Interesting points made by Enoch, about the fuss being made. I think royal scandals excite people for various reasons, e.g., class resentment, desire for revenge, sympathy with Charles, sexual titillation, and so on. I noticed that the question time audience applauded when the news was announced. I guess an element of "a la lanterne", also? (Hang them).
An elderly lady I spoke to today seemed to regard it as an American plot to undermine the British monarchy ...
Not that I agree with that, of course.
I can't imagine there being a sense of, 'Well the musical Hamilton didn't go far enough, we need to go further to get our revenge on George III ...'
There does seem to be a fair bit of schaudenfraude and 'sticking it to the man' going on in some of the reportage. That's only to be expected given his position. Whatever our views on that one it's certainly fair to say that the former Duke of York seemed to act as though his status entitled him to 'put it about' as they say.
Mr Mountbatten Windsor still insists on his innocence, of course.
Perhaps we need to be aware of any legal implications there might still be when we discuss this.
However we cut it, I think we need to see this as part of a wider move in politics, Hollywood and across 'celebrity culture' as a whole to call out predatory behaviour by privileged individuals who have abused their position. It's not just about the former Duke of York.
Interesting points made by Enoch, about the fuss being made.
Well, they are public figures, foisted on the public or not, so complaints about the prominence of the news story is all a bit old man shouts at cloud.
No. I'm not saying YOU would be crazy or confused or a liar. I'm saying the guys you talked to might've been crazy or confused or liars, and most likely just confused.
And yes, it is, an interesting recollection, since even if their memories are inaccurate, it gives you a glimpse into the cultural milieu they were living in.
That is certainly not beyond the realm of possibility. The scions of Toronto's elites trying to score points by telling fibs? Certainly not unimaginable.
Whatever he might or might not have got up to, both Epstein and Mrs Guiffre are now incapable of answering any questions or giving evidence in any court. Besides, neither were people whom anyone in their right mind would regard either as persons of good repute or credible.
I haven't read up on her life - why do you think this about Virginia Giuffre?
One can't libel the dead, as they say. But as far as I'm concerned she was a reliable and credible source.
I think it's interesting, @AFeminineForce. Looking back at the 1977 newspaper accounts of his time in Canada, the British tabloids were full of stories about his good looks and his attractiveness to women. He was 16 when he went and he celebrated his 17th birthday there. Reading it through 2025 eyes, I felt squicky about the emphasis on his love life, given that he was still a schoolboy. Apparently some teenage girls were wearing Randy Andy t-shirts.
An elderly lady I spoke to today seemed to regard it as an American plot to undermine the British monarchy ...
Ha! I think Americans for the most part like that the UK has a monarchy. We can follow along, enjoy the big weddings and the intrigues, without having to foot the bill or be subjects ourselves.
Mr Mountbatten Windsor still insists on his innocence, of course.
Perhaps we need to be aware of any legal implications there might still be when we discuss this.
Indeed. He's disgraced, not convicted of anything.
However we cut it, I think we need to see this as part of a wider move in politics, Hollywood and across 'celebrity culture' as a whole to call out predatory behaviour by privileged individuals who have abused their position. It's not just about the former Duke of York.
Agree. Though it remains to be seen if this is any kind of deterrent. I'm dubious.
An elderly lady I spoke to today seemed to regard it as an American plot to undermine the British monarchy ...
Not that I agree with that, of course.
I can't imagine there being a sense of, 'Well the musical Hamilton didn't go far enough, we need to go further to get our revenge on George III ...'
There does seem to be a fair bit of schaudenfraude and 'sticking it to the man' going on in some of the reportage. That's only to be expected given his position. Whatever our views on that one it's certainly fair to say that the former Duke of York seemed to act as though his status entitled him to 'put it about' as they say.
Mr Mountbatten Windsor still insists on his innocence, of course.
Perhaps we need to be aware of any legal implications there might still be when we discuss this.
However we cut it, I think we need to see this as part of a wider move in politics, Hollywood and across 'celebrity culture' as a whole to call out predatory behaviour by privileged individuals who have abused their position. It's not just about the former Duke of York.
The thing which is being missed in the popular press today (in England) is that the information about Epstein and Andrew has been known for more than a decade.
For a lot longer than that he has been well-known as a total idiot.
The man-baby was apparently the favoured child of the last Queen and, so the story goes, the press didn't give him the drubbing it might have done. Charles appears to have little love lost on his brother and has decided that deporting him to the outer reaches of North Norfolk never to be heard of again is the best option.
It might not actually be North Norfolk but I like the image in my head of Andrew being forced to listen to Alan Partridge on local radio as there's nothing else on.
