Best account of the whole shebang that I’ve read. Thanks. Everyone is still missing the point though I’m my humble opinion. It’s not Andrews association with Epstein that he needs to be punished for, it’s his sex-with-minors habit.
Thx, but i guess the two are wrapped up. Hard to prove in Andrew's case. But there must be those who saw it on those foreign trade trips . On one there were 40 prostitutes sent to he and his friends according to Andrew Lownie and how many were under age is a big question .T
Tina, I have slid to the floor. Only you could use "ecclesiastical," "for fuck's sake,"and "mephitic" in the same sentence. I shall have medals struck. xox
Interesting thought that the Andrew formerly known as Prince could end up living in the cottage that his father spent his last years after retiring from Royal duties.
A slight quibble about Royal Lodge’s rent free status, Andrew was reported to have paid several million on renovations when he took it over after the Queen Mother (to Elizabeth II) died.
Great final point about the “delusional duchess” in Montecito seeing the reality that All royal titles are meaningless, mere hollow crowns, unless the holder of the title is respected and loyal to the Crown. Andrew lost the respect of the public and is royal no more.
Britain has never been an absolute monarchy - the royal family has to earn the respect and loyalty of the public. Andrew was born royal but is royal no more. He should have taken a lead from his older sister Anne, who has got on with her life while supporting charities when she can - it’s not that difficult and she is widely respected for her work ethic.
Yes, you are right. Anne is living proof there are other ways to do things. Always had a full country life but does her bit for the FIRM with such dignity and vigor.
Anne's children were never entitled to royal titles. If Captain Phillips had accepted an Earldom, which was customary for the groom of a princess, Anne's children would have the titles of children of an earl. Royal titles were never on the table.
Indeed. Interesting to note, pre-Meghan, Harry publicly said he wish he was untitled like Anne’s children rather than being saddled with the Prince title. Now? He insists his own children are prince/ss and when Anderson Cooper asked why he didn’t give up the titles, he snapped, “What difference would it make?!”
Only to see Peter and Zara as the front line of royal duty performer candidates in a William reign. There is nobody else. Beatrice and Eugenie are now beyond the pale, nobody wants them performing investitures. Anne this year has performed over half of them, with William and Charles performing one quarter each.
There is a real effort being made to save Beatrice and Eugenie who are quite good about royal duties. They are staying Princesses - for now, but I am inclined to agree with you. T
Why would Peter and Zara perform investitures? They're not royal. They only perform royal duties when sharing hosting duties in Buckingham Palace garden parties.
Because William clearly doesn't want to and there are no other people of the blood to do the work. When Charles passes, working royals will be William and cancer survivor Kate, who have always been workshy, septuagenarian Anne, sexagenarian Edinburghs and their children, who being almost completely invisible and doing reasonably well in school seem to have signalled their decision to lead private lives. And I can't think of any organization in the universe except Insane Clown Posse that would want Beatrice or Eugenie to represent the king at their event.
There is literally no support for William and Kate in terms of performance of royal duties.
I hasten to add, I sort of agree with you. Neither Peter nor Zara can afford to give up their day jobs to do investitures.
I don't disagree, but I don't think that Peter or Zara would be able to perform investitures. Those need to be done by an actual royal. More likely The Prince Edward Duke of Edinburgh would start performing investitures if Anne is no longer around to share in the duties.
In regard to Princesses Beatrice & Eugenie, they have also done garden parties and similar appearances at Jubilees (Iike the Phillips children). Most likely, they would be used in a similar vein going forward: additional hosts. In other words, not taking on their own royal duties, but assisting the main royals.
It's a shame that it appears that the out and about meet 'n' greets with the public in various towns will go by the wayside due to the Workshy ones. It's truly where and how the Royal Family have forged a connection to communities across the UK. Not doing so (IMO) places the monarchy on a shakier foundation going forward.
Can William elevate his cousins? Zara and Peter seem solid and Louisa and James have potential. Not to mention Kitty, Eliza, and Amelia Spencer. Just saying, that balcony needs to full and preferably with fresh faces and no baggage.
William doesnt want a full balcony. This is going to be an on going bone of contention. He prefers more focused approach rather than lots of retail politics doing openings and visits. Personally think its not the right approach but we will see.
Zara & Peter have their own lives and careers. I'm sure they're willing to help out occasionally. Louise is at university, and James is only 17.
Kitty, Eliza, and Amelia are from Diana's side of the family. You may as well stick Carole, Michael, and James Middleton on the balcony while you're at it.
