Jump to content

Prince Andrew


TIGHTCHOKE
 Share

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 540
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

26 minutes ago, Weihrauch17 said:

Queenie has cut him off. lost all his military titles and his HRH title.  He is facing the case as a private citizen.  Well done her.

He is still a Prince, still has the title Duke of York, and is still HRH, but will not use HRH in an official capacity.
 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't have strong feelings about the monarchy, but for all that wealth and privilege they really could behave better. Not just talking about Andrew, Charles, Harry and evening some of the older, now dead generation. The Andrew debacle and the Queen's death when it happens will lead to more of the former colonies in the direction of republicanism if not the UK itself.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, 525 said:

Sorry if this question has already been asked but, regardless of his guilt or otherwise, why should UK release one of its citizens to USA when USA refuse to release Sacoolas to UK?

It won't be a case of being 'released' because as a civil case (it is NOT a criminal case) extradition wouldn't apply).  IF he was charged with anything criminal - that might change.

Edited by JohnfromUK
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, Gordon R said:

Well off the mark. His reasoning is very sound and based on the law, not public opinion.

With respect Gordon it was not about the law, it was about possible ambiguity deep in the wording of the agreement which made it entirely a matter of his opinion. Another judge could well have found differently.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, Houseplant said:

I don't have strong feelings about the monarchy, but for all that wealth and privilege they really could behave better. Not just talking about Andrew, Charles, Harry and evening some of the older, now dead generation. The Andrew debacle and the Queen's death when it happens will lead to more of the former colonies in the direction of republicanism if not the UK itself.

Very true?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, Houseplant said:

The Andrew debacle and the Queen's death when it happens will lead to more of the former colonies in the direction of republicanism if not the UK itself.

One day there will only be five kings in the World.

Spades, Clubs, Diamonds, Hearts...........and England.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, welsh1 said:

He is still a Prince, still has the title Duke of York, and is still HRH, but will not use HRH in an official capacity.
 

the city of york has started proceedings to distance the city from that of the duke of york connection....whether or not they can get him to step down from that title is another thing ............

Link to comment
Share on other sites

58 minutes ago, ditchman said:

the city of york has started proceedings to distance the city from that of the duke of york connection....whether or not they can get him to step down from that title is another thing ............

Im sure he wont break a sweat about it ...Oh wait ... 🤭

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Trouble with Andrew | Vanity Fair | August 2011

An article from 2011, which makes interesting reading, not least because Buckingham Palace said Andrew and Epstein had been friends for the best part of 20 years, whereas Andrew now claims to have met him in 1999.

A Buckingham Palace spokesman elaborated on this analysis of the prince’s personality. “The same kind of loyalty manifested itself last December, when the duke visited Epstein at his home in New York,” he told me. “Epstein was a friend of the duke’s for the best part of 20 years. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, Gordon R said:

He didn't pass judgement on the agreement. He said it was ambiguous and so had to be put before a jury to decide what it meant. I don't see how any other judge could come to another conclusion.

 

This. 

We kicked the issue round at work over the water cooler, so to speak, and one of the guys who works with me is a true technical nerd and he went straight to ‘privity of contract’.

Andrew was not named as a party to the settlement agreement and he was neither specifically mentioned nor conferred any rights in the agreement and he didn’t even know about the contents of the agreement, thus he has no legal right to enforce an agreement he didn’t know about and wasn’t a party to. 

Also, in most courts in the free world (and so of course I’m not talking about a court operating in the Middle East, Russia or China etc) there is a maximum that justice has to be seen to be done. Attempting to stifle a viable claim (which is demonstrably not baseless) because of a chancy technicality and with the world’s media watching - well I wouldn’t want to be that Judge. 
.

Edited by Mungler
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...