I'm bemused by the idea that making Andrew pay for his own accommodation and not giving him a free house to live in would constitute treating him like he isn't human. I'm also bemused by the expectation that you have to be willing to personally live with someone who has been convicted of a terrible crime in order to be in favour of treating criminals humanely.
If my sister came out of prison after being convicted of doing a terrible crime, of course I wouldn't want her to live with me. It's not because I would want her to suffer or be homeless, but because I don't want to live with someone who has done a terrible thing. I'm not claiming to be perfect, but I have also never done anything that could be considered a terrible crime and I wouldn't do so. If my sister did something illegal but not morally repugnant to me then that would be different - likewise if she did something morally repugnant but not criminal I wouldn't take her in even if she had nowhere else to go, because why would I live with a morally repugnant person? I think it's extremely reasonable to want to protect something as precious as your boundaries within your own home.
I'm estranged from my parents so it's reasonably familiar for me, although not allowing someone to live with you is also not exactly the same thing as estrangement. I think, picking up on the mention of alcoholic relatives, that it's similar to having strict boundaries with a loved one who is in active addiction - sometimes not living with each other is part of enforcing those boundaries and is actually necessary for preserving the relationship.
An elderly lady I spoke to today seemed to regard it as an American plot to undermine the British monarchy ...
Not that I agree with that, of course.
I can't imagine there being a sense of, 'Well the musical Hamilton didn't go far enough, we need to go further to get our revenge on George III ..
I wonder if she thinks that Andrew's behaviour was wrong, but he was cajoled into it by Americans, OR that he did nothing wrong, and the Americans are just trying to frame him.
Naive question by a Canadian: Does the monarch have the power to remove the title "Prince" from an individual who received it by virtual of being the son of a monarch?
Why do people keep referring to Epstein as Epsteen? That's no more how his name should be pronounced than anyone talks about Eensteen's Theory of Relativity or the films of Serjee Eesensteen.
For the same reason I insist on a German pronunciation of Blenheim, and refuse to adopt the BBC's awful 'Blennum'.
Naive question by a Canadian: Does the monarch have the power to remove the title "Prince" from an individual who received it by virtual of being the son of a monarch?
Yes, though the technical process is that he asks David Lammy,
Lord Chancellor, to remove the royal warrants.
The titles are basically the king’s gift - though a beaucracy has grown up round that.
Why do people keep referring to Epstein as Epsteen? That's no more how his name should be pronounced than anyone talks about Eensteen's Theory of Relativity or the films of Serjee Eesensteen.
Because, as @Ruth noted above, it is how he pronounced his name.
The Yiddish pronunciation of stein, unlike the German pronunciation, is closer to stain or steen. As a result, people in the US with “Stein” as their name or in their name and who come from families that spoke Yiddish often pronounce it steen rather than stine.
An elderly lady I spoke to today seemed to regard it as an American plot to undermine the British monarchy ...
Not that I agree with that, of course.
I can't imagine there being a sense of, 'Well the musical Hamilton didn't go far enough, we need to go further to get our revenge on George III ..
I wonder if she thinks that Andrew's behaviour was wrong, but he was cajoled into it by Americans, OR that he did nothing wrong, and the Americans are just trying to frame him.
I don't think she'll have thought it through. I imagine she wouldn't think that Andrew was 'cajoled' by Americans nor that he was 'framed' but there's probably something deep-seatedly visceral there that any 'attack' on the British Monarchy must come from elsewhere.
She did go on to compare his disgrace with that of The Edward Formerly Called VIII, whom she regarded as a play-boy, ne'er do well and someone who wouldn't have served his country well during WW2 - unlike his brother George VI whom she had a lot of time for.
And no, she didn't blame the American Wallis Simpson either.
But no, I don't think she had a cohesive and thought-through opinion on the matter. She's ambivalent about some aspects of the monarchy and positive about others. Which goes for a lot of His Britannic Majesty's loyal subjects.
An elderly lady I spoke to today seemed to regard it as an American plot to undermine the British monarchy ...
Not that I agree with that, of course.
I can't imagine there being a sense of, 'Well the musical Hamilton didn't go far enough, we need to go further to get our revenge on George III ..
I wonder if she thinks that Andrew's behaviour was wrong, but he was cajoled into it by Americans, OR that he did nothing wrong, and the Americans are just trying to frame him.
I don't think she'll have thought it through. I imagine she wouldn't think that Andrew was 'cajoled' by Americans nor that he was 'framed' but there's probably something deep-seatedly visceral there that any 'attack' on the British Monarchy must come from elsewhere.
She did go on to compare his disgrace with that of The Edward Formerly Called VIII, whom she regarded as a play-boy, ne'er do well and someone who wouldn't have served his country well during WW2 - unlike his brother George VI whom she had a lot of time for.
