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.
Yes from everything I've read and heard, William certainly has very strong feelings about (and specifically against) Andrew. The footage of William's reaction to Andrew trying to start a conversation at the late Duchess of Kent's funeral really shows the Prince of Wales doesn't appear to be interested in talking to his uncle.
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.
I agree with you in as much as I would also be happy if there were no more news reports about Andrew - but I would like that to happen on account of his permanently leaving public life. He has shown himself to be incompetent at best when it comes to the sort of high positions he has held through his life thus far, both as the said-to-be-favourite son of the late Queen, and now the brother of the King.
Andrew Lownie, who has spent the past four years studying Andrew's life, describes him as a "useful idiot" without the business acumen which one might think is required for the amount of work he did during his time as trade envoy.
A piece in today's Guardian also points out Andrew's "series of controverises over his close links with unsavoury dictators and businessmen":
He took a holiday
with a Libyan gun smuggler, criticised a
Serious Fraud Office investigation into corruption involving the arms giant BAE and
lunched at Buckingham Palace with a leading member of the subsequently deposed Tunisian dictatorship.
His dealings with the elite of Kazakhstan show a flavour of what he was up to. In 2007, he sold Sunninghill, a mansion near Ascot that had been a wedding present from the queen, to the son-in-law of the autocratic president of Kazakhstan for £3m over the £12m asking price. Andrew made regular official and private trips to the country.
The media
reported the contents of emails that suggested Andrew worked for Greek and Swiss firms who were bidding for large contracts in Kazakhstan in 2011. It was Andrew’s job to help introduce the firms to senior Kazakh political figures. He was to have been paid a commission of 1%, or £3.85m, for helping broker a successful deal, according to the reports.
By 2011 the stench around Andrew, then fourth in line to the throne, was too much for the government and he was forced to step down as the trade representative.
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.
I'm not convinced by this argument. I really do not think that anyone - certainly anyone who is worth listening to - who is 'moralising' about Andrew is
envious of what he has done. If someone was envious of his alleged actions, I would question that person's character - especially if they were to answer your two questions in the negative. Although perhaps that might not be so surprising, if they were as arrogant as Andrew has shown himself to be. (I note he has not shown any
sincere and maintained concern for the victims of these alleged crimes, or for anyone else who was harmed by Epstein's actions; and his reactions to Emily Maitlis asking questions about Virginia Guiffre in the 2019
Newsnight interview, where he scoffed and chuckled to himself, speak volumes.)
Re. 'moralising' - I really don't think people are pontificating about Andrew in the way you seem to suggest. From my reading and viewing, I have instead drawn the conclusion that they are, largely, people endeavouring to see that Andrew, a man who has shown himself to be of varying integrity (to say the least), is held to account, in much the same way as they rightly should for, say, a politician who has been involved in the financial dealings he has been involved in, or who has had such allegations made against him as Andrew has.
Did the government of the day do that though? Not specifically the King?
I suppose the one thing about the abdication crisis was that the general public didn't have to put up with the King (and then Duke of Windsor) remaining in the public eye for so many years after the first stories broke - the whole thing was over really in a matter of two weeks, if that. (Although of course those in the right high social circles had known about Edward's love for Wallis for some time before he actually left.) Andrew has shown he doesn't seem to realise quite what's being levelled against him by the fact that he keeps popping up, when really all the public want him to do is keep quiet and go away, to put it bluntly.
No, and I'm surprised you suggest it might be. I didn't refer simply to "an island" but to a "private love island", which is what I think I recall Epstein had been offering. I wondered how the people now weighing in against Prince Andrew might react if they had been invited to a place providing such specialised services. I expect you could have worked that out for yourself.
I refer back to my previous comment about questioning an individual's character. Anyone with a good, moral character would not accept such an offer, surely? Especially in the period between Epstein's two times in prison, when it had been made perfectly clear that he was a sex offender?
-Peter
www.bbc.co.uk
