|
Post by Admin on Dec 29, 2020 19:13:42 GMT
If this one gets offed, that will be even worse for him. If the guy lives and testifies and names Andrew, kaput. He should not lose his title, but he should lose his public role and income and be exiled by force if necessary.
Why should he be allowed to keep his title? I wouldn't lose sleep if this indeed happened. But to date, there is such inaction regarding this anyways that I dont think it will happen. Not with HM - but if Charles tries he may get some fight back and a whole lot of things could get exposed. Sigh.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 29, 2020 19:36:12 GMT
Why should he be allowed to keep his title? I wouldn't lose sleep if this indeed happened. But to date, there is such inaction regarding this anyways that I dont think it will happen. Not with HM - but if Charles tries he may get some fight back and a whole lot of things could get exposed. Sigh. I think Tampon will have a short reign whether he does that or not. A lot will come out when QEII dies. Also, and it doesn't make Andrew better, Tampon was buddies with Savile and was part of a rape scandal with his help.
|
|
|
Post by kueifei on Jan 2, 2021 20:30:26 GMT
If this one gets offed, that will be even worse for him. If the guy lives and testifies and names Andrew, kaput. He should not lose his title, but he should lose his public role and income and be exiled by force if necessary.
Why should he be allowed to keep his title?
He was born to it. Stripping it from him sets a precedence where anyone can lose their titles. Soon it wouldn't be just crime, but maybe bad press, or an ex-spouse wants revenge (Diana suggesting that Charles lose his position because of a mistress) and it is clear that HM would not want to set that kind of precedent. I mean, people think that Harry should be stripped of his title because of his wife's antics.
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Jan 2, 2021 21:06:30 GMT
Why should he be allowed to keep his title? He was born to it. Stripping it from him sets a precedence where anyone can lose their titles. Soon it wouldn't be just crime, but maybe bad press, or an ex-spouse wants revenge (Diana suggesting that Charles lose his position because of a mistress) and it is clear that HM would not want to set that kind of precedent. I mean, people think that Harry should be stripped of his title because of his wife's antics.
I believe titles should be stripped if one is guilty of a grievious crime and/or has committed treason against the Crown. It should not be stripped due to so-called popular opinion or stupid online polls.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 2, 2021 21:43:08 GMT
Why should he be allowed to keep his title?
He was born to it. Stripping it from him sets a precedence where anyone can lose their titles. Soon it wouldn't be just crime, but maybe bad press, or an ex-spouse wants revenge (Diana suggesting that Charles lose his position because of a mistress) and it is clear that HM would not want to set that kind of precedent. I mean, people think that Harry should be stripped of his title because of his wife's antics.
I think Harry should be, but because he choose to step away.
|
|
|
Post by purple1 on Jan 2, 2021 22:15:05 GMT
He was born to it. Stripping it from him sets a precedence where anyone can lose their titles. Soon it wouldn't be just crime, but maybe bad press, or an ex-spouse wants revenge (Diana suggesting that Charles lose his position because of a mistress) and it is clear that HM would not want to set that kind of precedent. I mean, people think that Harry should be stripped of his title because of his wife's antics.
I think Harry should be, but because he choose to step away. Harry hasn’t done a crime and King Edward the 8th title wasn’t taken away from him so why should Harry’s?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 3, 2021 0:09:33 GMT
I think Harry should be, but because he choose to step away. Harry hasn’t done a crime and King Edward the 8th title wasn’t taken away from him so why should Harry’s? He chose to step away. You can't be a royal when you want. He made a choice and according to him it was long coming.
|
|
|
Post by india on Jan 3, 2021 14:08:03 GMT
It is appalling that Prince Lying Pervert is allowed to carry on as if nothing has ever happened. He is revolting. But he is his mommy's favorite so there you have it.
|
|
|
Post by kueifei on Jan 3, 2021 18:28:33 GMT
Harry hasn’t done a crime and King Edward the 8th title wasn’t taken away from him so why should Harry’s? He chose to step away. You can't be a royal when you want. He made a choice and according to him it was long coming.
Harry was driven out through one round of family drama after another and it is clear that he was NEVER going to get backup from his so-called family and Edward VIII was driven out by the faction set up by his SIL (the late Queen Mother) and so this isn't the same at all. Both were subjected to duress and in the case of Edward VIII, high treason. Harry got fed up, needed to make a break, and therefore, it's not the same as assaulting underage children.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 3, 2021 21:36:07 GMT
He chose to step away. You can't be a royal when you want. He made a choice and according to him it was long coming.