And no, she didn't blame the American Wallis Simpson either.
But no, I don't think she had a cohesive and thought-through opinion on the matter. She's ambivalent about some aspects of the monarchy and positive about others. Which goes for a lot of His Britannic Majesty's loyal subjects.
She believes they offer good value for money.
Thanks. Reminds me of a conversation I once had with an anti-American Canadian woman, only a few minutes after meeting her.
HER: Can you believe those Americans? They glorify an awful family like the Kennedys.
ME: What about the royal family over in the UK?
HER: Oh, but the Queen does such a great job of holding that family together.
It's a tangent but yes, this elderly lady is quite anti-American and thinks Canada is a lot better. She has visited both. Many years ago.
She thinks Andrew is a 'scapegoat' to some extent but for what she did not say.
By and large, I think it's fair to say that there was a fair bit of sympathy for Andrew here in the UK initially and that Americans and others were 'onto' the Epstein scandal before public awareness of it caught up over here.
As the polls quoted in a post above indicate and as my general impression is now, very few people have any sympathy for him any more.
An observation: Narcissists are generally characterized by an inflated sense of self-importance and a lack of empathy, which significantly impacts their emotional responses, including guilt.
By and large, I think it's fair to say that there was a fair bit of sympathy for Andrew here in the UK initially and that Americans and others were 'onto' the Epstein scandal before public awareness of it caught up over here.
I was living in Korea when I first heard about the Epstein scandal, and I think the first detail I knew about it, beyond that it involved abuse allegations against someone named Epstein, was that Andrew was alleged to be involved.
Not sure when this was re: the time-line of details coming out and new events emerging. I believe it was before Epstein's death, though.
And I will admit that my initial reaction when hearing that Prince Andrew could be involved was that the story might've been concocted by David Icke.
likewise if she did something morally repugnant but not criminal I wouldn't take her in even if she had nowhere else to go, because why would I live with a morally repugnant person?
I think this is a significant source of difference between us. I don’t think doing something morally repugnant makes someone a morally repugnant person.
It’s the same as when I have to tell my kids off. I always make sure to say they did a naughty thing, rather than that they are naughty children. Because they’re not naughty children and I don’t want them to think that they are - I want them to think and act like they’re good children.
Everyone makes mistakes or has lapses of judgement (or conscience). If we were all judged by our worst deeds then how many of us could be called good?
Thank you to various folks for British perspectives - it gives me an idea of how this feels that the reporting does not.
@Doublethink, you discuss the difficulty of prosecuting Andrew in the UK - would British courts even be looking at things he might or might not have done overseas? Andrew settled a civil suit brought by Virginia Guiffre in the US, paying an undisclosed sum without admitting guilt. And Ghislaine Maxwell was convicted in a US court, as she broke US law.
For certain kinds of crimes, you can be prosecuted in the UK for things you did outside of the country or at least subjected to restrictions. Gary Glitter is probably the most famous case - he was subject to being put on the sex offenders register for life (which means the police know exactly where he is) and banned from foreign travel as a result of convictions abroad for serious sexual offences against children. (Though again Andrew has not been convicted, or even prosecuted, for any such offence in any jurisdiction.)
This is a different question to whether we would extradite someone to the US - we do have an extradition agreement to the US (though the US doesn’t necessarily return the courtesy) but people have successfully fought extradition on the grounds they won’t get a fair trial or welfare grounds.
As regards Andrew - he is a scumbag but also a human being. Psychological research suggests that status loss (from any given original status) can have severe psychological effects - and there is an extent to which Andrew probably does require protection from the risk of being hounded to the point of suicide, It is also the case that his status as brother of the king will leave him at risk of terrorist assassination regardless of whether he has a title or not. So for the king to move him to a private estate, away from the press and with inherent security, does make sense in terms of basic duty of care.
It is not viable, even were there the political and royal will to do so, to just stick him in a flat on a council estate because sooner or later he would be murdered. One of the inherent problems of monarchy - is that people close enough to the monarch are never realistically able to have a truely private life and they are never safe from political violence. Andrew can’t just go get a normal job to support himself financially, everything would have to be factored around security and the only people likely to want that hassle would have been the people who wanted the association because of his royal status and connections.
The cynical part of me also thinks that by paying for Andrew's accommodation and security himself, Charles retains control over his little brother and can attempt to prevent him doing even more damage to the Firm than he's already done.
Why do people keep referring to Epstein as Epsteen? That's no more how his name should be pronounced than anyone talks about Eensteen's Theory of Relativity or the films of Serjee Eesensteen.
