He's lost the respect of his country and a year's supply of Turtle Wax.
January 14, 2022 4:10 PM   Subscribe

Prince Andrew loses his military titles, patronages, and use of the term "His Royal Highness." A day after a ruling that Virginia Roberts Giuffre's lawsuit against Prince Andrew accusing him of rape will proceed, and after 150+ war heroes wrote a letter urging the Queen to strip Andrew of his titles, the Queen of England officially took away her favorite son's military titles*, patronages, and his "His Royal Highness" "styling--well, he technically still has that last one, he's just not really allowed to use it any more. The military appointments have been "in abeyance" since 2019 when Prince Andrew was forced to step down from public duties in 2019, but he still retained them until now.

* except for Duke of York--and the city of York wants him to lose his title altogether, since he could become a source of embarrassment for the city. "I think many people think he has lost all his titles," he said. "In York we are acutely aware that is not the case."
"With The Queen’s approval and agreement, The Duke of York’s military affiliations and Royal patronages have been returned to The Queen. The Duke of York will continue not to undertake any public duties and is defending this case as a private citizen."
Supposedly Prince Charles and Prince William are probably responsible for this happening, with Sarah Ferguson "helping to persuade" as well. Andrew's lawyer, "Good News Gary," was forced to wait in the car park rather than accompanying him to see the Queen when she broke the bad news.

Notably, this is the same treatment that Prince Harry got for...wanting to go part time in his job, only he lost all of his titles, etc. a whole lot faster. Note that for Andrew, "even when he stepped down from public life, he didn’t relinquish anything, not his HRH, not his ducal title, not his military patronages, not his royal patronages. The Queen and her courtiers even forced many patronages to keep Andrew on as their patron for two years and two months following his “step down.” HMMMMMMMMMMMMM.

From the Lainey Gossip link:
"Among members of the British royal family, it’s Andrew who has the biggest reputation of being up his own ass with these titles, and the “do you know who I am" thing. They all love being royal but Andrew loves it the most so losing his HRH, well, this probably hurts. A lot. Because those titles were all he had left. At this point he has nowhere to go to have the HRH in use, since he’s basically been in social quarantine since November of 2019 after that shambolic interview on BBC Newsnight…except… ummmm… if he goes to court. And if he shows up in that courtroom to defend himself against Virginia’s accusation, he’s going in there with no titles. Which is probably why this happened. Specifically because the “HRH” is so important to the British royals, so treasured, so esteemed, they don’t want it dragged into a courtroom where the case is about whether or not the Queen’s son raped a girl when she was 17-years-old. Because can you imagine Virginia’s lawyers, every other sentence, in their opening statements being all like, “HIS ROYAL HIGHNESS PRINCE ANDREW sexually assaulted Virginia Roberts Giuffre and participated in the dead rapist pedophile Jeffrey Epstein’s sex-trafficking operation. We will prove that HIS ROYAL HIGHNESS PRINCE ANDREW did in fact rape Virginia. We will show photos and phone call logs and videos (whatever evidence) that HIS ROYAL HIGHNESS PRINCE ANDREW knew that Epstein was a sex-trafficker and a rapist”. They would have dragged that HRH through some sh-t.

So my point is, the royal institution had no choice with this one. The decision to strip Andrew of his titles isn’t about the Queen finally putting her foot down on her mess of a kid. The fact that they waited until Judge Kaplan made his ruling tells you that they were actually hoping that Judge Kaplan would rule in Andrew’s favour so he could keep his titles. And if that happened, we wouldn’t be talking about Andrew’s titles today because they would be intact.

So, no, let’s not give anyone any flowers here for doing the right thing. It was their only move. And stripping him of his titles doesn’t mean the Queen won’t be supporting him in whatever way she can. Behind the scenes, he’ll get all the assists that they can possibly come up with. And if by chance she’s still around when the trial happens and he actually does win the case, there’s no saying she won’t return his titles to him either. She has the authority."
Washington Post: Prince Andrew’s titles were ridiculous. But it matters that he no longer has them. "The man has been uncloaked. Un-prestiged. Lowered in status if not in wealth. Like any other person facing judgment in the U.S. justice system, Prince Andrew is innocent until proven guilty. And yet, due to a different kind of judgment rendered by his mother, he is much more like any other citizen than he ever had been in his life."

Prince Andrew’s legal controversy is just the latest reason the British royal family is synonymous with scandal: "By removing Prince Andrew’s military affiliations and royal patronages on Thursday, Buckingham Palace effectively put a Band-Aid on a gaping wound. Just as firing Andrew — or, technically, retiring him from public life — in 2019 didn’t stop questions about his connections to convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein, announcing that the prince will face legal challenges as a private citizen doesn’t solve the Windsors’ real problem: Their brand has become scandal. And that helps no one."

Colbert's snark: (starts around 10:45 here):
"He's the Andrew formerly known as Prince."
"You know it's gotta be bad when the royal family, a group of inbred, gin-soaked, jumped up medieval gangsters... say, He did WHAT?"
"From now on he'll be a private citizen, defending what he did with a citizen's privates."
"He's also lost the respect of his country and a year's supply of turtle wax."
posted by jenfullmoon (64 comments total) 37 users marked this as a favorite
 
I was surprised recently to learn the term for having honors or knighthood stripped is degradation.
posted by BrotherCaine at 4:33 PM on January 14 [18 favorites]


Because can you imagine Virginia’s lawyers, every other sentence, in their opening statements being all like, “HIS ROYAL HIGHNESS PRINCE ANDREW sexually assaulted Virginia Roberts Giuffre"

Can't her lawyers still use that styling? Like, even though Andrew isn't allowed to use it anymore, he still "has" it, so isn't it accurate for them to call him by that term?
posted by saturday_morning at 4:47 PM on January 14 [6 favorites]


This is why Charles has wanted for decades to move to a more European model where you have a small number of royals who do official engagements and everyone else just has to get a job. It keeps the ring of people expected to maintain a reputation tight.

