Stuart Galbraith Posted November 24, 2019 Posted November 24, 2019 And Richard II. He was starved to death to not leave any marks. But the point is, in both cases, they were both alleged to have died of illness. The Edward II poker story was probably a myth that it wouldnt surprise me the Berkleys put around to make themselves sound baddass (literally). Nobody could be said to have laid hands on a Royal Person, even one whom had abdicated. The only time that happened was Charles I, which as many people said would probably have been better to have 'died in prison'. Judging by what happened to many of the people that signed the death warrant, they were probably right. The point remains, other than a few kings, minor Royals are generally not removed, not since the war of the roses anyway. Ok, so you have Clarance that was executed by being drowned in Malmesy wine (reputedly). And you had the death in battle of the brother of King Harold. King John had Prince Arthur murdered. Richard the Third killed Edward V (not yet crowned) and his brother, allegedly. Off the top of my head, I struggle to think of others. Certainly none since the Georgians. The question arises, did he resign his duties, as they have implied, or told to step down from duties and keep out the way. I know what I personally think. We shouldnt get carried away, he IS still a member of the Royal Family. OTOH, without Royal Duties, he is pretty much a nobody at last.
DB Posted November 24, 2019 Posted November 24, 2019 "Stepping back from public life" is the modern equivalent of being walled up in the attic. He wasn't known as "Randy Andy" for no reason. Did he know that the girls at Epstein's parties were under age? Probably not. But did he ever wonder whether it was better to not find out?
BansheeOne Posted November 24, 2019 Posted November 24, 2019 I thought that Edward was the gay (what a misuse of what was once a great anglo word for 'happy'!!!) one. Are we sure it's not Charles?
DB Posted November 24, 2019 Posted November 24, 2019 No, we're not sure it's not Charles. Given the leaked communications with his current wife, he clearly has some not-usual thoughts about sex.
Stuart Galbraith Posted November 25, 2019 Posted November 25, 2019 Andrew accused of groping a womans breast with a spitting image puppet of himself.https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7721467/Woman-claims-Prince-Andrew-groped-breast-testify-FBI.html I have to admit, I struggle to think how anyone could make something like that up.
Rick Posted November 25, 2019 Posted November 25, 2019 Why do I have this feeling that it is not the success of the Royal family, only how far they can fall in the eyes of the ugly public which follow such trashy news media.
Stuart Galbraith Posted November 25, 2019 Posted November 25, 2019 Well the Royal family is a curious thing. Its never been massively loved in the UK. Its been liked, admired, tolerated, despised going in a cycle all the way back to the Georgians. But loved, I dont think we British really love the Royal Family and never did. We never get really emotional about long extant institutions till the disappear, then we endlessly mope about the loss of them. So we shouldn't get carried away, Andrew was never massively liked. Admired for his Falklands service, yes, but he was always thought of as a bit of an arrogant twat for years, and has never really been center stage. I think at this point the damage to the Royal Family will be minimal, as long as they are not proven to have covered anything up. Which does not seem to have been the case happily. The real damage that will come will be British business. Andrew for all his flaws DOES seem to have done some good at that, and we clearly need a major spokesman to take over to help us post Brexit. Hopefully William or even Edward will get a shot at that.
Stuart Galbraith Posted November 25, 2019 Posted November 25, 2019 https://www.telegraph.co.uk/royal-family/2019/11/25/prince-charles-set-angry-showdown-prince-andrew-ongoing-epstein/ The Prince of Wales will this week demand what is likely to be a heated showdown with his younger brother, over the continued fallout from the disastrous Newsnight interview.The Prince, who returns from a 12-day tour to India, New Zealand and the Solomon Islands on Tuesday ), is expected to order the Duke of York to Clarence House to discuss the ongoing furore.Sources have claimed the Prince of Wales is furious that his important visit to the South Pacific - which had been intended to highlight a number of environmental issues such as climate change and rising ocean levels - has been completely overshadowed by the row over the Duke's relationship with the paedophile, Jeffrey Epstein.So far the Prince of Wales has not commented on the issue and his staff have remained tight lipped throughout the tour.But it is understood the Prince is determined to get a grip on the situation once he is back in Britain and ensure there is no further collateral damage to the Royal Family, even if that means removing his brother from the inner circle. The Duke has already announced his intention to step back from public duties for the foreseeable future. But with the American investigation into Epstein’s associates gathering pace, and calls for the Duke to be interviewed by the FBI growing, the scandal shows no sign of abating.There is likely to be further pressure next week when the BBC broadcasts a fresh interview with the Duke’s accuser, Virginia Roberts-Giuffre, who claims she was coerced into having sex with him after being flown to the UK by Epstein in 2001. The Duke has vehemently denied her claims. Better get that Malmsey wine ready Charles....
