Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor, the secret sealed document and his arrest

[Peter C]

I’ve listened to the first few episodes of his book on audio and I’ve also listened to a few interviews with Andrew Lownie.

I think it’s fair to say that there’s quite a bit more to come out yet!

I'm just over halfway through and it's excellently written, I think. It's amazing how arrogant Andrew and Fergie have been. The book mainly focuses on their financial dealings but there is mention of Epstein (and I believe this becomes more prevalent later in the book). From the interviews I've heard Dr. Lownie give, it sounds like he's got a lot of material that will be going into the paperback!

-Peter

 

[OhNoAPacer]

Not wishing to put a damper on things but I'm not sure he's losing his titles (I'm not sure he can?) just no longer using them. But he is still, technically, Duke of York. The wording seems quite precise:



I will be extremely happy to be wrong to be clear!

It would apparently require an act of parliament to remove his titles.

 

[brad465]

It would apparently require an act of parliament to remove his titles.

I can see why Charles and other Royals would fight tooth and nail to make sure an Act of Parliament is avoided: the parliamentary debates and scrutiny will end up being prime time TV blockbusters (remembering MPs will have parliamentary privilege that means they can get away with saying all sorts).

 

[ainsworth74]

It would apparently require an act of parliament to remove his titles.

I can see why Charles and other Royals would fight tooth and nail to make sure an Act of Parliament is avoided: the parliamentary debates and scrutiny will end up being prime time TV blockbusters (remembering MPs will have parliamentary privilege that means they can get away with saying all sorts).

Which ably explains why they're going for just stopping the use of the titles and hoping everyone assumes it means the same thing. And on the coverage I've seen most everyone does seem to be assuming they've been stripped rather than just falling into voluntary disuse.

 

[dgl]

Also I'm sure Andrew is well aware what would happen if he did try to use his titles or try to use his royal connection to gain any privilege.

 

[najaB]

Which ably explains why they're going for just stopping the use of the titles and hoping everyone assumes it means the same thing. And on the coverage I've seen most everyone does seem to be assuming they've been stripped rather than just falling into voluntary disuse.

Also, as repugnant as his actions may have been, they were entirely within his personal life rather than directly involving or affecting the nation. He didn't cohort with an enemy, he didn't sell state secrets, etc.

It's probably an appropriate enough punishment for him to lose the privileges of royal status without having to go as far as taking up parliamentary time to formally strip him of the titles.

 

[simonw]

Also, as repugnant as his actions may have been, they were entirely within his personal life rather than directly involving or affecting the nation. He didn't cohort with an enemy, he didn't sell state secrets, etc.

It's probably an appropriate enough punishment for him to lose the privileges of royal status without having to go as far as taking up parliamentary time to formally strip him of the titles.

I think most firms would see his behaviour as bringing the firms reputation into disrepute, after all its not like Epstein invited him because he thought he was a private individual

 

[najaB]

I think most firms would see his behaviour as bringing the firms reputation into disrepute, after all its not like Epstein invited him because he thought he was a private individual

And in that situation you would be fired - being effectively kicked out of the royal "brand" is about the equivalent.

 

[KevinBrum12]

I can see why Charles and other Royals would fight tooth and nail to make sure an Act of Parliament is avoided: the parliamentary debates and scrutiny will end up being prime time TV blockbusters (remembering MPs will have parliamentary privilege that means they can get away with saying all sorts).

Subject to The Speaker, who could rule a question inadmissible or who could cut a debate if it was getting into the territory of active legal proceedings in a British Court so sub judice. I also imagine Sir Lindsay Hoyle like the King will want a quiet life, especially after the controversial legislation currently going through Parliament.

I suspect though we will see a Peerages Bill fairly soon, to allow the removal from their Lordships Chamber the likes of Baroness Mone and others who bring the reputation of the Lords into disrepute. An opportunity for a backbencher to put in an amendment removing the dukedom.

The King can confer a title on somebody, or remove it, through "Letters Patent", a process involving the Lord Chancellor. It depends I suspect if any more revelations emerge.