In this model, after Charles becomes king the royal family is: Him, Camilla, William, Catherine + kids and that as soon as George has children of his own, his siblings drop out as well and have to find something else to do with their lives. It's much more natural because even if you think that what the monarch does isn't real work (and let's get real - it's no less real than the nonsense that most office workers do in their jobs...) it fills their time and they have a pretty natural role. All of the spares in the British royal family have done one of two things:

-They do something with their lives that isn't based entirely on their royal status (although obviously they benefit from all that rich people privilege) and therefore are relatively well adjusted like Ann or Zara. Also always funny for people to say, "some of the royal family are alright like Zara" - yeah, she has no titles and is basically an upper class sportswoman who married a rugby player, so she is pretty normal precisely because she's not been warped by being stuck inside the palace-media complex. Not exactly a ringing endorsement.

-Or they do things where they lie to themselves that their royal status doesn't have anything to do with (Margaret thinking people liked her, let me tell you I know plenty of people who've had the misfortune of being at or god forbid hosting a PM dinner back in the day and this was someone whose invitations were entirely based on royal status) or indeed his royal creepiness himself. They end up weird and twisted because they simultaneously derive all their status from their royalty and yet have not meaningful function within that same system.

I think it was very strange for Harry to even want his children to have titles and things (which he must have known was never in Charles' plan since this has been known for literally decades) for exactly this reason. He's quite rightly decided to go and live among the LA media psycho celebrity freakshow instead of the London Palace psycho freakshow, it's a much healthier place to be mentally and the weather is better. It is incidentally not at all surprising that he had to give up his royal style and other elements to do that. As part of my former employment I was a director of 12 companies, all owned by my employer - my directorships though legally distinct were all held ex oficio as part of my day to day job and I resigned them all when I left the company. It may seem completely unnecessary to remove Harry from these things and arguably as long as all he does as a private citizen is make anodyne public statements of basically the kind he made before it's not problem but you cannot simultaneously be within an apolitical institution and also be a private investor, work for various SV companies, and do media deals. Like, he said that social media is bad and I think we're all hating social media right now, so that's probably ok? But what if he did a Clegg and went to go work for Meta/Facebook in some kind of non-job role? Would that be compatible with doing two days a week taking on strictly apolitical and official roles? What if it was a Ukrainian gas company, of Gazprom?

This is how all other European royal families operate, the more distant members just go and get jobs and don't have to live in this half-in half-out limbo.

(Incidentally: big difference is that when Harry had his titles removed it was in a note saying that he would be welcome to come back if he wanted (which of course he wouldn't) and that he is still a very much loved member of the family. Andrew got a curt note stripping him of his titles and noting that he would have to fend for himself)

Anyway my point is that a royal family with such a massive penumbra of people who simultaneously have to follow all the rules, deal with the media, *AND* don't have any real role is toxic. It's toxic to all the hangers on, and it's toxic because it creates headaches like Andrew who go out into the world and behave in this beastly way and now have to be dealt with.

Obviously "Good News Gary" (lol) having to wait in the car outside is extremely funny though, I enjoyed that a lot!

(Incidentally there is no "Queen of England")
posted by atrazine at 4:56 PM on January 14 [62 favorites]


The Andrew formerly known as Prince
posted by Lanark at 4:56 PM on January 14 [25 favorites]


“His Formerly Royal Highness” should still work, no? That would be entertaining.
posted by eviemath at 4:57 PM on January 14


By the royal standards of one hundred years ago, sexually assaulting a young girl of no particular importance would have been, well, a Tuesday. If a prince was given a hard time over it, it would have been for his sake, not hers (e.g., the hard time Albert gave to his useless son Bertie). So this is really something. What kind of thing it is remains to be seen, but it’s something for once.
posted by Countess Elena at 4:57 PM on January 14 [13 favorites]


Let's be real, the royal family (the institution) don't care about what he did. They just care that he had the temerity to do it and get caught in such a public and embarrassing way.

That said, although I couldn't give a toss about the royal family in general, I do feel a small amount of sympathy for Her Madj. Losing her husband, her health and her ability to do her job slipping away from her, now all this business with her (apparently favourite) son.. as an elderly woman facing the end of her life in a place that, although enormously privileged, must feel quite lonely, I can't imagine it's easy. If she was my neighbour I'd be popping round with a plate on Sunday and asking if she needed someone taking the bins out.
posted by fight or flight at 5:02 PM on January 14 [36 favorites]


Let me know when he gains the title Inmate No. 596723.
posted by Capt. Renault at 5:03 PM on January 14 [12 favorites]


Losing her husband, her health and her ability to do her job slipping away from her ...

Not to mention the thought of the utterly batshit heir who will succeed her. I'm sure she's been leaving "Have you ever considered abdication?" pamphlets in his mailbox for decades. Charles as king (no matter what name he takes) with Rees-Mogg as PM would be a truly fascist state.
posted by scruss at 5:12 PM on January 14 [13 favorites]


I think it was very strange for Harry to even want his children to have titles and things

I'm not sure if Harry wanted it or not. Meghan mentioned that Archie wasn't eligible to get security detail if he did not have a title, specifically. I can see wanting a title if that's the issue.

(Incidentally: big difference is that when Harry had his titles removed it was in a note saying that he would be welcome to come back if he wanted (which of course he wouldn't) and that he is still a very much loved member of the family.

True, though publicly it sure doesn't seem like it since the Queen won't talk about H&M&A&L and the royals seem to be giving a pretty public cold shoulder towards the Sussexes most of the time. But there is the difference between quitting and "going to go on trial for rape" there. Andrew is out on his own with this one as a "private citizen."

(Incidentally there is no "Queen of England")

I apologize for being a shitty American who doesn't get the crucial differences in titles. Which is why I didn't try to talk about those so much with Andrew :p

So this is really something. What kind of thing it is remains to be seen, but it’s something for once.

