Soldato
- Joined
- 1 May 2003
- Posts
- 11,176
Might be harder to prove that one after all these years
The Royals
- Thread starter Cryogenic
- Start date
Might be harder to prove that one after all these years
Difficult to "bin" off an organisation that owns most of the land in the UK and is written into most of our laws
It's not an overnight job.
By all means ignore them though if it makes you feel better
Impersonating a respectable gentleman?
It's a crime in the uk to travel outside the UK to have sex with a minor and your can be charged when you return
Soldato
- Joined
- 1 May 2003
- Posts
- 11,176
Just thinking why she didn't file a civil case in the UK, would it be down to the age of consent in the UK?
Soldato
In the "good olde days" he'd have been married off to an 11 year old French/German cousin.
I wasn’t aware that Andrew HAD claimed diplomatic immunity, or even if it covers the Royals, but I don’t know enough about it to bet on it, and to my understanding he’s alleged to have had sex with a 17 y.o. woman who’d “allegedly” been sex trafficked for him, I didn’t see rape anywhere nor any mention of a child, unless you’re saying that the 17 y.o. was a child, that’s a stretch.
A lawsuit has been filed against him by the then 17 y.o., Virginia Guiffre, alleging sexual abuse, according to Federal court documents.
Not really, it's a civil case not a criminal case, he'd just be trying to ignore it and dismiss it as some frivolous lawsuit etc..
Of course, the optics are bad already and his claims so far seem dodgy + his apparent lack of assistance with the FBI etc.. (he's not considered a suspect for anything currently but rather a witness re: their investigations into Epstein and Maxwell).
Soldato
- Joined
- 1 May 2003
- Posts
- 11,176
I'm sure the authorities are keeping a closer eye on this civil case, to see if any criminal charges could be made, especially if it goes to trial.
The Maxwell case is later on this year, we can imagine how that's going to play out.
Soldato
Prisoner swap. They get Andrew and we get Anna ScoobyDoo or whatever he name is.
Anne Sacoolas, and it’s not going to happen, neither of them are in custody.
An alleged perpetrator swap would be better, but it still won’t happen.
Soldato
Shut-up, it might.
I've been a staunch royalist for the majority of my life for no other reason other than what they bring in from tourism to the country.
I've completely changed that opinion over the last couple of years. They're an outdated and insanely corrupt family. Prince Andrew is shielded by the royals - they're all completely complicit in trying to cover up / bury whatever he may or may not have done. They're 100% out of touch with the country. They have absolutely nothing in common with the modern person. They're dangerous, unlikable dinosaurs.... all of them. We can survive without them. We'll be a better country without them. Their turds smell the same as mine, they deserve no pedestal.
I was never a royalist. But I thought the argument for them (tourism etc) had merit. But I don't think it's worth it.
Everything they are and represent is outdated. It's some of the worst stuff in our history.
But for some reason people still seem to like them.
France's old historic monarchy tourism still Holds up without an active monarchy
Tourism would likely still happen, people mostly come to see the castles etc, not as if they expect to take a dander into buck house and have old liz pop out with some sammiches and a pot of tea asking them how their day was.
Personally i think a Monarchy is a farcically outdated concept that should have been consigned to history long ago.
Man of Honour
Because not enough people fancy destablising a system that works in order to replace it with corruption, authoritarianism and irrational prejudices, stealing loads of money from a family and then increasing costs to the state. All for either vague ideological reasons and/or as a power grab. It's a good move for a power grab as it would require a complete rewriting of all law and replacement of many systems. It would also remove the last fall-back insurance position against an ideological authoritarianism.
Apart from that, what purpose would it serve?
Any sizeable building company could make more impressive castles nowadays, along with more impressive palaces. It's not the buildings tourists come to see. They're not impressive by modern standards. It's the association with the monarchy that attracts tourists. You'd still get some tourism for historical reasons, but why throw away the tourism for an existing monarchy?
Again, my question is "what purpose would it [deposing the monarchy and stealing all the family's assets] serve?"
And yes, you would have to steal all their assets. The country couldn't afford to just depose them and allow them to keep their assets.