For the same reason I insist on a German pronunciation of Blenheim, and refuse to adopt the BBC's awful 'Blennum'.
Why do people keep referring to Epstein as Epsteen? That's no more how his name should be pronounced than anyone talks about Eensteen's Theory of Relativity or the films of Serjee Eesensteen.
For the same reason I insist on a German pronunciation of Blenheim, and refuse to adopt the BBC's awful 'Blennum'.
Why do people keep referring to Epstein as Epsteen? That's no more how his name should be pronounced than anyone talks about Eensteen's Theory of Relativity or the films of Serjee Eesensteen.
For the same reason I insist on a German pronunciation of Blenheim, and refuse to adopt the BBC's awful 'Blennum'.
When were you last in Paree?
Nice one!
Speaking as one, the locals all call it "Blennum" as well.
Why do people keep referring to Epstein as Epsteen? That's no more how his name should be pronounced than anyone talks about Eensteen's Theory of Relativity or the films of Serjee Eesensteen.
For the same reason I insist on a German pronunciation of Blenheim, and refuse to adopt the BBC's awful 'Blennum'.
Why do people keep referring to Epstein as Epsteen? That's no more how his name should be pronounced than anyone talks about Eensteen's Theory of Relativity or the films of Serjee Eesensteen.
For the same reason I insist on a German pronunciation of Blenheim, and refuse to adopt the BBC's awful 'Blennum'.
When were you last in Paree?
Nice one!
Speaking as one, the locals all call it "Blennum" as well.
I assumed @Lockupchap was using sarcasm to point out that anglicizing the pronunciation of names with foreign derivations is nothing new, and that, with regard to the German ei, we might be seeing some selective pedantry.
likewise if she did something morally repugnant but not criminal I wouldn't take her in even if she had nowhere else to go, because why would I live with a morally repugnant person?
I think this is a significant source of difference between us. I don’t think doing something morally repugnant makes someone a morally repugnant person.
It’s the same as when I have to tell my kids off. I always make sure to say they did a naughty thing, rather than that they are naughty children. Because they’re not naughty children and I don’t want them to think that they are - I want them to think and act like they’re good children.
Everyone makes mistakes or has lapses of judgement (or conscience). If we were all judged by our worst deeds then how many of us could be called good?
But deliberately doing morally repugnant things isn't a mistake. A mistake is something you don't do deliberately. Deliberately seeking out people to sexually exploit (for example) isn't something that happens by accident and is the kind of thing that happens because of the nature of who somebody is as a person. I don't think that anything that your children could do would be in that sort of realm, it's a very different kind of bad behaviour. Also, both Andrew and my sister are grown adults and not children - we hold adults and children to different standards for good reason, because some naughtiness is developmentally normal for children. Deliberately seeking to sexually exploit others over *decades* is a completely different kind of behaviour and I don't think it's unreasonable to not want somebody who does that living under my roof regardless of any blood relationship. Nothing I have ever done or ever will do is anything like the sexual exploitation of others.
It should of course be re-iterated that Andrew has not been convicted of anything, and that my sister is just an example here and hasn't done anything of this kind and has never been in trouble with the law. Indeed, I think that in judging both me and my sister by our worst deeds I think we would both pretty easily be called good people. I think most people would. I can't think of anything that either of us have done that would make us be considered to be bad people. Neither of us have ever been in trouble with the law, both give regularly to charity, both volunteer, both are great animal lovers - I don't think either of us have ever had the time or inclination to do anything terrible to others! Neither of us have had the kind of job where we have had access to corporate bank accounts or anything like that.
Also, I can't speak for my sister but when I did that "psychopath test" my result was that I had higher than average levels of empathy. Not that I would ever be someone who self-identifies as an empath (bleurgh) or anything like that, but some of us really and truly just don't ever want to do morally questionable things even if others wouldn't find out. I have zero interest in being successful at the expense of others.
I've had a look in the online British Newspaper Archive for 1977, and all the reports about Prince Andrew in Canada say that he was at Lakefield. Apparently a river island near Lakefield was named Prince Andrew Island in his honour.
Anyone know if it's been renamed?
According to the Daily Record "more than 50 teenage girls waited up to 4 hours to get a glimpse of him when he flew into Canada."
The Daily Mirror reported teenage girls making a 200 mile round trip from Toronto in the hope of spotting him.
That was 1977. I lived in Lakefield for a time (not at that time), Andrew was a carouser. Liked to frequent the bar at the New Commercial Hotel when the drinking age in Ontario was (and is) 19.
The island hasn't been renamed; it's an unremarkable and small little outcropping in Katchewanooka Lake.