It is! It's a public disinheritance! Of the favorite, even! He may not be privately disinherited (though there's rumors about him having to sell his one piece of property to pay his legal bills), but this "private citizen" stuff is "You're on your own, bitch," at least publicly. And yet I can't help but compare that Harry got the same treatment for much less bad sins. We don't see too many people booted out of the royal family and then here come the 2020's, y'all. I doubt Andrew is going to have to run away--not that he can, most likely--but this public disownment, if that's the only punishment he gets (like Trump losing his beloved Twitter), at least it's something that will bug the shit out of him.
posted by jenfullmoon at 5:21 PM on January 14 [4 favorites]


I have a close family member who used to work in an organization of which Prince Andrew was the patron. One day in 2005 Andrew spent a day touring various parts of this org and my family member had to squire him and his aide around. Naturally we pressed for details afterwards since it's not every day you interact with a real live royal prince.

"He talked and acted like Mr. Bean, only dumber" was the response. Andrew was apparently clueless, entitled and pompous beyond belief. And this is coming from someone quite pro-monarchy.

So whenever I see Andrew in the news, I always keep this assessment in mind when evaluating his actions. I completely believe his statements in that disastrous interview when he said he saw nothing wrong with hanging out with the most notorious pedophile sex trafficker of the century, and doesn't understand why anyone would think otherwise. He's not lying or trying to dissemble, he really believes that!

So in that sense, this is probably the best possible punishment aside from jail time for him. Let's hope they really squeeze him if he tries to settle.
posted by fortitude25 at 6:10 PM on January 14 [22 favorites]


(and let's get real - it's no less real than the nonsense that most office workers do in their jobs...)

Oh, jeez, it's far far more real. What HRH does is work, work, work, rolling that boulder up hill every day. And getting up the next morning to roll it ever upward. She may have people to put her feet on the royal foot stool in the evening but by day that woman is a Clydesdale.
posted by y2karl at 6:10 PM on January 14 [7 favorites]


Nonce Andrew is his new title
posted by awfurby at 6:16 PM on January 14 [6 favorites]


I am a little peeved that this story and BoJo's humiliation broke within the same 24 hours, because I have SO MUCH GLEEFUL SCHADENFREUDE to revel in about both of those stories, and having to split my schadenfreude between the two slightly lessened my ability to savor them properly.

"Can't her lawyers still use that styling? Like, even though Andrew isn't allowed to use it anymore, he still "has" it, so isn't it accurate for them to call him by that term?"

Highly likely his lawyers would object to the court and request they just call him "Prince Andrew," and the court will order they do that. They'll get a few jabs in, like, "So on January 10, when the accused was still styled His Royal Highness Prince Andrew ..." but they won't be able to beat the drum ceaselessly the way they could if he still had the HRH.

I was talking to a former prosecutor earlier this evening, actually, and mentioned Lainey Gossip's comments about lawyers and the HRH, which I think is broadly correct, and my ex-prosecutor friend agreed. He said that if he had gotten someone royal to prosecute in a US court, he would absolutely have brought up all of their titles possible at every possible opportunity, because it's going to play really badly with a US jury. It's possible in a UK court that, "His Highness is a member of the royal family and a model of rectitude!" might be persuasive to enough jurors to be worth it (although the UK doesn't require unanimous juries, and I'm not sure what the cutoff is). But my friend thought that repeatedly reciting the royal titles in a US court would constantly remind the jury that this guy was a celebrity with a high opinion of himself who thought he was above the law ... and not just a celebrity, but a silly celebrity, who's a celebrity for a dumb reason.

But maybe you get a jury that's shruggo about celebrities and silly celebrities, and doesn't react to the constant recitation of titles. My friend thought the more powerful weapon would actually be that if the defense tries to lean on "BUT HE IS A PRINCE!" it will irritate the hell out of the jury. And a criminal defense attorney in a high-profile trial always wants to show how his client is an upstanding and respected member of the community. But in the United States? "BUT HE'S A PRINCE!!!!!" is going to do exactly the opposite of that. And if his defense team tries to say, "He has devoted his life to service and charity ..." the prosecution is going to rebut by saying, "And was Prince Andrew, the Duke of York, third child of Queen Elizabeth II, chairman of the Nottingham History Festival because he is particularly dedicated to historical preservation, or because he is the son of the Queen? And was he the honorary director of Providing Glasses to Dogs because he cares about dog optometry, or because he is the son of the Queen?"

The defense is basically going to have to focus on a) attacking a young woman who was sexually assaulted and sex trafficked by a (dead) pedophile and convicted sex trafficker; and b) hypertechnical loopholes and arguing about tiny points of law; and c) possibly disputing timelines or minor facts, in the most tendentious way possible. NONE of that is going to play well in the press -- it's going to be an absolute PR disaster for the royal family, no matter what. But in a US court, there is absolutely no way to provide a character defense of Prince Andrew that doesn't invite even more ridicule and animosity.

(And we both literally giggled over the idea of putting Andrew on the stand ... he would be unable to hide his pomposity, and the jury would haaaaaaaaate him. And not only do his lawyers have to keep him off the stand, they have to keep him away from the press, because this dude cannot possibly speak to the US press at all without making things worse.)

***

Lighter note, saw a lot of royal-watching twitter rewriting "the Noble Duke of York" in various ways, which I sort-of suspect will become a popular way to taunt him. My favorite that I saw was something like,

The noble Duke of York
He says he cannot sweat
But now he's just been sued
And his shirt has got all wet

(I feel like the second half can be refined, but gosh there's a lot to work with once you start riffing on it!)
posted by Eyebrows McGee at 6:40 PM on January 14 [31 favorites]


I wonder if this will make Giuffre’s team think there will be only small crumbs in any settlement. Which might be a misstep by the crown, bc it makes jail time look like the only measurable option.
posted by drowsy at 6:50 PM on January 14


decided to go and live among the LA media psycho celebrity freakshow instead of the London Palace psycho freakshow, it's a much healthier place to be mentally and the weather is better.