 

[EYFanatic]

With regards to the honours, favours and titles given to him being taken away/removed/not used, will this include his promotions to Captain, Rear and Vice Admiral? If I remember rightly, he retired in 2001 with the rank of Commander

 

[Cowley]

With regards to the honours, favours and titles given to him being taken away/removed/not used, will this include his promotions to Captain, Rear and Vice Admiral? If I remember rightly, he retired in 2001 with the rank of Commander

He should be relegated to Commander of his own teddy bear collection, he’s a ridiculous individual.

 

[dgl]

Though given some of the recent allegations from women in the forces Andrew is just someone who goes above and beyond what is expected! Though to be fair someone who is old enough to join the forces is probably not Andrews target age.

Gosh, doesn't talking about Andrew and is escapades make one feel dirty?

 

[brad465]

Yeah this explains why the King has acted now:

Met Police to look into claims Prince Andrew sought information on accuser

Media reports say he asked his police protection to find out personal details about Virginia Giuffre.

www.bbc.co.uk

The Metropolitan Police said it is "actively" looking into media reports that Prince Andrew tried to obtain personal information about his accuser Virginia Giuffre through his police protection.
"We are aware of media reporting and are actively looking into the claims made," the force said on Sunday.
It comes after Ms Giuffre's brother called on King Charles III to strip Andrew of his "prince" title, following the announcement he would stop using his other titles.
Prince Andrew has not commented on the reports, but consistently denies all allegations against him. Buckingham Palace has been contacted for comment.
Ms Giuffre, who took her own life earlier this year, said she was among the girls and young women sexually exploited by convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein and his wealthy circle.
She also claimed that she was forced to have sex with Andrew on three occasions, including when she was 17.
According to the Mail on Sunday, Andrew asked his police protection officer to investigate her just before the newspaper published a photo of Ms Giuffre's first meeting with the prince in February 2011.
The paper alleged that he gave the officer her date of birth and confidential social security number.
On Friday, Andrew announced that he was voluntarily handing back his titles and giving up membership of the Order of the Garter - the oldest and most senior order of chivalry in Britain.
He will also cease to be the Duke of York, a title received from his mother, the late Queen Elizabeth II.

 

[KevinBrum12]

Yeah this explains why the King has acted now:

Met Police to look into claims Prince Andrew sought information on accuser

Media reports say he asked his police protection to find out personal details about Virginia Giuffre.

www.bbc.co.uk

Tt does, but as the truth outs his police protection is now going to be in a lot of trouble. Using police intelligence systems to do some digging for no lawful reason sounds like "Misconduct in Public Office" to me and there are plenty of examples of officers ending up in prison for doing that.

There have been some wrong uns in the Parliamentary Royal and Diplomatic Unit. We know one Wayne Couzens the murderer of Sarah Everard was part of it albeit an armed officer in Parliament.

 

[Harpo]

Who’d have thought that the woes of two chunks of the establishment would have such an overlap? It’s hard to guess which will be the more embarassed to be mired by the other.

 

[Gloster]

Tt does, but as the truth outs his police protection is now going to be in a lot of trouble. Using police intelligence systems to do some digging for no lawful reason sounds like "Misconduct in Public Office" to me and there are plenty of examples of officers ending up in prison for doing that.

There have been some wrong uns in the Parliamentary Royal and Diplomatic Unit. We know one Wayne Couzens the murderer of Sarah Everard was part of it albeit an armed officer in Parliament.

It depends on how the officer handled the matter. He may have gone ahead and done Andrew Windsor’s bidding or he may have reported it to his superiors who took appropriate action. What the appropriate action would be is a difficult matter: one doubts that a Met. officer would have called Windsor in and given him a right ballcocking, but reminders might have been sent that such digging should not be done.

 

[KevinBrum12]

It depends on how the officer handled the matter. He may have gone ahead and done Andrew Windsor’s bidding or he may have reported it to his superiors who took appropriate action. What the appropriate action would be is a difficult matter: one doubts that a Met. officer would have called Windsor in and given him a right ballcocking, but reminders might have been sent that such digging should not be done.

You'd hope the officer would have done the right thing, reported it up the chain and it would have reached the in-tray of the Commissioner with a red "Immediate Action" Flag. Rowley I'd have thought would have no hesitation in making a trip to Wiindsor to lay the law down. Not so sure about his predecessors.

However, I think we can conclude Andrew is a very nasty manipulative person who would not be averse to putting pressure on an individual who refused to do the Prince's bidding.