You are, as always, the best source on all things royal. This has been long overdue. Prince Andrew and Fergie have been a source of embarrassment for all involved. Will their daughters lose their royal titles as well?
So far not, and Beatrice has just been made vice chair of Outward Bound society with Prince Edward as chair , which is a real gesture towards her by the King as it was his father's favorite charity. T
I presume that Prince Harry and his wife will soon find themselves losing their titles, unless Harry shows an interest in becoming a working royal again (rather than making Netflix documentaries or attending LA Dodgers baseball games). That might not happen until Charles passes away, but Harry would do well to consider that as a realistic possibililty.
Harry is never coming back as a working royal. QEII was not going to have him back after the grace period ended nearly five years ago. Same goes for Charles and for William. Harry made his bed in choosing commercial trading on his name.
I'm not convinced that Harry won't make a comeback of some sort. I'm sure that King Charles will have learned a salutary lesson regarding Harry's hard exit from the RF. Harry had no choice but to sell his Royal intel and grievances as that's what has paid the rent and lifestyle.
Charles won't allow this situation to apply to his brother.
But Harry could be such an asset. Creative thinking and PR are desperately needed regarding what to do about Harry. Such a pity about his wife. As Tina says, "deluded wife".
As long as Harry remains entwined with his deluded wife, he'll never have true relations with his family because that decision is up to the King, not Harry.
Harry and Meghan decided to trade on their titles first. That's what caused Megxit. Not the reverse.
Do you think that Harry would ever leave Meghan? With the children at stake it would be incredibly difficult. Plus traversing from the US to the UK in a shared custody situation would be a nightmare. What a horrible mess if it's true he really wants to come home.
Fan of what? Harry’s cheeky chappy routine isn’t adorable now that he’s married, in his 40s and shown himself for who he is - an entitled brat who doesn’t take responsibility for his actions, but blames others.
I think we cant take away from harry that he served bravely in the army for ten years and was deployed twice and was extremely popular - and talented - as an officer. His Invictus charity is a genuine hit, so he's redeemable with the public but not with william who in the end will call the shots.
From the gossip I've read, it doesn't sound as if Harry thinks he needs to apologize for the hurt he's caused his family. Until that happens, reconciliation on a purely familial-level (i.e., not factoring in royal considerations) sounds unlikely.
I really don't think he realized what he was doing at the time, which is why they built in a "trial year" to give him/them the opportunity to return.
Gosh so much hate for one woman. I'm not surprised they left. I heard they were happy to give up their titles. I dare say when their titles are eventually taken from them, they will continue to do what they do and the critics will continue to bad mouth them no matter. Goes to show the toxic state they are in. I wish them and their kids the best, because no matter what they do, they will always be criticised by people who do not know them, not walked in their shoes, do not appreciate any good they have and are trying to do and would never withstand the onslaught of abuse they and in particularly she gets. It is both sad and rather depressing, since we seemed to forgiven the king for his own friendship or support for a certain Jimmy Saville, but yes, let's continue to say how flawed the Duchess of Sussex is, with the same equivalence!
I guess I am sort of a fan, although I would qualify it as someone who recognises that they, haven't always made good choices, and wish they had better advisors. But I suspect that it is difficult for them. I am not always into them or viscerally against them as some commentators seem to be. I think on the whole they are trying to find a path that can work for them, given the circumstances, the background and the environment they find themselves. Therefore, I'm happy to cut them a bit of slack. I suspect the Duchess was not prepared for the royal world she entered, but neither were the royals with her. A clash of cultures, a lack of understanding, constant commentary and finding one's way. Many people have experienced this but most haven't had the joy of the constant scrutiny of the British Media that can be fickle and febrile at the best of times. I also acknowledge that the Catherine, the Princess of Wales, also experienced an element of this along the way, but she grew up in the UK and had a background that understood that world better. What I really do not like is how the Duchess of Sussex is constantly the one put under the spotlight, almost always where the blame is laid, no matter what the Duke might have said or done. As once a female engineer and now a technologist working in a male dominated world that level of uneven commentary/scrutiny really sucks. I have a young adult daughter so feel strangely protective. I don't know them and I suspect you have better insights from your vantage point and connections. But I can see and read which makes me somewhat sympathetic to their plight. That said, she's clearly no pushover, has a supportive husband, two happy kids and an impressive mother, and a fair few of loyal friends and she looks to be very happy with them all. She does have a voice and she actually doesn't appear to say anything controversial about the royal family, so I'm always surprised by the vitriol and side comments. Therefore, I would welcome a future post on this from you as I know you will bring a lot of thought-provoking insight, and sharp commentary perspectives. It would be good to get a better understanding too, although I suspect I will still be on the sympathetic side. On an aside, I read your interview in the NYT which was enjoyable and I am looking forward to listening to the podcast later today. You know Tina, you are an impressive, inspirational trailblazing icon and I am sure, the best kind of mentor another female (and male) could have.