I hear that protections against the paparazzi are better in California, too.
posted by small_ruminant at 7:17 PM on January 14


HRH Inmate 8234982 sounds ok to me. Andrew Windsor, maybe. Monarchy is such a horrible idea.
posted by theora55 at 7:31 PM on January 14 [4 favorites]


Andrew got a curt note stripping him of his titles and noting that he would have to fend for himself

HRH PRINCE ANDREW: So that's it after 61 years? So long, good luck?
HRH QUEEN ELIZABETH: We do not recall saying good luck.
posted by PlusDistance at 7:58 PM on January 14 [44 favorites]


If it goes to a settlement, which it probably will, I hope she gets every penny he has and more. It's gross how the royal family kept him close for this long before finally throwing him under the bus.
posted by Dip Flash at 8:01 PM on January 14 [7 favorites]


This is a civil suit, not criminal. Incarceration is not a possible outcome. Furthermore the alleged crime took place in London, so I don't think he could even be indicted for it in the United States.

In the event he loses the suit and is ordered by the court to pay damages, will that even be enforceable if he just decides not to visit America ever again?
posted by thedward at 8:43 PM on January 14 [7 favorites]


will that even be enforceable if he just decides not to visit America ever again?

A bit of a thorny question, my understanding is that depends a lot on whether the US litigation is handled in such a way that European enforcement is made possible from the beginning. There aren't treaties that require the UK to enforce a US judgment, and the US outcome has to be compatible with British law. I suspect in this particular case something would be worked out, since it would be very politically fraught for Andrew to be found guilty in a sex offense case and then cower in Britain to avoid paying damages.

I wonder if removing his titles etc. also is a strategic move, if later they need to encourage him to pay up so as to avoid a royal PR disaster they use the return of some of it as an inducement. Pure speculation, I have no idea how the monarchy actually works.
posted by axiom at 9:12 PM on January 14 [1 favorite]


Not to mention the thought of the utterly batshit heir who will succeed her. I'm sure she's been leaving "Have you ever considered abdication?" pamphlets in his mailbox for decades.

OKAY SO, speaking of things that are utterly batshit, I have a galaxy brain conspiracy theory, based on a single quote from Harry that he talked to his grandmother more than usual in 2020, and it is that the Queen and Harry are planning to end the monarchy with her death, thus freeing Charles, William, & co from this idiocy. Like, H&M are so relaxed and happy now that I feel like their general demeanor is probably persuasive, plus Harry went to therapy and so might now be better at articulating the emotional case for ending the whole thing. If this conspiracy theory had a mascot, it would be Young Nadia from Russian Doll solemnly saying "This is the day we get free." I know this is nonsense and they are very privileged people but I like to imagine Harry and the Queen plotting over Zoom.

Also Andrew is a cartoon buffoon and I hope Giuffre gets everything she wants/needs from the legal action and is able to find peace and healing.
posted by Snarl Furillo at 9:34 PM on January 14 [6 favorites]


I wonder if removing his titles etc. also is a strategic move, if later they need to encourage him to pay up so as to avoid a royal PR disaster they use the return of some of it as an inducement.

Brit here, ambivalent about the Royals.

I cannot see any circumstance at all where those titles could be reinstated. It would be a 'royal PR disaster' of epic scale should that happen. The Queen will not do that, Charles would not, William would not if we are to believe the Press that those three are behind the move.

Regardless - Andrew is forever tainted, titles or none. Who would want to associate with him?
posted by I shot a fox in Skyrim and it made me sad at 9:34 PM on January 14 [2 favorites]


I don't get the sympathy for the queen in this (and it's fine to call her the Queen of England: Irish people do it all the time, and all royal titles are batshite insane anyway). She only stripped her.pedophile son of his titles at the last possible moment, and despite the fact that he's been doing crap shite with terrible people for years.

Yes, she's old, but she's also an incredibly wealthy woman whose money is presumably bankrolling his defence. He's not wandering the streets of England bereft of all possessions.
posted by lesbiassparrow at 10:59 PM on January 14 [17 favorites]


it's fine to call her the Queen of England: Irish people do it all the time

Ireland is not part of the UK and I think a lot of Irish people would be quite happy to see the UK break apart. I don't really care though, you can call her the Queen of America if you like - you are welcome to take the lot of them.
posted by Lanark at 1:13 AM on January 15 [5 favorites]


Just a quick side note that many British people (me included) have low level irritation about England being so frequently used as a synonym for the UK. So though in general there's no need to wheel out the full styling, "The Queen" is generally enough, and better IMO, when it's completely clear who we're talking about from the context.

Sorry for the derailing pedantry, and thank you so much for "The Andrew Formerly Known As Prince" which I am still laughing about.
posted by tardigrade at 1:34 AM on January 15 [18 favorites]


I am a martinet about teaching my students the difference between England, Great Britain, the UK, etc., but have always just said "Queen of England" so it's useful to realize that I was being imprecise myself. Does anyone know if people from Gelderland or Overijssel or whatever get annoyed at the Netherlands being called "Holland" all the time?

The real point I want to make is that, as I see it, the reconception of monarchy as "a job," which is assumed by basically all of the comments here, is the culmination of a long process that in Britain starts in 1688 and 1714 (we don't serve you, you work for us... though obviously that's a simplification and not a formulation the Revolution Whigs would have used), continues with Bagehot's idea of the "ornamental" monarchy under Victoria, and has been solidified by EII. You aren't God's anointed, you're someone who gets paid to open hospitals. My prediction: once you accept this logic, it's just a matter of time before people decide they aren't getting value for money and end the monarchy. Capitalism--here the idea that all roles are jobs and that all relations are between employers and employees--has poisoned the root of the tree and when it's harvested for firewood "republicanism" may not even need to be there with the ax.
posted by sy at 1:40 AM on January 15 [7 favorites]


There is no way the Queen or any other part of the monarchy is planning to get rid of it. None.
posted by awfurby at 1:49 AM on January 15 [5 favorites]


If there were a criminal case and he were convicted, would there be any prospect of him seeing the inside of a commoners' prison? Or would the Royal Family just redesignate one of its palaces as a prison, make the exterior look more grimly spartan, and let him live the rest of his life inside there, beyond the scrutiny of the little people, letting them imagine that he's confined to a room with a stainless-steel toilet and a black-and-white television* and absolutely no polo pitch or unlimited supply of champagne.

