Prince Andrew not served papers as they were handed to his police security.

Caporegime
Joined
29 Dec 2007
Posts
28,324
Location
Adelaide, South Australia
Military associated with him was getting uncomfortable
Queen was aware him having a title was dragging the royal family as a whole into every instance of his mess being mentioned and this is her platinum jubilee year

What with harry having his titles removed and andrew probably given the option of voluntarily giving them up or having them removed the royal family is getting that shrinking that charles wanted but probably didn't plan like this

Agreed. Between Andrew, Harry, and Meghan, the Firm is getting more grief and scandal than it ever did during the chaotic Diana years. Cutting them loose is the best way forward.
 
Soldato
Joined
3 Oct 2007
Posts
7,514
Location
London, UK
This is all just more happenings which make me feel all the more strongly that William needs to go on the throne when the Queen dies rather than Charles. The Royal Family needs a "reboot", it needs to enter a new era, to have a feeling of vibrancy, youth and a fresh start. I dont think we're going to get that by the Queen being followed by a new King who is in his 70s, thats in a way just going to feel like a continuation. Charles has waited a long time, far longer than he could have imagined, to ascend to the throne but when the day comes, if he looks at the RF he must see that it needs a cutoff, a change, that feeling that its a new era of the RF and step aside or immediately abdicate or whatever the procedure is, so that William and Kate can take over and we then get a younger more vibrant King, with young princes and princesses.

Get rid of the lot of them. I used to be a monarchist when I was younger but the older I get the more republican I get. Let the Queen see out her reign then ditch them all. Get out there and get a job, they are just a bunch of sponges.
 
Soldato
Joined
18 Oct 2002
Posts
5,432
Location
Leicestershire
Get rid of the lot of them. I used to be a monarchist when I was younger but the older I get the more republican I get. Let the Queen see out her reign then ditch them all. Get out there and get a job, they are just a bunch of sponges.

I certainly don't think that they need to exist, but sponges? Remind me how much the Royals bring into the country in tourism etc vs what they 'cost' the tax payer...
 
Caporegime
Joined
12 Mar 2004
Posts
29,770
Location
England
I certainly don't think that they need to exist, but sponges? Remind me how much the Royals bring into the country in tourism etc vs what they 'cost' the tax payer...

They don't bring anything into the country. The palace of Versailles gets way more visitors than Buckingham palace and there's no monarchy. Tourists don't come over to take selfies with the royal family, they come to see the attractions.
 
Soldato
Joined
17 Aug 2009
Posts
9,261
Get rid of the lot of them. I used to be a monarchist when I was younger but the older I get the more republican I get. Let the Queen see out her reign then ditch them all. Get out there and get a job, they are just a bunch of sponges.

Jobs?

Getting rid of the monarchy doesn't strip them of what the family own and is owed every year by the government due to the agreement.
 
Caporegime
Joined
29 Jan 2008
Posts
55,355
Getting rid of the monarchy doesn't strip them of what the family own and is owed every year by the government due to the agreement.

Doubt it would happen anytime soon (unless Charles really messes up). At the moment I think the monarchy is useful from a soft power perspective, they’re great as diplomats etc.. for the UK.

Hypothetically though:

It wouldn’t strip them of personal property, it likely would strip them of ongoing payments etc.. the crown estate would belong to the state. Dutchy of Cornwall and Dutchy of Lancaster probably would too.

They’d have their personal investments and privately owned properties like Sandringham and Balmoral etc..

They’d probably carry on with the titles etc.. you see some Germans and others do this. I know a “Prince” from a family no longer in power, he’s not particularly wealthy (only a 3-4 generations ago his family was incredibly wealthy though) but he does sound very posh!
 
Man of Honour
Joined
13 Oct 2006
Posts
81,899
the royal family is getting that shrinking that charles wanted but probably didn't plan like this

Or maybe he really is this devious :s

They’d probably carry on with the titles etc.. you see some Germans and others do this. I know a “Prince” from a family no longer in power, he’s not particularly wealthy (only a 3-4 generations ago his family was incredibly wealthy though) but he does sound very posh!

It is amazing how quick the wealth goes - my ancestors managed to lose a lot of money very quickly around 100 years ago.
 
Last edited:
Soldato
Joined
17 Dec 2009
Posts
9,906
I think it’s very telling of the rape culture we live in when you have adult men itt who are trying to defend a sweaty nonce, saying things like “well teknicallly she was of legal age?!” and “haha her case is done for now because an insanely rich man managed to pay her off previously and there’s teknicalllllllyy a contract!!”

I hope those who are clearly unhinged when it comes to their attitudes towards sex and young women are never around young or vulnerable people in society.
 
Soldato
Joined
17 Aug 2009
Posts
9,261
Sure Hurfdurf, you vanished after your bizzare sex offender by association posts and you're back like it never happened to nonce spam again (clearly nonce by association is something you strongly believe in) while claiming others are unhinged.

Hypothetically though:

It wouldn’t strip them of personal property, it likely would strip them of ongoing payments etc.. the crown estate would belong to the state. Dutchy of Cornwall and Dutchy of Lancaster probably would too.

Would appear to be the case, it's happened before with monarchies being abolished (peacefully) in other countries.