As predicted, politicians are now starting to ask some difficult questions.

York MP calls on royal family to explain source of £12m Virginia Giuffre payment Rachael Maskell says ‘a lot of clarity’ needed over how Prince Andrew funded settlement of sexual abuse case SOURCE - The Guardian

There have been longstanding rumours that the late queen partly funded the settlement with private income from the Duchy of Lancaster, a property portfolio that has been controlled by reigning monarchs since medieval times.

Maskell said: “I think we need a lot of clarity over this. I think honesty is so important. Virginia Giuffre no longer is with us, but she has family. It’s important that everyone has transparency. There is no space for obfuscation, no matter how embarrassing it is.”

 

[brad465]

Yes that's a good point - a very frustrating point, but a good one. Given he has said he has a capacity to be "too honourable", one wonders why he hasn't given it all up before now (and why he hasn't given it *all* up, including the Windsor place, this evening).

-Peter

The legal situation regarding the lease ownership and anything about Prince Andrew is very odd. I imagine constitutionally he can be chucked out of the property instantly as the law does not exist if the King authorises it. The King verses the King in a court of law surely only has one winner.

This article seems to explain how it's possible for Andrew to afford to stay at the lodge. In short he made a huge upfront payment in 2003 that's allowed him to only pay a peppercorn rate since, plus he could claim some money back if he ended the lease early (which would happen if he was kicked out):

The deal that means Andrew can still afford to live in Royal Lodge

Controversies around Andrew have thrown a spotlight on his living arrangements and how he can fund his lifestyle.

www.bbc.co.uk

New details have emerged about how Prince Andrew can afford his sprawling 30-room Windsor mansion in a lease agreement which has been revealed.

The arrangement means he has only ever paid a token annual rent on Royal Lodge, and even that might not be required under his deal with the Crown Estate, a document seen by BBC News confirms.

The deal meant that instead of paying annual rent, Prince Andrew made large lump sum payments up-front, including for renovations.

In effect, those payments - which totalled around £8m - meant he was buying himself out of future rent obligations for the duration of the 75-year lease.

Details about Prince Andrew's living arrangements have been scrutinised as controversy continues over his connections to sex offender Jeffrey Epstein, a scandal which has been reignited by new sexual abuse allegations contained in Virginia Giuffre's posthumously-published memoir.

While Prince Andrew has always strenuously denied abusing Giuffre, fresh questions have been asked in recent days about how he is able to fund his lifestyle despite not being a working royal.

Prince Andrew, who gave up titles including the Duke of York last week, signed the lease agreement on his home in 2003 with his landlord, the Crown Estate - an independent property company owned by the monarch.

The Grade II-listed Royal Lodge on the Windsor estate boasts a gardener's cottage, a Chapel Lodge, six-bedroom cottage and security accommodation.

Prince Andrew's rent is described as a "peppercorn", which means a small sum such as £1, which can be paid every year on a long lease, as part of a legal arrangement between a tenant and the landlord. Or in his case there was no payment at all.

It's not about making a profit but is a symbolic payment, in this case from Prince Andrew to the Crown Estate...

 

[SuspectUsual]

This article seems to explain how it's possible for Andrew to afford to stay at the lodge. In short he made a huge upfront payment in 2003 that's allowed him to only pay a peppercorn rate since

I would think that the likelihood of Andrew funding those upfront payments himself is about as likely as Farage's girlfriend ponying up for the house in Clacton

 

[STINT47]

Also I'm sure Andrew is well aware what would happen if he did try to use his titles or try to use his royal connection to gain any privilege.

Given his previous poor judgement and lack of awareness I wouldn't like to put money on that.

 

[JamesT]

I would think that the likelihood of Andrew funding those upfront payments himself is about as likely as Farage's girlfriend ponying up for the house in Clacton

According to the guardian https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news...-house-caught-up-in-the-prince-andrew-scandal

Andrew paid £1m and agreed a peppercorn rent in return for restoring the lodge, on which he has spent a reported £7.5m, requiring him to take out a mortgage against Sunninghill
…
Sunninghill Park was sold by Prince Andrew in 2007 to Timur Kulibayev, the son-in-law of the president of Kazakhstan, for £15m.

