Posts
I don't like to criticise my sovereign but the King handled Andrew badly by bringing him back into the family in various ways, for example by ordering the Prince and Princess of Wales to drive him to the Sandringham carol service.
The late Queen had wisely put him in purdah.
Now Andrew will lose his titles, we learn tonight, but as the son of a duke he should still be Lord Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor.
Will he be?
I bet not.
And as the son of the previous monarch why will he no longer be a prince?
The hereditary principle takes no account of merit.
That's the beauty of it.
Princes are princes for the same reason you and I are here - because we are our parents' children.
Why is Andrew losing his lease on his house for which he paid millions?
Presumably because he agreed to this.
The man has not been accused of any crime in the United Kingdom, by the way.
The important question about Jeffrey Epstein and the young girls he procured is not what did Andrew know or do.
It is whether Epstein was blackmailing influential men for the Israeli government.
If so, does it makes sense for the USA to support and subsidise Israel?
(Or for the British Royal Air Force to assist the IDF? The answer to this question is 'Yes, because we are a faithful American vassal'.)
Using the ex-Prince to raise a question about Israeli blackmail of influential men strikes me as odd. What could he influence?
ReplyDeleteNothing. He was used to help Epstein attract other men into his milieu. But the most important aspect of the Epstein scandal by far, and it is the most important news story for years, is the question: for whom was he.working? The private life of a British prince of the blood is a footnote.
Delete"The King will send Royal Warrants to the Lord Chancellor [the risible Lammy], who is responsible for maintaining the Roll of the Peerage, to secure the removal of the Dukedom of York title, ensuring that it cannot be used officially.
ReplyDelete"The title of Prince and style of Royal Highness, as well as Andrew’s subsidiary titles of Inverness and Killyleagh will be similarly removed.
"The King opted not to abolish the Dukedom via an Act of Parliament because he did not want the scandal to take up MPs’ precious time and prevent them from focusing on urgent national issues, a source said.
"However, the development was done in consultation with the relevant Government authorities. The Government is said to have made clear that the King’s actions were “constitutionally proper” and that it supported his decision."
The Daily Telegraph today, a paper that is fatuous on foreign affairs but good on constitutional issues and the royal family.
"Kemi Badenoch, the Tory leader, said it must have been “very difficult” for the King to take such steps against his sibling, but that it was right for the public not to tolerate sexual abuse allegations." What a silly remark.
ReplyDelete