As regards Andrew - he is a scumbag but also a human being. Psychological research suggests that status loss (from any given original status) can have severe psychological effects - and there is an extent to which Andrew probably does require protection from the risk of being hounded to the point of suicide[/i].
I dunno. Bill Cosby's a pretty famous guy who suffered some pretty severe status loss.
It is also the case that his status as brother of the king will leave him at risk of terrorist assassination regardless of whether he has a title or not. So for the king to move him to a private estate, away from the press and with inherent security, does make sense in terms of basic duty of care.
I dunno. Bill Cosby was a pretty famous guy, who suffered a pretty severe loss of status, but when he got out of jail, I don't think there was any obligation of the state to prevent him from being hounded for the specific purpose of protecting his mental health. If there is a threat to his physical safety from the vigilante mobs, that's probably something he can consult the local police about.
(Though I suppose Cosby would also have legitimate access to the private resources of generous relatives, and in Andrew's case those relatives are for all practical purposes financially synonymous with the state.)
Will this subject him to criminal charges either in the UK or the US?
I can't offhand give you chapter and verse, but AIUI there are moves by the UK anti-monarchy group Republic to bring a private prosecution against him here.
There does seem to be a fair bit of schaudenfraude and 'sticking it to the man' going on in some of the reportage. That's only to be expected given his position. Whatever our views on that one it's certainly fair to say that the former Duke of York seemed to act as though his status entitled him to 'put it about' as they say.
Mr Mountbatten Windsor still insists on his innocence, of course.
The former Duke of York
He had ten million quid
He paid it to someone he never met
For something he never did
I think this is a significant source of difference between us. I don’t think doing something morally repugnant makes someone a morally repugnant person.
It’s the same as when I have to tell my kids off. I always make sure to say they did a naughty thing, rather than that they are naughty children. Because they’re not naughty children and I don’t want them to think that they are - I want them to think and act like they’re good children.
Everyone makes mistakes or has lapses of judgement (or conscience). If we were all judged by our worst deeds then how many of us could be called good?
I mean sure, he did some bad things, but what about those Autobahns?
Regardless of whatever our intentions or internal motivations might be, we're all still responsible for (and judged according to) our actions, and the kind of cheap grace @Marvin the Martian describes is one of the big factors enabling elite impunity. One of the most appalling thing about Jeffrey Epstein's* infamous "birthday book" is the way it indicates that a lot of Epstein's wealthy friends knew that he was sex trafficking minors and their reaction isn't one of horror or judgment but something along the lines of "there goes Jeffrey again, with his amusing sex trafficking". They essentially put @Marvin the Martian's principle into action, regarding Epstein not as a sex trafficker but rather as a good person who sometimes sexually trafficked underage girls. None of them thought that Epstein "doing something morally repugnant [ made him ] a morally repugnant person" and, more importantly, none of them seem to have done anything like reporting this to the authorities.
* I'm deliberately using Epstein as an example to respect the Ship's legal liability issues. Epstein is both a convicted sex trafficker/money launderer and dead.
One of the most appalling thing about Jeffrey Epstein's* infamous "birthday book" is the way it indicates that a lot of Epstein's wealthy friends knew that he was sex trafficking minors and their reaction isn't one of horror or judgment but something along the lines of "there goes Jeffrey again, with his amusing sex trafficking".
As an aside, contrary to some earlier assertions; it's noticeable that the evidence that has surfaced since in terms of photos and communications have tended to support Giuffre's recollections rather than otherwise.
Why do people keep referring to Epstein as Epsteen? That's no more how his name should be pronounced than anyone talks about Eensteen's Theory of Relativity or the films of Serjee Eesensteen.
For the same reason I insist on a German pronunciation of Blenheim, and refuse to adopt the BBC's awful 'Blennum'.
When were you last in Paree?
Nice one!
Speaking as one, the locals all call it "Blennum" as well.
Of course they do.
It can't be the only example of a name imported to the UK from elsewhere and Anglicised in its pronunciation. There are also examples of place-names of British origin in the US which are pronounced differently over there to how the 'original' might be pronounced here.
I'm not saying that's 'wrong' either, it's how these things work.
Will this subject him to criminal charges either in the UK or the US?
There are moves from some US Democrats to invite the former Duke of York to give an account of his relationship with Epstein over on your side of the Atlantic.
Whether that would lead to criminal proceedings in the US would depend on what the nature of his 'evidence' would be.
Given the debacle of the famous BBC Newsnight interview I'm pretty sure he wouldn't be in a hurry to agree to that.
Criminal proceedings over here would depend, I suspect, on whether new revelations come to light. For the time being it seems that the loss of his titles is deemed sufficient 'punishment' as it were but it's always possible that a law suit could be pressed. At the moment I doubt that would happen but you never know. I didn't expect things to go this far.
