suggest you read up on how andrew is funded; start with the sovereign grant fund.

i have and surprise surprise he is funded by us along with the rest of the royal household leeches. Only note he doesn’t have to do anything in return

That’s a good idea.

You do realise that everyone that reads here doesn’t sign up to your persistent, in the right, analysis of everything – on topics you probably know little about other than what you’ve read.

You don’t know anything more than anyone that’s commenting on this as far as I’m aware, other than what you’re been fed – and there’s nothing wrong with that – but how about giving it a rest to talk to others that don’t agree with your view, like you know something better?

You don’t, I guess. You’ve jumped on a topic I know something about in the past and not only embarrassed yourself, but caused me quite a bit of upset at the time by the way you did it – because I was trying to help someone (and explain the larger welfare message during start of covid) on a hugely devisive topic – but you just jumped in trying to be your usual “stick it to the man” and instead killed a discussion where I was trying to set the record straight and gave me months of feeling shit by the personal way you did it.

You probably don’t even remember.

But please, give it a rest and let other people have their say. Don’t shut everything and everyone down that doesn’t align with your view.

Say what ever you want. I’m not stopping you. I have no idea who you are, and don’t remember whatever engagement you are on about sorry. Really sorry it hit you hard, whatever it was.

I want to see Andrew in court. That won’t happen. Ever. But it looks like the case will actually finally get to court.

My jokey “that’s a good idea” comment about a trial was hardly “analysis”, just a joke that also in a few words reflects my opinion… namely that this should play out in court, not in the media. Andrew’s TV defence was a low point in this mess. There’s my uninformed opinion. If you’re not interested in it, scroll on by.

Against the grain, and he might be evil personified for all I know, but you know – evidence, an actual trial, stuff like that?

The one he has been trying to avoid? Never a good sign really if you approach to innocent until found guilty is to do your best to dodge the ability to be “found”.
Plus leaving aside her specific allegations that he thought it was fine to hang out with a convicted sex offender isnt really the best look and certainly not what you would be wanting for a senior official.

Against the grain, and he might be evil personified for all I know, but you know – evidence, an actual trial, stuff like that?

If there were a lack of evidence then Virginia Guiffre wouldn’t be prosecuting Andrew Windsor with a civil suit. Nothing says “I’m innocent, your honour” like avoiding the acceptance of a legal notice from the High Court, trying to get the case dismissed on technicalities and being photographed at the age of 41 with your arm around a seventeen year old girl in Ghislaine Maxwell’s home.

The last few months of this case has made me realise just how deferential we are to an arcane hereditary aristocracy. If the Queen were to be our final monarch, I wouldn’t lament the loss of a bunch of largely dim freeloaders, who’ve not only squandered a first class education, but who are reliant upon handouts.

This is fruitless, but why can so many people believe that Epstein’s suicide is a cover up, but an already greasy-looking Royal being set up as the fall guy is just unfathomable?

chrismac

suggest you read up on how andrew is funded; start with the sovereign grant fund.

i have and surprise surprise he is funded by us along with the rest of the royal household leeches. Only note he doesn’t have to do anything in return

Why not tell us how much he receives from the sovereign grant fund as you have read it?
I can find no information about any funding he may receive from the sovereign grant fund; he receives/used to receive £250k pa from his mother to fund his ‘office’ while undertaking royal duties.
No other funding is declared.
The 4 Fs come to mind – first find the f’in facts; share the facts then we can have a meaningful discussion.

the life of jetting around the world as a playboy/ want to be power broker are gone. He’ll be a social pariah

You’re missing something here IMHO.

We live in a society that voted in Boris for PM. Over the pond they had Trump as president. Our parliament contains people like Rees-Mogg. In a past life we had Farage as a bloody MEP for god’s sake.

The depressing fact is, no-one really cares any more. Andrew is an oily shitbag, we all knew about “Randy Andy” pre-Ferguson, pre-Yewtree. But oil is a lubricant. No-one can go on national TV with the utterly ludicrous brass-neck defence of “I have a medical condition which means I can’t sweat” unless they know unequivocally that they’re untouchable.

Some (alleged) victim somewhere will probably get compensation to go away quietly. But the worst that’s likely to happen to our royal member is that he’ll be shuttled off to Australia or Canada or somewhere until everyone forgets and it all goes away.

he’ll be shuttled off to Australia or Canada or somewhere

I’m guessing that Andrew Windsor will need to go through the same immigration formalities as the rest of us now. I can’t see Australia or Canada letting him in on more than a tourist visa if that.

I very much doubt he will ever be able to leave the UK again.  who would give him a visa?  all his friends in high places will be running away fast.