So he could afford it by already having a multimillion pound house in his ownership. (Wedding gift from his mother).

 

[brad465]

It's really hard not to swear over all this:

Prince Andrew took money from firm linked to ripped-off pensioners

The King's brother was paid thousands by a businessman linked to a wealth management firm which ripped off pension savers.

www.bbc.co.uk

Prince Andrew was paid tens of thousands of pounds by a British businessman linked to a wealth management company which ripped off pension savers.

The King's brother, who last week said he would no longer use his titles including the Duke of York, has long faced questions about his finances and how he is funding his lifestyle.

He stepped down as a working royal in 2019 because of his association with the sex offender Jeffrey Epstein and no longer receives any money from the King.

Although his finances remain opaque, details of some of his arrangements and controversial business associates have occasionally emerged from court cases.

Prince Andrew did not respond to requests for comment.

Documents from the High Court in London show that Andrew received £60,500 from a British businessman, Adrian Gleave in December 2019, a few weeks after the BBC Newsnight interview which led to his withdrawal from public life.

The payments came to light in a High Court case brought by an elderly Turkish millionaire, Nebahat Isbilen, who claimed money she had paid to Andrew and his ex-wife Sarah Ferguson had been misappropriated by a business adviser.

That money was funnelled through a British company owned by Mr Gleave, Alphabet Capital Limited.

According to an "agreed statement of facts signed by or on behalf of the Duke and Duchess, Mr Gleave and Alphabet", Mr Gleave's company Alphabet had "previously made, and might in the future make, substantial payments to HRH Prince Andrew the Duke of York".

The payments Prince Andrew received directly from Mr Gleave and his businesses, which were also sent via Alphabet Capital, came months after the businessman had stepped down as a director of SVS Securities - a company which had been ordered to stop trading by the financial regulator over pension mis-selling allegations.

SVS Securities collapsed in August 2019, days after the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) had ordered it to stop regulated activities.

Clients' pension funds were found to have been invested in high-risk bonds against their interests in order to generate large commissions for SVS.

Some investments made on the basis of the undisclosed commissions then defaulted, leaving customers with substantial losses. Investors were also charged large fees to withdraw funds in an effort to boost profits, the FCA found.

 

[Peter C]

When are we going to start seeing this man's capacity to be "too honourable", I wonder? Or will he continue to think himself better than everyone else, and somehow entitled to his grace-and-favour mansion, still actually the Duke of York (and all the other stuff) - but choosing not to use those titles? (Perhaps he thinks that not using those titles any longer is a show of his being too honourable - discuss.)

Public opinion on this matter is crystal clear - the public want him gone. He lies and lies: we know he didn't break off his friendship with Epstein when he told us he had in the Newsnight interview, and he is so blinkered by his own pomposity and ideas of self-grandeur that he thought he could even get away with lying about not being able to sweat, despite there being photographic evidence to the contrary.

And let us not forget that there are currently claims circulating that Andrew asked one of his close protection team to find information about Virginia Guiffre, in an "attempted smear campaign" against her. (https://news.sky.com/story/senior-k...ed-officer-to-dig-up-dirt-on-accuser-13454369)

Senior King aide was head of royal protection when Prince Andrew 'asked officer to dig up dirt on accuser'​

The Metropolitan Police has said it was "actively looking into the claims" after it reported Andrew asked an officer to help with an attempted smear campaign against Virginia Giuffre.

A current senior member of the King's household was the head of royal protection at the time Prince Andrew allegedly asked one of his police officers to dig up dirt on Virginia Guiffre, Sky News has discovered.

Lord Peter Rosslyn, who is now Lord Steward and Personal Secretary to the King and Queen, was head of Royalty and Diplomatic Protection between 2003-2014.

The Metropolitan Police are currently investigating these claims. If they find them to be true, will we actually see any action taken against Mr. A. Windsor of Royal Lodge, Windsor Great Park, Berkshire? I should think he probably thinks himself to be so important that nobody would take any action against him.

When the news broke last week that he was no longer going to use his titles (though royal reporters are saying it was probably the King or the Prince of Wales who rightly got Andrew to do it), there seemed to follow quite quickly calls for him to have the title of Prince stripped from him. Personally, I think that, combined with him permanently leaving public life (including getting him out of Royal Lodge), would be the best next step. I am reminded of the words of Oliver Cromwell: "You have sat too long for any good you have been doing lately ... In the name of God, go!"