Harry was driven out through one round of family drama after another and it is clear that he was NEVER going to get backup from his so-called family and Edward VIII was driven out by the faction set up by his SIL (the late Queen Mother) and so this isn't the same at all. Both were subjected to duress and in the case of Edward VIII, high tr#ason. Harry got fed up, needed to make a break, and therefore, it's not the same as assaulting underage children.
He was driven out. From my perspective, it wasn't only the Cambs. Edward VIII deserved to pushed out according to the faith he chose to defend.
|
|
|
Post by kueifei on Jan 4, 2021 7:08:14 GMT
What faith? He was a practicing Protestant and quite honestly, as for Harry, the real goal was to drive Meg away.
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Jan 4, 2021 20:49:27 GMT
Please feel free to carry the discussion about the Duke of Windsor in the appropriate forum...back to Prince Andrew. If you wish me to move a few posts there, let me know. thanks!
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Jan 5, 2021 0:10:13 GMT
www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/800-women-questioned-sex-abuse-23253630800 women questioned in sex abuse probe into Prince Andrew's playboy pal Peter Nygard EXCLUSIVE: It is alleged Peter Nygard, 79, was a “big fish” in a suspected sex trafficking ring that used modelling to lure victims in SHARE ByDan Warburton 21:54, 2 JAN 2021UPDATED23:04, 2 JAN 2021
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Jan 5, 2021 0:11:24 GMT
|
|
|
Post by kueifei on Jan 5, 2021 0:41:24 GMT
www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/800-women-questioned-sex-abuse-23253630800 women questioned in sex abuse probe into Prince Andrew's playboy pal Peter Nygard EXCLUSIVE: It is alleged Peter Nygard, 79, was a “big fish” in a suspected sex trafficking ring that used modelling to lure victims in SHARE ByDan Warburton 21:54, 2 JAN 2021UPDATED23:04, 2 JAN 2021
800 women; that would be eight hundred witnesses to Andrew's depravity and it would certainly end up being another huge blow. Anther predator definitively linked to Andrew and I am dead sure that this would likely blow another hole in the rep of the BRF. If 800 women come out and talk, I am quite sure that many of them will talk about Andrew and he will only get worse and worse press/public vitriol until something bursts. HM is holding back the inevitable and by doing so, she is fomenting the kind of revolution that she should be well aware gets very ugly, very fast.
|
|
|
Post by india on Jan 5, 2021 1:50:34 GMT
And then let it happen
|
|
sophia
Baron/Baroness
Posts: 90
|
Post by sophia on Jan 5, 2021 19:50:10 GMT
I think we have to face that Andrew is part of an international paedophile, sex trafficking network, and not just associated with a few despicable men. I’m quite sure that the Queen and the BRF new about it all along. Even worse is that Britain is 100% being subjected to international blackmail because of it, which makes Andrew’s actions a sort of tr#ason. It is interesting that the Queen can muster herself to punish her veteran grandson, by banning his wreath at Remembrance Sunday — and is praised by BRF sycophants as a stoic and dutiful monarch, preserving an ancient institution, even against wrongdoing by family members — but is completely incapable of protecting the reputation of said institution from her creepy son, and the same sycophants have a never ending amount of excuses for her indefensible actions. HM’s enabling of Andrew is to such an extent, that he believes he somehow can regain his public position.
|
|
|
Post by kueifei on Jan 5, 2021 22:32:37 GMT
I wonder,does HM not realize that PR will no longer do nothing? At this point in time, it should be clear that it's all over for Andrew and if he has trafficked as well as exploiting, then that would mean that he would be kidnapping and selling foreign nationals and that is an act of outright war.
I think MI6/5 is going to have to make hard choices and I am sure that the UK has been blackmailed as a result of Andrew's monstrous crimes. I cannot imagine the politicians are pleased with how HM just keeps protecting Andrew from the consequences of his horrific acts and now HM has let Andrew place the UK in very real danger.
|
|
|
Post by romilly on Jan 22, 2021 21:32:14 GMT
Practically all of the public want to see Andrew get his just desserts. QE’s overt support of him as done her no favours. Admittedly she did ban him from Royal duties but this was said to be because there would have been an outcry if she hadn’t.
|
|
|
Post by india on Jan 22, 2021 22:20:43 GMT
HM would sneak him back into royal duties if she could get away with it.
|
|