* Apparently the British prison system only provides its inmates with black and white televisions. These days they are a special order and cost considerably more than colour TVs, but the added privation appeases the tabloids.
posted by acb at 5:51 AM on January 15 [3 favorites]


I'm rewatching Call the Midwife for the 5th time during the pandemic and just hit the point where the Queen gives birth, and suddenly all the women of Poplar want to name their sons Andrew. It hits differently now. All those poor men named for this guy...
posted by hydropsyche at 6:23 AM on January 15 [4 favorites]


Apparently the British prison system only provides its inmates with black and white televisions.

I don't know if this is a joke or not, but in case it isn't: this is in no way true. But it is true that prisons in the UK are overcrowded, run for profit and largely barely fit for human habitation. Black and white TVs would be pretty far down a long list of privations, which includes being kicked out at the end of one's sentence with only £70 and a tent to live in.
posted by fight or flight at 6:32 AM on January 15 [11 favorites]


If there were a criminal case and he were convicted, would there be any prospect of him seeing the inside of a commoners' prison?

It depends. I think that if he was convicted of simply having sex with someone aged 16 or over, then probably not because that's not an offence over here (the age of consent is 16 here), so it's not extraditable. There are other more serious potential charges, but of course the burden of proof is rightly high in a criminal case and they might be difficult to prove.

There are three problems that Andrew has had all his life which are not directly his own fault.

One is that he was the spare, and beyond a stint in the military there was no clear role for him. Margaret, Edward and Harry have had the same problem and faced their own challenges. Anne is the only one who seems to have managed well from the outset, probably helped by having sport to focus on.

Two, he does not have anything like the personal wealth someone might think a prince would have. Aside from his stint in the Navy, he has always been entirely dependent on the Queen in a time and place where he has been expected to have money but also to refrain from making any.

Three, is that he is not very bright and while his education was expensive, it probably wasn't the best in an academic sense.

On top of that, he has been for a long time considered arrogant and entitled (in both senses), and it's now clear that at the very least he's sleazy - both of which are his own responsibility. I think the best you can say about him is that he genuinely appears to have co-parented his daughters well, and they have settled into similar but different uneventful rich girl lives as Zara and other very minor royalty or nobility.

On "Duke of York" as a title, while the Queen can bestow it, it would take an Act of Parliament to remove. This is not impossible, and may even happen. But the net result might be that he would be called "The Prince Andrew" so I don't think it's really worth it. It'll die with him, in 30-40 years, and get reused/recycled whenever appropriate.
posted by plonkee at 6:39 AM on January 15 [3 favorites]


BBC’s Emily Maitlis was so masterful with her dissection of witless Andrew in that notorious interview; ever since I’ve dreamed of her interviewing McConnell, Graham et al.
posted by TWinbrook8 at 6:45 AM on January 15 [4 favorites]


If Boris chose, he could always say 'give us Anne Sacoolas first' before enforcing any judgement against Andrew.
posted by Bee'sWing at 7:03 AM on January 15 [3 favorites]


She only stripped her.pedophile son of his titles at the last possible moment

She might say that it was the least she could do.
posted by They sucked his brains out! at 7:05 AM on January 15 [1 favorite]


If a member of the royal family gets taken down before any of the two US Presidents do… 🤦🏻‍♂️

Epstein was quite the spook.
posted by gucci mane at 7:45 AM on January 15 [1 favorite]


But the net result might be that he would be called "The Prince Andrew" so I don't think it's really worth it.

If they relieved him of that title, it would be "The Non-Prince Andrew”. While this doesn't quite roll off the tongue, it could undoubtedly be further abbreviated.
posted by acb at 7:50 AM on January 15 [2 favorites]


Prince Charles and William demanded Andrew's exile: Shamed Duke of York was stripped of titles at crisis summit with Queen in attempt to 'ensure the survival of the Royal Family at all costs' as he faces sex assault lawsuit, Daily Mail, Rebecca English Royal Editor for the Daily Mail and Jack Newman and Rory Tingle, Home Affairs Correspondent and Martin Robinson, Chief Reporter for Mailonline, 13 January 2022:
  • Palace sources said the 'ruthless and swift' decision had been 'widely discussed' within the Royal Family
  • Duke of York will be banned from using the styling 'HRH' in an official capacity, according to royal source
  • News is a further blow for Andrew as he considers whether to press ahead with trial or settle with accuser
  • Experts say the duke must do a deal 'for the sake of the Queen', who is entering her Platinum Jubilee year
  • He was spotted today in the back of a Range Rover while being driven from his home in Windsor Great Park
With photos, videos, and a complete list of Prince Andrew's titles and patronages.
posted by cenoxo at 7:50 AM on January 15


Archive.is link for the Daily Heil article mentioned above. (Please don't link to the Daily Mail, they're terrible.)
posted by fight or flight at 8:05 AM on January 15 [19 favorites]


I don't know if this is a joke or not, but in case it isn't: this is in no way true. But it is true that prisons in the UK are overcrowded, run for profit and largely barely fit for human habitation. Black and white TVs would be pretty far down a long list of privations, which includes being kicked out at the end of one's sentence with only £70 and a tent to live in.

It wasn't a joke. I recall reading that that was the case some years ago, with a rule having been put in place in the 80s/90s after the Sun/Daily Mail/News Of The World/someone howled blue murder that hardened criminals were given colour TVs in their cells at the taxpayers' expense, and was kept in place long after the mass market for black and white TVs vanished, with the outcome being that HM Prison Service had to find a source for B&W TVs, with each unit costing several times more than a “luxurious” low-end colour TV would.
posted by acb at 8:09 AM on January 15 [1 favorite]


I recall reading that that was the case some years ago

Ah! Well, it hasn't been the case for decades at least. In the early 2000's there were lots of articles from the gutter tabloids slamming prisons for allowing prisoners to access Sky TV and so on, but these days they have access to a fairly normal range of TV channels and options and limited access to Freeview on small sets in their cells (on the basis of good behaviour).