-Peter

 

[43096]

When are we going to start seeing this man's capacity to be "too honourable", I wonder? Or will he continue to think himself better than everyone else, and somehow entitled to his grace-and-favour mansion, still actually the Duke of York (and all the other stuff) - but choosing not to use those titles? (Perhaps he thinks that not using those titles any longer is a show of his being too honourable - discuss.)

Public opinion on this matter is crystal clear - the public want him gone. He lies and lies: we know he didn't break off his friendship with Epstein when he told us he had in the Newsnight interview, and he is so blinkered by his own pomposity and ideas of self-grandeur that he thought he could even get away with lying about not being able to sweat, despite there being photographic evidence to the contrary.

And let us not forget that there are currently claims circulating that Andrew asked one of his close protection team to find information about Virginia Guiffre, in an "attempted smear campaign" against her. (https://news.sky.com/story/senior-k...ed-officer-to-dig-up-dirt-on-accuser-13454369)

The Metropolitan Police are currently investigating these claims. If they find them to be true, will we actually see any action taken against Mr. A. Windsor of Royal Lodge, Windsor Great Park, Berkshire? I should think he probably thinks himself to be so important that nobody would take any action against him.

When the news broke last week that he was no longer going to use his titles (though royal reporters are saying it was probably the King or the Prince of Wales who rightly got Andrew to do it), there seemed to follow quite quickly calls for him to have the title of Prince stripped from him. Personally, I think that, combined with him permanently leaving public life (including getting him out of Royal Lodge), would be the best next step. I am reminded of the words of Oliver Cromwell: "You have sat too long for any good you have been doing lately ... In the name of God, go!"

-Peter

You do wonder if the deal offered to him by his brother was either do as he has done, or the King would ask the Government to enact legislation to formally remove the titles. I'd also bet that Andrew is in real trouble when William becomes King - all reports suggest he is the one really pushing for him to be stripped of titles.

 

[3141]

I wonder if I’m the only person who’d be quite happy if there were no more news reports about Prince Andrew. Each tiny piece of news or speculation is blown up into an allegation and presented as if it’s been proved to be true. On that basis there appears to be a widespread desire for him to be reduced to plain Andy Windsor and forced to live in a woodshed somewhere in Windsor Great Park. Many items about him include a carefully-selected photo where he scowls at the camera, to remind us how much we’re supposed to dislike him.

If he knew that the young woman with whom he’s alleged to have had sexual escapades was below the legal age, it’s a very serious offence. A court case might settle the matter, but in the absence of an accuser and witnesses that currently seems impossible, so there’s nothing to control speculative discussion. Perhaps that thread is where all this should be.

Most men don’t get the opportunity to visit a private love island. If they did, would all those moralising about him (1) check the girl’s age and (2) say “Oh no, then I mustn’t do this” if she was too young?

It’s hard to avoid thinking that much of the disapproval and dislike that’s being expressed is not really moral rectitude but basically envy of someone who actually had the chance to do things that are beyond most people’s reach.

 

[Harpo]

It’s hard to avoid thinking that much of the disapproval and dislike that’s being expressed is not really moral rectitude but basically envy of someone who actually had the chance to do things that are beyond most people’s reach.

It would need a seriously twisted set of personal values to be
envious of this odious (insert choice of expletive)’s lifestyle.

The real envy is probably from The King, looking back at his grandfather’s fairly thorough banishing of his own troublesome brother.

 

[uglymonkey]

Did the government of the day do that though? Not specifically the King?

 

[43096]

Did the government of the day do that though? Not specifically the King?

Yes, because the person who was banished was, at the time, the King!

 

[AlterEgo]

Most men don’t get the opportunity to visit a private love island. If they did, would all those moralising about him (1) check the girl’s age and (2) say “Oh no, then I mustn’t do this” if she was too young?

Is your assertion that most men would have sex with an underage girl on an island given the opportunity to do so?

 

[Peter Mugridge]

Channel 5 at 21.20 tonight 26th October; documentary about the downfall of Prince Andrew.

Obviously also on Channel 5+1 at 22.20.