I think making the decision to kick your own son out of the family is a tricky one, not to be rushed into. Also she is 95. I gather she's still pretty together mentally but still. Most people have been retired for decades by that age.
It's been ten years, she didn't exactly rush into the decision, and she hasn't been getting any younger in the interim. Also, she can appoint her son as a regent at any time, while still retaining...
It's been ten years, she didn't exactly rush into the decision, and she hasn't been getting any younger in the interim.
Also, she can appoint her son as a regent at any time, while still retaining full queenship, queenness, whatever it's called.
I'm not, usually, very interested in the Royal family and their doings but this is hardcore.
Two houses you don't fuck with - the House of Mouse, and the House of Windsor.
Yeah but that makes it sounds like James Bond is going to "deal" with Virginia Giuffre or something. "Don't fuck with the House of Windsor."
In this case, it's more, "Don't piss off the Queen!"
Ah, yes. I realise now it could be read that way. Andrew is the one messing with the Windsor's "good" name. They don't care about Giuffre, she's nobody.
But basically you are correct, don't fuck with the Queen.
Can you be excommunicated from the Royal Family? Is this as close as it gets to that?
My first thought was, "Why hasn't the Queen of England just disavowed him and kicked him out completely?" But there's been so much evidence over the years that this man is a pedophile and that it has been covered up for quite some time. Maybe they're just okay with it?
I suspect more can happen, but whether the Palace will think it necessary is another question. In terms of royal protocol, I suspect Liz can probably do whatever she wants when it comes to her own family.
There have been a lot of suggestions and allegations of all sorts of things, but I don't believe anything a court would consider actual evidence. This case isn't about him being a paedophile, it's about him being involved with young, but legal, women. Fucking actual kids is a very different and far more serious thing.
The Epstein doc does make him look very guilty of abuse and sexual trafficking. No proof, but very persuasive.
It's easy to make someone look guilty on TV though. Personally I need little convincing that Andrew is a massive shit for any number of reasons, but there's a world of difference between even good documentary TV (I haven't seen and am not interested in the Epstein thing so I have no idea where it ranks as investigative journalism) and the sort of legally totally watertight evidence which would lead to the conviction of an actual prince of the realm.
It's easy, but there's a spectrum. Some documentaries are more credible than others. But, as I say, this documentary do not prove anything. They merely present a persuasive theory, which is entirely valid for journalism and documentaries to do. The bar is much lower than a legal case.
I wonder, why now?
That disastrous interview was a while back.
Did the Queen just realize the court case is going to proceed?
Because Prince Andrew's attempts to stop the court case reached their final failure a day before this. For months, Andrew's legal team has been raising one legal argument after another to stop this civil lawsuit proceeding to court - and, one by one, they've all been rejected by judges. This was the final one.
Before this point, there was a possibility that this case would never go to court, and the whole thing would fade away.
Now, Prince Andrew will have to appear in court and answer questions under oath about his behaviour.
That's why now.
Yes, I thought it was obvious to everyone that this was simply a delaying tactic. Judges don´t like to toss cases out without very good reason. And the queen must have some of the best legal council on both sides of the pond.
Perhaps that was the agreement the queen came to with her brother, that he had until all requests to dismiss had been rejected.
But you asked why Prince Andrew and the Queen agreed to him relinquishing his titles and honours now, rather than earlier. It's because now they've reached the point of no return in his court case. Before now, there was a possibility this lawsuit might not end up in court. Now, it will end up in court. So, now, Prince Andrew has to give up his titles and honours.
Prince Andrew is the Queen's son, not her brother. He's Charles's younger brother.
Prince Andrew is Charles's younger brother? Sheesh.
You might be surprised, but I am reasonably familiar with what happened, and I still think you are glossing over why it happened.
The queens decision took everyone by surprise. even though the request to dismiss the US case was almost certain to be rejected.
So while it seems clear that one event preceded the other, I'm not sure it really explains why it happened so unexpectedly now, if even royal experts were surprised.
It's worth noting, that Prince Andrew can still avoid court. He can still avoid being questioned under oath. He still has options.
Clearly the queen now expects him to litigate. If she expected that all along, then why did she wait?
Prince Andrew already has caused considerable reputational damage.
If litigation was to be expected, Prince Andrew will clearly face a grueling deposition. No attorney in the world would recommend that, given his demonstrated ability to completely fall apart during the friendliest of interviews.
It seems to me either the Queen was mislead, or had some other motivation to defer what obviously had to happen.
I heard in some news that it's due to the upcoming celebration of elizabeth's 70 year reign (platinum jubilee). Since the royal family's source of power has shifted from politicking to public media, the tacit consent of the British public to hold them in higher regard is more vulnerable to these controversies. I imagine they wouldn't want any news from his case to overshadow the celebration.
I imagine she's got a lot on, plus she's been ill, and I think making the decision to kick your own son out of the family is a tricky one, not to be rushed into. Also she is 95. I gather she's still pretty together mentally but still. Most people have been retired for decades by that age.
It's been ten years, she didn't exactly rush into the decision, and she hasn't been getting any younger in the interim.
Also, she can appoint her son as a regent at any time, while still retaining full queenship, queenness, whatever it's called.