Here's a good resource for what life is like for a (non-royal) prisoner in the UK.
posted by fight or flight at 8:21 AM on January 15 [3 favorites]


From the Daily Fail article:

A well-placed palace source said the Queen and her advisers had decided to follow 'the same model' of effective banishment with Andrew as she had with the Duke and Duchess of Sussex.
'They have taken this decision to insulate the institution from being hit by all the shrapnel that is flying around,' they added.
'It follows the same model as the Sussex separation. The removal of titles and patronages means the institution can now legitimately say it is not involved.
But just as with Harry and Meghan, the 95-year-old monarch would have known she needed to act for the sake of the monarchy and her legacy.


Once again: love how two people wanting to go part time and a guy being sued for rape get THE EXACT SAME TREATMENT. I guess I can see the point of "the institution can now legitimately say it is not involved," but I don't really know the details of how military titles and patronages work and how that might be affected by these people not being official "working royals" or whatever.

Another point I hadn't thought of:

It is not clear yet whether Andrew will lose his round-the-clock Scotland Yard bodyguards, which he had retained despite stepping back from official duties. Harry and Meghan were forced to relinquish theirs, but that was as much because they had chosen to move abroad.
Andrew's daughters Beatrice and Eugenie had their bodyguards taken away from them when they decided not to take on royal duties.


H&M lost theirs regardless of the move, from what I recall. That might have been some of the motivation for the move, to get away from that level of un-safety in the UK. I don't think B&E actually got the option to do royal duties because they're so far down the line? I know Andrew wanted them to, but they didn't get the option. They do (or did) get money from him, though. Anyway, I would guess that Andrew possibly loses his protection from this too if he gets the exact same treatment as the Sussexes, unless the Queen secretly lets him keep it anyway.

This article on "Sarah Princess Andrew" may be the silliest title thing I've seen?
posted by jenfullmoon at 9:31 AM on January 15 [1 favorite]


I am very much in the *good*, remove him yesterday camp. I also don't think its good for a group of humans to have to live like living gods, which is effect what a monarchy is.

And I like Having a Monarchy on an emotional level.

I see them as an embodiment of the abstract concept of national identity. I feel about them how I feel about the house of parliament in my country, a very dull little palace where in my opinion, the giant spider out front is the most interesting thing. Nonetheless lots of public money being paid to keep it going is ok, instead of figuring out a cheaper office park type situation.

(I like people getting butt mad about architectural expansions, too, as an ultimately harmless place for people to have their need to get angry soothed, at least better than hanging your identity on climate change or race)

But the demands of the role, and its intersection with the extremely toxic way celebrity culture tends to twist make me think from a larger position of empathy, that it is concerning for them. Maybe I should support abolishing the monarchy for their own good?

The Queen not being impartial about her son isn't something I personally am spitting tacks over, not just in assuming she is probably a profoundly weird, sheltered human (being not, in the broader sense, a citizen of her own country, possessing neither vote nor passport). I really don't get angry at their lingering wealth. In my opinion, dismantling unlimited power with minimal murder is an achievement.

I want the more secret kings and queens that make the powerful of my society feel that we have a middle space beyond guillotines. I feel sometimes you can negotiate people back down into being common citizens, as much as groups like here are pretty casual about calls to behead.

And it's also personal.

As a zeitgeist symbol, having to deal with every major social group I have (non-profit or bigger community) being infested with an Andrew or two, and seeing how fucking entrenched and traumatic the removal process is, I also don't expect this to be easy- and I am, historically, my community's angry and exhausted Andrew remover!

The Andrews of the world are a symptom of cultures that treated women much more as rewards, not people, who paid for their proximal contact with power this way. We all tolerated it, I was there. I watched even places like here wrestle with "maybe casually talking about surrounding yourself with beautiful women as a symptom of success is an ugly wish".

I think there's a lot of messy shit to fix, just in the anglosphere. I think it's probably better to release extra royals from their fishbowl, but it's also a larger tabloid relationship problem - as much as I appreciate Kate (TM)'s work as an aesthetic influencer, that's coconuts to be asking a woman to embody conservative femininity as a symbol of government. I trust the people who marry in more not to be under duress- but I really wish we had more space to make "I like this weird timeless look you have going on" not have to symbolize what a bunch of women were supposed to be like, less painted madonna, more outspoken whores allowed to have madonna garb.

Maybe we could find an equivalent animal to replace the royals with, like China's pandas? Bioengineer a return of a British Lion? Set up a raven cam? Or just leave all the titles to the corgi, and let the tabloids devolve into the story of anthropomorphic Jorts-the-cat anecdotes?

"Oh, the Duchess of York just had puppies! What will Her Highness do during the official portrait session? Will we have another unfortunate widdling episode, like at the marriage of His Highness and Lady David-Buttercup? Look at those cute little hats! That majestic sploot!"
posted by Phalene at 10:04 AM on January 15 [5 favorites]


When you do not perform Royal duties as a working member of the BRF, you are not entitled to taxpayer-funded police protection regardless where you live.
posted by TWinbrook8 at 10:07 AM on January 15 [7 favorites]


I don't know if this is a joke or not, but in case it isn't: this is in no way true. But it is true that prisons in the UK are overcrowded, run for profit and largely barely fit for human habitation. Black and white TVs would be pretty far down a long list of privations, which includes being kicked out at the end of one's sentence with only £70 and a tent to live in.

It's about 10% of prisons that are private. Anyway this isn't really relevant because he's not facing criminal charges.

No, B&E never got that option because of Charles' express desire to have a small group of working royals. It's a sign of Andrew's own complete lack of self reflection and insight that he would even want something so soul-sapping for them.

There's not really any formal process or rules for who does and doesn't get the protection. Essentially if you're "working" and in the public eye then you definitely get it, if you're a "literally who?" second cousin you definitely don't. The issue with either Harry and his kids or Andrew is that they're not working members anymore but it's not like everyone has therefore forgotten about them. Police protection is neither some kind of reward nor an employment perk, it gets given because of genuine security threats.

While I get not wanting to fund huge sums to fund security for people who have chose to live outside the UK (or the diplomatic headaches of expecting the "host" country to provide police protection to someone who is just some guy, I never thought it was appropriate not to continue to contribute towards the security cost for Harry and his family because he never made the choices that have made him and them a target.