DB Posted November 25, 2019 Posted November 25, 2019 Speculation and bullshit are rife. "Sources say" = made up shit after too much prosecco.
R011 Posted November 25, 2019 Posted November 25, 2019 I suspect the Prince of Wales does not have the authority to "order" his brother to attend him. Sone journalists forget it isn't the 1400s when writing about royalty.
DB Posted November 26, 2019 Posted November 26, 2019 The queen pretty much does, though. His last interview with her was almost certainly standing without tea and biscuits. Thus, withdrawal from public duties.
Stuart Galbraith Posted November 26, 2019 Posted November 26, 2019 Im disappointed Malmsey wine has not yet made an appearance though. Tradition and all that.... Claim here that the FBI want to interview Prince Andrew. Which considering the FBI is the ultimate of all leaky ships, im tempted to give more credence to.https://www.cbsnews.com/news/prince-andrew-interview-fbi-reportedly-wants-to-interview-him/ There was a significantly less plausible claim the FBI were going to raid Buckingham palace, which, personally, Id pay good money to watch them try to get past the Guards. https://www.gossipcop.com/prince-andrew-fbi-raiding-royal-palace-bbc-interview/
Murph Posted November 26, 2019 Posted November 26, 2019 How is Charles going to deal with this? He is not king yet.
Stuart Galbraith Posted November 27, 2019 Posted November 27, 2019 He will defer to mummy. Lets be fair though and say, the Queen doesnt have that many more miles on her sadly. You can expect Andrew to get the equivalent of a Governorship of the Bahama's from that point on.
DougRichards Posted November 27, 2019 Author Posted November 27, 2019 He will defer to mummy. Lets be fair though and say, the Queen doesnt have that many more miles on her sadly. You can expect Andrew to get the equivalent of a Governorship of the Bahama's from that point on. Not the Bahamas, there are too many good looking women there. How about the Falklands? He has been there before and the cooler temperatures may cool the blood?
Stuart Galbraith Posted November 27, 2019 Posted November 27, 2019 British Antarctic Survey Team? Captain of the Sir David Attenborough survey ship (AKA Boaty McBoatface)? The possibilities are endless.
Adam_S Posted December 1, 2019 Posted December 1, 2019 You can say what you like about the Royal Family (and I've got plenty to say about them), but you can't dispute that over the centuries they've shown a remarkable willingness to say and do more or less anything to keep the gravy train rolling. I'm sure that if they think they need to, they'll gladly throw Randy Andy under a bus without a second thought.
Stuart Galbraith Posted December 2, 2019 Posted December 2, 2019 (edited) You can say what you like about the Royal Family (and I've got plenty to say about them), but you can't dispute that over the centuries they've shown a remarkable willingness to say and do more or less anything to keep the gravy train rolling. I'm sure that if they think they need to, they'll gladly throw Randy Andy under a bus without a second thought. I dont think that's quite fair. I'm no monarchists, and yet they have portrayed the idea that they are a symbol of stability, particularly in shaky times. At the moment, other than Andrew, the Royal Family is the ONLY pillar of the established order that isn't teetering. There is a problem for the Royal Family and the British Government here. If he DID indeed sleep with the young woman as claimed, then as far as UK law, he has committed no crime. The age of consent here is 16. That doesnt mean its not a disgrace, and highlights the exceptionally seedy company he was keeping, but here at least he has broken no law. Course I dont see him going to New York again anytime soon.... Edited December 2, 2019 by Stuart Galbraith
Stuart Galbraith Posted December 2, 2019 Posted December 2, 2019 Virginia Giuffres interview with BBC's Panorama to air tonight.https://metro.co.uk/video/virginia-giuffres-uk-tv-interview-air-panorama-special-2060682/
Murph Posted December 2, 2019 Posted December 2, 2019 Ok, a question; DOES Charles have the power to tell Randy Andy to stand down? Is this going to be a power struggle inside of the firm, or is it cutting their losses?
Stuart Galbraith Posted December 2, 2019 Posted December 2, 2019 Well Charles is taking over more of the Queens duties. But he doesnt have any power of his own. In fact, other than what Andrew has already done, I dont see the Queen has any power to do any further anyway. He has resigned from his charities, he is not undertaking any Royal duties. What he chooses to do himself as a private citizen is of course his own affair. That said, its worth noting that Andrew has been on the slide for some time. He allegedly only talks to Charles through an intermediary. There was also apparently some upset at the last Royal wedding that there wasnt a greater role for his daughters. Charles is trying to trim the civil list, recognising it is not popular. Beatrice and Eugenie, Andrews daughters, have already been trimmed from that list, which probably accounts for some of the acrimony between them.https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/2034713/prince-andrew-left-furious-after-queen-rejects-his-calls-for-eugenie-and-beatrice-to-funded-by-taxpayer/
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now