Ironically abolishing the monarchy would require the monarch to sign off on it. Unless some drivelling idiot ends up in charge it's unlikely to come to that.
 
Associate
Joined
27 Aug 2019
Posts
1,807
Get rid of the lot of them. I used to be a monarchist when I was younger but the older I get the more republican I get. Let the Queen see out her reign then ditch them all. Get out there and get a job, they are just a bunch of sponges.

Sponges? Pretty sure William alone has served in the forces, worked for an air ambulance etc...

So you are pretty wrong eh.
 
Soldato
Joined
18 Oct 2002
Posts
8,080
Location
7th Level of Hell...
I think it’s very telling of the rape culture we live in when you have adult men itt who are trying to defend a sweaty nonce, saying things like “well teknicallly she was of legal age?!” and “haha her case is done for now because an insanely rich man managed to pay her off previously and there’s teknicalllllllyy a contract!!”

I hope those who are clearly unhinged when it comes to their attitudes towards sex and young women are never around young or vulnerable people in society.

Or, perhaps, some people are able to think rationally and pragmatically about a situation without being emotionally triggered unlike yourself.

If anything, it's yourself that's a little unhinged.

Life isn't black and white. It's wise to gather and look at all the information (including from sources you feel like dismissing through personal prejudices) before reaching a decision
 
Soldato
Joined
14 Nov 2002
Posts
7,303
Location
Under the Hill
Sponges? Pretty sure William alone has served in the forces, worked for an air ambulance etc...

So you are pretty wrong eh.
I think it's all relative. For what William is given by the state you could have had a dozen military pilots. Nobody is saying they don't work hard, but financially what they get in return is extreme.
 
Soldato
Joined
3 Oct 2007
Posts
7,514
Location
London, UK
Sponges? Pretty sure William alone has served in the forces, worked for an air ambulance etc...

So you are pretty wrong eh.

Yes he did a few years in the services. Yes he got to fly helicopters. Yes he did search and rescue at Anglesey. A good mate of mine flew SAR out of Portland when Bristow had the contract, says its the best job he ever had, got to do crazy **** in a helicopter every day. Now weigh that against how much he is paid a year from the Dutchy of Cornwall and the life of total luxury he lives because he was born in the right cot. There are people who have worked 100x harder than him, have sacrificed so much more for this country and are living on the streets. I've nothing against William, seems like a nice bloke but the idea that he is something special and so should live in luxury on our dime is ridiculous. |It is such an outdated institution and I don't buy the "they bring money in" nonsense. As for being great diplomats. If foreign dignitaries are so blown away by a load of British toffs to the point they give us favoured treatment over other countries then we really are screwed as a planet.
 
Soldato
Joined
6 Aug 2010
Posts
5,294
Location
Birmingham
I think it’s very telling of the rape culture we live in when you have adult men itt who are trying to defend a sweaty nonce, saying things like “well teknicallly she was of legal age?!” and “haha her case is done for now because an insanely rich man managed to pay her off previously and there’s teknicalllllllyy a contract!!”

I hope those who are clearly unhinged when it comes to their attitudes towards sex and young women are never around young or vulnerable people in society.

You’re a strange one Mr Hurfdurf.

Much like the Bristol statue thread, there’s a difference between morally right and legally right.

We can discuss the morality of it as there’s going to be lots of opinion. But in a thread discussing Andrew’s legal case should we not discuss the actual laws that will apply? Which there is no ‘technically’ about it, legally she was of age or she wasn’t.
 
Last edited:
Soldato
Joined
29 Jul 2010
Posts
20,914
Location
Lincs
The rules around age of consent aren't that straight forward.

Like you could have sex with your 17 y/o g/f legally, but if you took a picture of her naked that would be child porn, which seems crazy.
 
Soldato
Joined
6 Aug 2010
Posts
5,294
Location
Birmingham
The rules around age of consent aren't that straight forward.

Like you could have sex with your 17 y/o g/f legally, but if you took a picture of her naked that would be child porn, which seems crazy.

Contradictions like that do confuse things but doesn't change the test for any age related law, whether sex, alcohol, gambling etc. is simply a question of do they fall under illegal or above legal. There's no ambiguity to it as, for example, there would be to something like a self defence case. So for having sex with her, there's no 'technically' a nonce, he either is or isn't.
 
Soldato
Joined
4 Feb 2018
Posts
7,913
Contradictions like that do confuse things but doesn't change the test for any age related law, whether sex, alcohol, gambling etc. is simply a question of do they fall under illegal or above legal. There's no ambiguity to it as, for example, there would be to something like a self defence case. So for having sex with her, there's no 'technically' a nonce, he either is or isn't.
I keep mentioning this but. The legal age for a sex working in the UK is 18. Lets at least agree that Epstiens women were sex workers?
 
Soldato
Joined
17 Dec 2009
Posts
9,906
Or, perhaps, some people are able to think rationally and pragmatically about a situation without being emotionally triggered unlike yourself.

If anything, it's yourself that's a little unhinged.

Life isn't black and white. It's wise to gather and look at all the information (including from sources you feel like dismissing through personal prejudices) before reaching a decision

You want to look rationally about a 40 year old man having sex with a vulnerable sex trafficked 17 year old do you? If you can’t rationally see a problem with that, you are part of the problem.
 
Top Bottom