I also don't think it's appropriate to take away Andrew's security detail because it's likewise not a perk or a "goody" that's being taken away, but I do think that if he chooses to keep them then he will have to essentially stay put - i.e. it's one thing to loan him the occasional armed driver from the Palace pool to pop into the Pizza Express but nobody is interested in paying for a phalanx to escort him to Gstaad.

Maybe we could find an equivalent animal to replace the royals with, like China's pandas? Bioengineer a return of a British Lion? Set up a raven cam? Or just leave all the titles to the corgi, and let the tabloids devolve into the story of anthropomorphic Jorts-the-cat anecdotes?

Basically. Maybe we can have a robot queen? Or a Warhammer 40k like God Empress who sits immobile but eternal on a throne?
posted by atrazine at 10:16 AM on January 15 [4 favorites]


But just as with Harry and Meghan, the 95-year-old monarch would have known she needed to act for the sake of the monarchy and her legacy.

Right, because the second son of the ruling monarch raping a teenage girl three times and the second son of the future king marrying a half-black divorced American woman should be met with the same level of alarm and disdain by the monarchy, the courtiers, and the press.

These fucking people.
posted by droplet at 10:47 AM on January 15 [21 favorites]


"Once again: love how two people wanting to go part time and a guy being sued for rape get THE EXACT SAME TREATMENT. "

Well, and more than that, the Daily Mail is a mouthpiece outlet that pushes the palace narrative. This sudden burst or stories about how Charles and William insisted Andrew be kicked out are coming from Charles and William's households/media people. The "insiders" are their press people, feeding this story to the media.

And that means both Charles's and William's press people still think that "Taking away Harry's titles and patronages is the exact same thing as taking away Andrew's, and these two situations are analogous" is the appropriate story to push in the press and have gone out of their way to be sure Harry and Meghan are included in every story about Prince Andrew being a rapist. Like, fuckin' gross, man. And kinda dramatically underlines Meghan and Harry's contention that the royal family flatly refused to protect Meghan from racist abuse in the tabloids, and indeed a) fed them stories about Meghan being terrible and b) tacitly approved of that press coverage. They're still going out of their way to make sure that in stories about Andrew being a rapist, we all know that MEGHAN deserved to be punished.
posted by Eyebrows McGee at 11:04 AM on January 15 [24 favorites]


you are not entitled to taxpayer-funded police protection regardless where you live.

If you get death threats because your parents are the government, I'd okay with them getting police protection.
posted by small_ruminant at 11:05 AM on January 15 [14 favorites]


I mean, there's a practical side to this, too. They really don't want members of the royal family getting shot, even super unpopular ones.
posted by ryanrs at 11:12 AM on January 15 [2 favorites]


Try as I might, I cannot understand the fascination so many Americans have with the monarchy. It's been a quarter of a millennium, guys...move on.
posted by senor biggles at 12:18 PM on January 15 [7 favorites]


Andrew’s titles are specially relevant - and now quite reliably repugnant - to those he was or is patron over. The removal of the military titles apparently came about after lobbying from members of the armed forces (who had , by contrast, reportedly been a bit sorry to see Harry lose his). At this stage - the views of citizens of York (and even more, Inverness where he remains Earl) could come to be influential.
posted by rongorongo at 12:31 PM on January 15 [2 favorites]


Try as I might, I cannot understand the fascination so many Americans have with the monarchy.

What's not to understand? It's like reality TV but weirder. It's like Succession but true and also an entire country is involved. Your job is your family and your family is your job. It's a creaking anachronism and a nest of vipers. You have to curtsy to your mother-in-law. They have pretty clothes. They're absolutely absurd and awful.
posted by Mavri at 1:49 PM on January 15 [19 favorites]


Oh, I get the fascination with them, they're reality TV and have been for several generations now. It's just gotten to the point where the bad/boring/villains outnumber the more friendly members, or less bad ones, or whatever.

I never thought it was appropriate not to continue to contribute towards the security cost for Harry and his family because he never made the choices that have made him and them a target.

Added bonus: Harry's military service makes him an extra target. Not sure if Andrew brings out the same levels of rage at this point military-wise, but I definitely remember reading that that was even more of an issue for him. But regardless of how you feel about Harry or even Andrew, by virtue of being royals and targets, and fairly high up in the line, they probably do need police protection. Even Andrew.
posted by jenfullmoon at 2:21 PM on January 15


There's no such thing as "British law". It's England and Wales/Scotland/Northern Irish law, with clear differences. Anyway... as you were!
posted by peepofgold at 2:38 PM on January 15 [3 favorites]


Also why are we bringing in the Daily Mail? It really is such a wankstain even if it gives you Harry and Meghan hate-jollies, and any clicks still count!
posted by peepofgold at 2:56 PM on January 15 [10 favorites]


Ireland is not part of the UK and I think a lot of Irish people would be quite happy to see the UK break apart

Some of Ireland is. And we share the desire to see the UK fall apart with the SNP on Scotland.

But my point was that royal titles are ridiculous and maybe we should go with that as our first point and not worry what people title Elizabeth Windsor.
posted by lesbiassparrow at 5:08 PM on January 15 [4 favorites]


Sure, but these are wealthy people. They can afford private security.
posted by TWinbrook8 at 9:24 PM on January 15


I'm stuck at home all day today (see the free thread for why :( ) , clearly on MeFi/researching crap WAY TOO MUCH because I am depressed and need distraction, and GUESS WHAT I JUST FOUND when I decided to look up how much private security costs:

Prince Harry Makes Surprising Move With Lawsuit Against UK Government Over Security
Prince Harry has made a strong move against the British government and threatened legal action if he and his family are not provided with security when they are in the UK. Losing access to police protection instead of private security was one of the downsides of Harry and his wife Meghan Markle stepping down as working royals two years ago.

The Daily Mail reports that the lawyers that the Sussexes have obtained have written a 'pre-action protocol' letter to the Home Office and will be taking steps to reinstate police security. According to Harry, private security does not have "adequate jurisdiction abroad or access to UK intelligence information which is needed to keep the Sussex family safe."