@Bishops Finger I doubt the military want him to keep his honorary titles, and I can't say I blame them. I don't think this is all coming from "on high" but probably mostly from people in organisations that would prefer their organisation to not be tainted by the association. Which feels pretty understandable.
I have a technical question - that perhaps an American can answer - the allegations have always been (as far as I know) that Andrew had sex with Epstein & Maxwell’s victim when she was 17. But when people talk about it he do so implying she was under the age of consent - but as far as I can tell the age of consent in New York is 17 ? Do the legal aspects of the case boil down solely to whether he knew she was trafficked or not ?
I dunno. Bill Cosby was a pretty famous guy, who suffered a pretty severe loss of status, but when he got out of jail, I don't think there was any obligation of the state to prevent him from being hounded for the specific purpose of protecting his mental health.
Harassment is a crime, whether or not the person being harassed is a convicted criminal.
As a point of law, it has been established that the police don't actually have an obligation to prevent crime.
Comments
Not that I agree with that, of course.
I can't imagine there being a sense of, 'Well the musical Hamilton didn't go far enough, we need to go further to get our revenge on George III ...'
There does seem to be a fair bit of schaudenfraude and 'sticking it to the man' going on in some of the reportage. That's only to be expected given his position. Whatever our views on that one it's certainly fair to say that the former Duke of York seemed to act as though his status entitled him to 'put it about' as they say.
Mr Mountbatten Windsor still insists on his innocence, of course.
Perhaps we need to be aware of any legal implications there might still be when we discuss this.
However we cut it, I think we need to see this as part of a wider move in politics, Hollywood and across 'celebrity culture' as a whole to call out predatory behaviour by privileged individuals who have abused their position. It's not just about the former Duke of York.
Well, they are public figures, foisted on the public or not, so complaints about the prominence of the news story is all a bit old man shouts at cloud.
That is certainly not beyond the realm of possibility. The scions of Toronto's elites trying to score points by telling fibs? Certainly not unimaginable.
AFF
One can't libel the dead, as they say. But as far as I'm concerned she was a reliable and credible source.
Please note that we will be keeping a close eye on this thread for anything potentially libellous.
Also any discussion of what happened to Virginia Giuffre is almost certainly Epiphanies material.
Hostly beret off
la vie en rouge, Purgatory host
Ha! I think Americans for the most part like that the UK has a monarchy. We can follow along, enjoy the big weddings and the intrigues, without having to foot the bill or be subjects ourselves.
Indeed. He's disgraced, not convicted of anything.
Agree. Though it remains to be seen if this is any kind of deterrent. I'm dubious.
The thing which is being missed in the popular press today (in England) is that the information about Epstein and Andrew has been known for more than a decade.
For a lot longer than that he has been well-known as a total idiot.
The man-baby was apparently the favoured child of the last Queen and, so the story goes, the press didn't give him the drubbing it might have done. Charles appears to have little love lost on his brother and has decided that deporting him to the outer reaches of North Norfolk never to be heard of again is the best option.
It might not actually be North Norfolk but I like the image in my head of Andrew being forced to listen to Alan Partridge on local radio as there's nothing else on.
If my sister came out of prison after being convicted of doing a terrible crime, of course I wouldn't want her to live with me. It's not because I would want her to suffer or be homeless, but because I don't want to live with someone who has done a terrible thing. I'm not claiming to be perfect, but I have also never done anything that could be considered a terrible crime and I wouldn't do so. If my sister did something illegal but not morally repugnant to me then that would be different - likewise if she did something morally repugnant but not criminal I wouldn't take her in even if she had nowhere else to go, because why would I live with a morally repugnant person? I think it's extremely reasonable to want to protect something as precious as your boundaries within your own home.
I'm estranged from my parents so it's reasonably familiar for me, although not allowing someone to live with you is also not exactly the same thing as estrangement. I think, picking up on the mention of alcoholic relatives, that it's similar to having strict boundaries with a loved one who is in active addiction - sometimes not living with each other is part of enforcing those boundaries and is actually necessary for preserving the relationship.
I wonder if she thinks that Andrew's behaviour was wrong, but he was cajoled into it by Americans, OR that he did nothing wrong, and the Americans are just trying to frame him.
Why? Mr. Peter Phillips is in the line of succession, and has no royal titles or privileges.
For the same reason I insist on a German pronunciation of Blenheim, and refuse to adopt the BBC's awful 'Blennum'.
Yes, though the technical process is that he asks David Lammy,
Lord Chancellor, to remove the royal warrants.
The titles are basically the king’s gift - though a beaucracy has grown up round that.