I doubt he will be seeing a jail cell but he will no longer be jetsetting around

There seems to be a lot of talk on Royal funding and how it’s our money on this thread.

Is this correct? As I understand it the money comes from land and property which used to belong to the Royals (The Crown Estate). They historically made a deal with parliament to relinquish ownership in return for not having to pay for certain things they had previously been liable for (e.g. the military).

Now it turns out it was a great deal with UK military spending now 45 billion and the whole crown estate only worth about 14 billion but does that mean you and I are funding the Royals?

If they didn’t exist would we all be better off financially and all be able to spend a little extra on our heating. I think not.

I am NOT defending the actions a naïve foolish man or the lies which have been told but I don’t mind living in a monarchy and happy we have Royals to open hospitals rather than whoever is the latest Kardashian. If people aren’t you really have 2 choices. Leave and emigrate to another country or campaign and vote for a party who commit to abolish the monarchy.

Copied from the Annual Report and Accounts:

The Queen’s official expenditure is met from public funds in exchange for the surrender by The Queen of the revenue from the Crown Estate. The Core Sovereign Grant is calculated based on 15% of the income account net surplus of the Crown Estate for the financial year two years previous. The Crown Estate surplus for the financial year 2018-19 amounted to £343.5 million, thereby producing a Core Sovereign Grant of £51.5 million for 2020-21.

Here

Edit: I can’t find anything specific about Andrew either.

db – that is correct as far as it goes but its not long ago the monarchy was virtually bankrupt – they got some deal on inheritance tax that allowed them to amass money and also of course the source of all their property is theft.   Theft from the british people – if you go back far enough same as most of the aristocracy

They do not particularly annoy me but given a free choice they should be IMO more like the dutch or swedish royal families ie smaller, less snobbish and work for a living

The role in politics needs to be removed as well

I very much doubt he will ever be able to leave the UK again. who would give him a visa? all his friends in high places will be running away fast.

I doubt he will be seeing a jail cell but he will no longer be jetsetting around

Agreed – i reckon he’ll be living out his days being shuttled between Windsor, Sandringham and Balmoral.
I can think of worse ways to spend your retirement.

I very much doubt he will ever be able to leave the UK again.  who would give him a visa?

Is there any travel restriction for people who’ve lost (presuming he does) civil cases?

I can think of worse ways to spend your retirement.

Indeed, look up Royal Lodge where he lives, must be hell for him.

Is there any travel restriction for people who’ve lost (presuming he does) civil cases?

Most countries have a catchall provision – I know we do.  something to do with “against the public good” its been used to prevent islamic preachers entering for example despite them having no convictions.

does the US not require you to be “of good character” ?

Mods, can we change the thread title to “Andrew Windsor, what a cowardly little ****” please 🙂

and also of course the source of all their property is theft. Theft from the british people – if you go back far enough same as most of the aristocracy

For the English we can blame the beaker people, Romans, angles/Saxons/jutes, Vikings, Norman’s…

Don’t know the Nuance’s of Scots and Welsh land theft, probably just blame the English

My history is pretty vague but IIRC after the Norman conquest was when the nobility was created and they were given large tracts of land for their loyalty – which is why a lot of the aristiocracy have weird names.

Just because te theft was a long time ago does not mean its not theft and I don’t think the others you name actually held large tracts of land they were given for favouring the king – and tose holding are not there today

Much of our aristocracy owe their fortunes to their ancestor being pals of the king

Smart and cynical move?
No longer HRH, no longer keeper of the Horse Guards gonads or whatever…just Joe Ordinary done down and fighting the courts all on his own…”hasn’t he suffered enough?”

Much of our aristocracy owe their fortunes to their ancestor being pals of the king

Most owe their fortune because they lent money to the crown, you mean. I think most of them weren’t exactly what you’d call mates. (given how often they seem to be chopping each other’s body parts off)

Just because te theft was a long time ago does not mean its not theft

Actually most of it not that long ago either (think enclosure acts of 18thC) all, of course, made nice and legal by several Acts.

Most owe their fortune because they lent money to the crown, you mean. I think most of them weren’t exactly what you’d call mates. (given how often they seem to be chopping each other’s body parts off)

The original way to ingratiate yourself was to be able to supply fighting men for the King’s wars. Which reminds me of this tale my dad used to tell (or something along these lines):

A scruffily dressed ‘gentleman of the road’ was sleeping in a field one day and the landowner came by. Noticing him sleeping there the landowner began shouting at the man to get off his land. The scruffy man asked:

‘how did this come to be your land then?’
‘well it belonged to my father, and his father before that, and his father before that’
‘and how did it come to be their land?’
‘well their forefathers received it from the king as a reward for their skill and courage in battle’
‘OK I’ll fight you for it then’

Many of us will admit to having been naive and foolish on occasions but that’s far removed from being an abuser of children. If we need someone to open hospitals then a role model/achiever would be infinitely preferable to someone who happened to have inherited a title.
NB how does one get into Cambridge with a C and 2 Ds?