"The UK will always be Prince Harry's home and a country he wants his wife and children to be safe in," Harry's legal representative said in a statement. "With the lack of police protection, comes too great a personal risk. The Duke and Duchess of Sussex personally fund a private security team for their family, yet that security cannot replicate the necessary police protection needed whilst in the UK. In the absence of such protection, Prince Harry and his family are unable to return to his home."

The Queen has been told about the legal proceedings, and this could be the first time that a member of the Royal Family has brought legal action against Her Majesty's Government. "Harry's argument in a nutshell is: 'You got the law wrong.' He feels the decision to remove his security was wrong. Pre-action protocol was sent by Harry's lawyers to the Home Office a couple of months ago. This is essentially a precursor to a judicial review,'" an insider explained. "When Harry came back last April for Prince Philip's funeral, he was given security. But when he came back in the summer, he wasn't."
Another article:
"It follows an incident in London in the summer of 2021 when his security was compromised after his car was chased by paparazzi photographers as he left a charity event. ...The Duke wants to fund the security himself, rather than ask taxpayers to foot the bill, his legal representative said. He has now filed a claim for a judicial review against the Home Office decision.
The couple were forced to disclose they had put in place "privately funded security arrangements" for their move to the US, after then president Donald Trump said his country would not pay for their protection.
The Sussexes have signed multimillion-pound deals with Netflix and Spotify, with the Duke telling Oprah Winfrey he secured these to pay for his security."
That article notes below who gets paid protection and who doesn't. Andrew is listed as "Lost armed protection after stepping down."

It sounds like even Harry couldn't quite afford all the security he needed without making those deals.
posted by jenfullmoon at 9:38 PM on January 15 [1 favorite]




"There is a very real prospect of him being completely broke.”
Andrew — who has denied the allegations — has legal and p.r. fees that could hit $3 million, according to reports.
In addition, he may have to shell out more than $13.6 million to settle the case brought by Giuffre.
The queen will “not assist” her son financially, according to reports, which state Prince William and Prince Charles have been “furious” with Andrew over the scandal.
While he’s facing being on his own financially, the queen has allegedly relented on at least one aspect of Andrew’s life: paying the cost of his security, the Mirror notes.
That bill is believed to be more than $410,000 a year, the outlet reported.

posted by jenfullmoon at 11:01 PM on January 15


Andrew got a curt note stripping him of his titles and noting that he would have to fend for himself

HRH PRINCE ANDREW: So that's it after 61 years? So long, good luck?
HRH QUEEN ELIZABETH: We do not recall saying good luck.


I find myself incapable of reading that and not hearing it as performed by Carol Burnett and Tim Conway.
posted by I_Love_Bananas at 3:12 AM on January 16 [7 favorites]


Security has been explained somewhere before. You can have whatever private protection you are willing to pay for, as long as it's in compliance with the laws of the land (so, here in the UK that means no guns). Police protection is better, they have access to intel and can be armed, but it is not available to everyone. There is a committee within the Home Office that makes the decisions on police protection for Royals and VIPs. Nothing about the decisions is ever commented on publicly, for safety and security reasons. FWIW I think that the committee is in general likelier to be better able to judge potential and actual risk than an individual being protected.

Until the early 2000s it was the case that Royals got protection on the basis of their status. That switched to an assessment of risk. It was at this point that Princesses Beatrice and Eugenie lost their police protection, because they were not deemed to be at sufficient risk to require it. The Duke of York disagreed with this decision and funded some police protection out of is allowance from his mother. It is not clear how much protection they receive currently.

The Queen, Prince of Wales and Duke of Cambridge have 24/7 protection (others may well do to). The Earl & Countess of Wessex have part-time protection, while carrying out public duties. The Duke of York lives on the Windsor estate, at the other end to the castle, so his home is by default well protected. He has not had permanent police protection since giving up his public duties.

Police protection for the Duke of Sussex is an issue in his split with his family. I agree with others that he almost certainly assumed that protection would be provided for him wherever he chose to live. That has proven to not be the case, whether it's too cost-prohibitive, or just not quite deemed necessary given the risks. He appears to have accepted that it will not be provided outside the UK (and it would not have the same police-related benefits anyway). Since he is asking for a judicial review, it is clear that he believes that not providing it inside the UK is 'irrational' in a legal sense. That's quite a high hurdle.
posted by plonkee at 3:01 AM on January 17 [1 favorite]


There's no such thing as "British law". It's England and Wales/Scotland/Northern Irish law, with clear differences. Anyway... as you were!

There are laws which apply everywhere in the UK, mostly ones governing how governments operate but yes this is true.

I'm not particularly fussed about titles either and look forward to not being corrected when I refer to the deputy president of the US or the Lord Mayor of Manhattan.

I happen to think, as a naïve member of the public, that Harry, his wife, and children as well as Andrew probably are high enough profile to receive some police protection on a risk and not a status basis but the Home Office feels otherwise and I guess it is their job to know that kind of thing and not mine. It is not for his family to decide (indeed they have no formal role in deciding) what kind of police protection he will receive.
posted by atrazine at 6:12 AM on January 17 [1 favorite]


Upon doing some more reading up upon this stuff: Harry filed this whole protection thing in September 2021 and this is the first we've heard about it now? HMMMMMMMMMM. Even Harry himself thinks it sounds like someone leaked it. Also, as others pointed out: if Harry is literally not permitted to get access to better security (and they can't make an exception, really?), his fucking family truly doesn't care if he and the rest die. Good GOD. That is COLD. That's not just "fund your own bills if you quit" stuff. Whereas Andrew remains protected..for now, at least.

Oh, check out this fun documentary coming up: Ghislaine, Prince Andrew and the Paedophile. I guess his jubilee invitation has been revoked.
posted by jenfullmoon at 11:04 AM on January 17 [2 favorites]


« Older Unearthing vanished ecosystems, 40-years studying...   |   RIP Jean-Jacques Beineix 8 October 1946 - 13... Newer »


You are not currently logged in. Log in or create a new account to post comments.