I totally agree! I feel like Brits are almost brainwashed into hating Meghan Markle by their media. It's like a national sport! The degree of nastiness and sheer venom that is spewed out in the never ending media articles about Meghan and so called royal experts is breathtaking! Where does all emanate??
He absolutely had choices. It’s ridiculous to say their only choices for money was going on a whingefest about how hard done they are. Absolutely had other choices.
I can't imagine the Prince of Wales allowing that to happen. Clearly, there is a tacit agreement that he would be involved in any major decisions involving members of the working royals. Prince Harry and his virago wife have passed the point where reconciliation is feasible.
There are rumours that Prince William wants to drastically reduce the size of the Royal Famluy, and restrict titles to working royals only. On that basis, the Duke of Sussex could well lose his titles
That sounds like an article crediting King Charles' long known idea to William. It is Charles who has planned to reduce the size of the working royals since the 90s. That's why Prince Edward & Sophie didn't use Princess & Prince titles for their children when they were born. (Princesses Beatrice & Eugenie were born well before these plans started taking place.)
It could happen, but I suspect not unless they make another of their colossal mistakes that makes the wolves start howling for it. I would advise him to keep his head down and stay out of UK as a real hue and cry about him will make William urge the King to give himt he Andrew treatment.
I couldn't help but think of the Deluded Duchess of Montecito when the news of Andrew broke. Do you think she will finally, finally succumb to her stated desire for privacy after this?
No? Me neither.
Thanks for such an interesting report, as always. I didn't know what options they were considering for Andrew.
I want to defend Harry and Meghan. Nothing they have done compares to the Brit journalist -- a close friend of Camilla's -- writing that he would love to see Meghan forced to ride a horse naked through London with Brits throwing excrement at her. The response from the Palace? Nada.
One suspects that if Camilla has her way, Harry (the stanch defender of his mother) will never be reconciled with Charles.
The trouble with the Royals is they are all super competitive for good press. Always have been .Each of the households is still ruthless about slinging mud at the other or just not stepping up to defend each other in favor of their own principal.
The palace do not respond to anything on behalf of Harry and Meghan since 2021. Period. That’s the way Harry and Meghan want it.
You want to pretend Jeremy Clarkson said that on behalf of Camilla, knock yourself out.
The only person who has damaged Harry’s relationship with Charles, William, Catherine and most of his family, is Harry. He is a big boy, who made big boy decisions in print and on camera.
Get real. Clarkson wouldn't have written that if he wasn't aware Camilla would approve, now would he? What a low life. Public outrage made him apologize. And the palace didn't defend Harry and Meghan, period.
I find it harder to defend a woman who was having an affair with a married man (and future king) than a young man who felt mistreated. But that's me....
Love your stuff. Always a pleasure to read. Makes me laugh out loud on occasion—excellent inside stuff. I, too, had to look up mephitic. What a stinker of a word.
Well good riddance to the once upon a time prince. You've gotta feel bad for him though, toughing it out on a 20,000 acre property. What will the fellow do there? Maybe he'll write a book.
Tina, DeBrett's says only an act of Parliament can remove Andrew's ducal title. So does he retain it while not "using" it? Does it help protect him from police prosecution? The king keeps muttering about not taking up Parliament's time, which seems like an oblique order that Parliament NOT strip Andrew of his title. No reputable or disreputable MSM source has consulted or quoted a single UK con law authority like Vernon Bogdanor on this.
And do the royal warrants Charles sent to Lammy actually strip Andrew of his prince title? Or does he retain it legally while agreeing not to "use" it?
This all smells like a ploy to get something only Charles cares about -- the Royal Lodge for the non-negotiable Mrs. Parker Bowles and a censure without effect for Andrew. Andrew's caving so precipitously after three years and going quietly (so far) bespeaks a certain lack of rigor in the "necessary censure", aside from a fat payoff and pension.
I think the title is now formally stripped as Charles asked Lammy to remove him from the royal rolls. BUt he also doesnt want parliament in royal business because you never know where it will lead. Andrew mad ea big mistake being stubborn about Royal Lodge. A few months back he could have had Frogmore House Where Harry and Meghan lived on the Windsor estatel Now he's banished to darkest Norfolk.