Once again, I agree with TJ here:

Theft from the british people – if you go back far enough same as most of the aristocracy

They do not particularly annoy me but given a free choice they should be IMO more like the dutch or swedish royal families ie smaller, less snobbish and work for a living

Soo, how’s he going to pay for this big legal bill, never mind damages ?

Soo, how’s he going to pay for this big legal bill, never mind damages ?

I think it is naive to believe that any of the queens direct descendants doesn’t have access to 10 of millions in investments,

Why not tell us how much he receives from the sovereign grant fund as you have read it?

He gets £250k plus all his travel costs and expenses are covered. It doesn’t detail how much that costs us because they aren’t broken down that much for the public version of the accounts but I don’t suppose it’s like you or I claiming expenses from work

Soo, how’s he going to pay for this big legal bill, never mind damages ?

Thats a dilemma facing anyone pursuing another through the legal system. If I win can the otherside actually afford to pay up? And, similarly for a legal firm representing you – are we likely to get paid…

Many of us will admit to having been naive and foolish on occasions but that’s far removed from being an abuser of children.

A middle-aged bloke boinking a 17-year old is far removed from being an abuser of children.

He’s surely a sleaze and I’m not excusing anything he may have done, but let’s not go all Daily Mail.

Grooming and moving around kids as young as 14 and pimping them out is abuse in my book. If it wasn’t abuse, she wouldn’t have a case.

A middle-aged bloke boinking a 17-year old is far removed from being an abuser of children.

i work in Children’s Services, with what we know about this case it is agreed unanimously that this is very much abuse of a child.

A middle-aged bloke in position of considerable power, who was best mates with a sex trafficker, bonking a 17-year old victim of sex trafficking in the home of a paedophileis far removed from being an abuser of children.

FIFY

To be clear, you can be legally considered an abuser of children, even if that child is older than the age of consent, if the abuser is in a position of authority (such as teacher / child)

I was reading this opinion piece in the Guardian and was struck by the photo

The Andrew formerly known as Prince marching along yet completely out of step with everyone else. Metaphor overload.

My point is, deliberately emotive language and hyperbole doesn’t help clarify things but rather the opposite. It’s unhelpful.

You may have different legal definitions that I can’t be bothered to look up, but biologically a child is someone who is prepubescent. Similarly a paedophile is one attracted to prepubescent children. For all his alleged transgressions, the Fresh Prince of Bell End wasn’t shagging a 9-year old.

To be clear, you can be legally considered an abuser of children, even if that child is older than the age of consent, if the abuser is in a position of authority (such as teacher / child)

Yes, it effectively shifts the age of consent to 18. The term is “abuse of trust” and it’s fairly tightly defined (really, it’s too tightly defined). Teacher is on that list but I don’t think prince is.

The charge, is it not, is one of trafficking. He (/someone) had a young woman moved from a state where the age of consent was 18 to a neighbouring one where it was 16. My understanding is that this is directly illegal under US law.

Here’s a question, what happens to Beatrice and Eugenie’s titles now?
I assume they retain their Princessly status and stay part of the royal household, would any crown assets previously held by Andrew, potentially be gifted to them, or indeed any other royals?

And for that matter what about Fergie?
As I understood it she still retained her title as ‘Duchess of York’ after the Divorce, what about now, does she still keep her title? (she might actually want shot of it TBH)…

I do wonder if part of the reason for removing his titles and official status as a member of the Royal household to insulate Crown assets from the US civil case?
As of today He’s just the black-sheep of a wealthy British family, living in his Nan’s old cottage, with whatever is in his current account (presumably a couple of quid) and no job or other source of income to his name…

and no job or other source of income to his name…

Navy pension, JSA….

It’s come at a bad time for him, Charles is wanting the monarchy streamlined for the future and rumours were that Andrew was trying to get his daughters to take up some of the roles that Harry was doing to get them into the inner circle, which was a few years of charming with weddings, births, etc, all knackered by this.

I doubt Andrew will struggle with the bill, he has resources and the Queen will always help out, she has access to the Privy Purse and her own funds squirrelled away, so easy to fund without any issues.

It’s going to be a long year for him, and the actual trial still isn’t set in stone, and causing this much hassle already!

You may have different legal definitions that I can’t be bothered to look up, but biologically a child is someone who is prepubescent

Legally, a child is someone under 18. So the sentence you dismissed as “emotive” may literally be true.

Legally, a child is someone under 18.

Not in the UK – age of consent is 16.