The Yiddish pronunciation of stein, unlike the German pronunciation, is closer to stain or steen. As a result, people in the US with “Stein” as their name or in their name and who come from families that spoke Yiddish often pronounce it steen rather than stine.
British people have been calling it 'Blennum Palace' since it was built, I suspect.
Meanwhile, it looks as if Andrew won't lose his place in the succession. Whatever we think of it, our system is delightfully arcane.
I don't think she'll have thought it through. I imagine she wouldn't think that Andrew was 'cajoled' by Americans nor that he was 'framed' but there's probably something deep-seatedly visceral there that any 'attack' on the British Monarchy must come from elsewhere.
She did go on to compare his disgrace with that of The Edward Formerly Called VIII, whom she regarded as a play-boy, ne'er do well and someone who wouldn't have served his country well during WW2 - unlike his brother George VI whom she had a lot of time for.
And no, she didn't blame the American Wallis Simpson either.
But no, I don't think she had a cohesive and thought-through opinion on the matter. She's ambivalent about some aspects of the monarchy and positive about others. Which goes for a lot of His Britannic Majesty's loyal subjects.
She believes they offer good value for money.
Thanks. Reminds me of a conversation I once had with an anti-American Canadian woman, only a few minutes after meeting her.
HER: Can you believe those Americans? They glorify an awful family like the Kennedys.
ME: What about the royal family over in the UK?
HER: Oh, but the Queen does such a great job of holding that family together.
She thinks Andrew is a 'scapegoat' to some extent but for what she did not say.
By and large, I think it's fair to say that there was a fair bit of sympathy for Andrew here in the UK initially and that Americans and others were 'onto' the Epstein scandal before public awareness of it caught up over here.
As the polls quoted in a post above indicate and as my general impression is now, very few people have any sympathy for him any more.
I was living in Korea when I first heard about the Epstein scandal, and I think the first detail I knew about it, beyond that it involved abuse allegations against someone named Epstein, was that Andrew was alleged to be involved.
Not sure when this was re: the time-line of details coming out and new events emerging. I believe it was before Epstein's death, though.
And I will admit that my initial reaction when hearing that Prince Andrew could be involved was that the story might've been concocted by David Icke.
Boy, HERE's a headline that lady will just love! From The Guardian...
I'd be pretty surprised if the British establishment allows that to happen.
Also, that's my first sighting of "Mountbatten Windsor" in any article not about the name-change itself.
Peter Phillips never did have any titles.
It’s not the lack of titles that I found significant, but the act of their being stripped.
I think this is a significant source of difference between us. I don’t think doing something morally repugnant makes someone a morally repugnant person.
It’s the same as when I have to tell my kids off. I always make sure to say they did a naughty thing, rather than that they are naughty children. Because they’re not naughty children and I don’t want them to think that they are - I want them to think and act like they’re good children.
Everyone makes mistakes or has lapses of judgement (or conscience). If we were all judged by our worst deeds then how many of us could be called good?
For certain kinds of crimes, you can be prosecuted in the UK for things you did outside of the country or at least subjected to restrictions. Gary Glitter is probably the most famous case - he was subject to being put on the sex offenders register for life (which means the police know exactly where he is) and banned from foreign travel as a result of convictions abroad for serious sexual offences against children. (Though again Andrew has not been convicted, or even prosecuted, for any such offence in any jurisdiction.)
The UK law on sex offences abroad changed in 1996, in response to public disquiet about people travelling abroad to sexually exploit minors.
This is a different question to whether we would extradite someone to the US - we do have an extradition agreement to the US (though the US doesn’t necessarily return the courtesy) but people have successfully fought extradition on the grounds they won’t get a fair trial or welfare grounds.
As regards Andrew - he is a scumbag but also a human being. Psychological research suggests that status loss (from any given original status) can have severe psychological effects - and there is an extent to which Andrew probably does require protection from the risk of being hounded to the point of suicide, It is also the case that his status as brother of the king will leave him at risk of terrorist assassination regardless of whether he has a title or not. So for the king to move him to a private estate, away from the press and with inherent security, does make sense in terms of basic duty of care.
It is not viable, even were there the political and royal will to do so, to just stick him in a flat on a council estate because sooner or later he would be murdered. One of the inherent problems of monarchy - is that people close enough to the monarch are never realistically able to have a truely private life and they are never safe from political violence. Andrew can’t just go get a normal job to support himself financially, everything would have to be factored around security and the only people likely to want that hassle would have been the people who wanted the association because of his royal status and connections.
When were you last in Paree?
Nice one!
Speaking as one, the locals all call it "Blennum" as well.
But deliberately doing morally repugnant things isn't a mistake. A mistake is something you don't do deliberately. Deliberately seeking out people to sexually exploit (for example) isn't something that happens by accident and is the kind of thing that happens because of the nature of who somebody is as a person. I don't think that anything that your children could do would be in that sort of realm, it's a very different kind of bad behaviour. Also, both Andrew and my sister are grown adults and not children - we hold adults and children to different standards for good reason, because some naughtiness is developmentally normal for children. Deliberately seeking to sexually exploit others over *decades* is a completely different kind of behaviour and I don't think it's unreasonable to not want somebody who does that living under my roof regardless of any blood relationship. Nothing I have ever done or ever will do is anything like the sexual exploitation of others.
It should of course be re-iterated that Andrew has not been convicted of anything, and that my sister is just an example here and hasn't done anything of this kind and has never been in trouble with the law. Indeed, I think that in judging both me and my sister by our worst deeds I think we would both pretty easily be called good people. I think most people would. I can't think of anything that either of us have done that would make us be considered to be bad people. Neither of us have ever been in trouble with the law, both give regularly to charity, both volunteer, both are great animal lovers - I don't think either of us have ever had the time or inclination to do anything terrible to others! Neither of us have had the kind of job where we have had access to corporate bank accounts or anything like that.
That was 1977. I lived in Lakefield for a time (not at that time), Andrew was a carouser. Liked to frequent the bar at the New Commercial Hotel when the drinking age in Ontario was (and is) 19.
The island hasn't been renamed; it's an unremarkable and small little outcropping in Katchewanooka Lake.
I dunno. Bill Cosby was a pretty famous guy, who suffered a pretty severe loss of status, but when he got out of jail, I don't think there was any obligation of the state to prevent him from being hounded for the specific purpose of protecting his mental health. If there is a threat to his physical safety from the vigilante mobs, that's probably something he can consult the local police about.
(Though I suppose Cosby would also have legitimate access to the private resources of generous relatives, and in Andrew's case those relatives are for all practical purposes financially synonymous with the state.)
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2025/nov/02/andrew-to-be-stripped-of-naval-title-says-uk-defence-secretary
Enough, surely. He can't have much left...
(I'm not being particularly sympathetic - he's the architect of his own downfall).
I can't offhand give you chapter and verse, but AIUI there are moves by the UK anti-monarchy group Republic to bring a private prosecution against him here.
The former Duke of York
He had ten million quid
He paid it to someone he never met
For something he never did
I mean sure, he did some bad things, but what about those Autobahns?
Regardless of whatever our intentions or internal motivations might be, we're all still responsible for (and judged according to) our actions, and the kind of cheap grace @Marvin the Martian describes is one of the big factors enabling elite impunity. One of the most appalling thing about Jeffrey Epstein's* infamous "birthday book" is the way it indicates that a lot of Epstein's wealthy friends knew that he was sex trafficking minors and their reaction isn't one of horror or judgment but something along the lines of "there goes Jeffrey again, with his amusing sex trafficking". They essentially put @Marvin the Martian's principle into action, regarding Epstein not as a sex trafficker but rather as a good person who sometimes sexually trafficked underage girls. None of them thought that Epstein "doing something morally repugnant [ made him ] a morally repugnant person" and, more importantly, none of them seem to have done anything like reporting this to the authorities.
* I'm deliberately using Epstein as an example to respect the Ship's legal liability issues. Epstein is both a convicted sex trafficker/money launderer and dead.
As an aside, contrary to some earlier assertions; it's noticeable that the evidence that has surfaced since in terms of photos and communications have tended to support Giuffre's recollections rather than otherwise.
Of course they do.
It can't be the only example of a name imported to the UK from elsewhere and Anglicised in its pronunciation. There are also examples of place-names of British origin in the US which are pronounced differently over there to how the 'original' might be pronounced here.
I'm not saying that's 'wrong' either, it's how these things work.
But this is a tangent...
There are moves from some US Democrats to invite the former Duke of York to give an account of his relationship with Epstein over on your side of the Atlantic.
Whether that would lead to criminal proceedings in the US would depend on what the nature of his 'evidence' would be.
Given the debacle of the famous BBC Newsnight interview I'm pretty sure he wouldn't be in a hurry to agree to that.
Criminal proceedings over here would depend, I suspect, on whether new revelations come to light. For the time being it seems that the loss of his titles is deemed sufficient 'punishment' as it were but it's always possible that a law suit could be pressed. At the moment I doubt that would happen but you never know. I didn't expect things to go this far.
I think this was published just before AMW was stripped of his titles, hence the reference to Prince Andrew.
Harassment is a crime, whether or not the person being harassed is a convicted criminal.
As a point of law, it has been established that the police don't actually have an obligation to prevent crime.