Andrew doesn't have any male heirs, so there is no one to inherit the title after he dies. The inheritance of a title (essentially inheritable property) is what necessitates a Parliamentary Act.
Since no one will inherit it, The King has essentially instructed through a Royal Warrant to no longer recognize the title; thereby effecting the same result without an act of Parliament.
So the title disappears? Or does Andrew remain legally the Duke of York (and associated Scottish and Irish titles) unless and until Parliament strips him of them?
Is it so clever Andrew retains the title? I thought that was what Tom Sykes's non-lawyer peerage scholar source was implying.
(a) be entitled to any precedence attaching to his Peerage;
(b) be addressed or referred to by any title attaching to his Peerage in any civil or military Commission, Letter Patent, or other official document."
So, the Duke of York peerage is currently not officially recognized, and the title cannot be used in any official capacity. Regardless of the title still being extant.
In other words, the next time Andrew gets another passport, it will not have Duke of York on it. It will only have Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor on it.
This is about precedence and forms of address “attached to his Peerage”. It does NOT say the peerage itself is removed. My question is whether or not you can legally still be the Duke of York if people aren’t curtseying to you and you are not called the Duke of York. I’m still JS even if no one calls me by that name or accords me its rank (!).
Last Sunday, Prince Andrew was legally The Prince Andrew The Duke of York, and he could be called "Prince Andrew" or "The Duke of York." Now, he cannot legally be called by either.
He is only Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor, which comes from 5 February 1960 Letters Patent issued by QEII: "My descendants other than descendants enjoying the style, title or attribute of Royal Highness and the titular dignity of Prince or Princess and female descendants who marry and their descendants shall bear the name of Mountbatten-Windsor." https://www.thegazette.co.uk/London/issue/41948/supplement/1003
Does the Duke of York title still exist technically? Yes. Can it be used? NO.
Which is the same as can be said for The Duke of Albany title. Does the Duke of Albany title still exist? Yes. But it cannot be used by its rightful heir, either.
The 1917 Title Deprivation Act of 1917 was also about removing the Duke of Albany and The Duke of Cumberland and Teviotdale from Parliament as well. They were hereditary peers entitled to sit in the House of Lords. It was an entirely different scenario.
This is the point I wish just one MSM institution or reporter would call upon the many well-informed British con law experts and ask them if Andrew is still Duke of York. Thank you.
Best account of the whole shebang that I’ve read. Thanks. Everyone is still missing the point though I’m my humble opinion. It’s not Andrews association with Epstein that he needs to be punished for, it’s his sex-with-minors habit.
That’s the elephant in the room.
Thx, but i guess the two are wrapped up. Hard to prove in Andrew's case. But there must be those who saw it on those foreign trade trips . On one there were 40 prostitutes sent to he and his friends according to Andrew Lownie and how many were under age is a big question .T
'him and his friends'
I think there financial shenanigans and additional sexual issues as well
I agree. There has to be more that Trump is afraid of than the women, because nothing has emerged yet to link with girls under age.
Undoubtedly. If you look at the sleazebags with whom Andrew and his ex-wife mixed, I'm sure there are countless financial improprieties as well.
why in the past tense? Look at his current cabinet and their grifting kids T
Tina, I have slid to the floor. Only you could use "ecclesiastical," "for fuck's sake,"and "mephitic" in the same sentence. I shall have medals struck. xox
Thank you. I discovered mephitic only recently and have been dying to use it ever since! T
Mephitic is a brand new word for me and I intend to start using it.
Its great isnt it. It has a weirdly colonnic association.
I had to look it up!
Oh don’t be so mephitic
dont be so EFFING mephitic. T
Feeling mephitic tonite
cue soothing music.
Perfect post - enjoyed every word of it.
Interesting thought that the Andrew formerly known as Prince could end up living in the cottage that his father spent his last years after retiring from Royal duties.
A slight quibble about Royal Lodge’s rent free status, Andrew was reported to have paid several million on renovations when he took it over after the Queen Mother (to Elizabeth II) died.
Great final point about the “delusional duchess” in Montecito seeing the reality that All royal titles are meaningless, mere hollow crowns, unless the holder of the title is respected and loyal to the Crown. Andrew lost the respect of the public and is royal no more.
Britain has never been an absolute monarchy - the royal family has to earn the respect and loyalty of the public. Andrew was born royal but is royal no more. He should have taken a lead from his older sister Anne, who has got on with her life while supporting charities when she can - it’s not that difficult and she is widely respected for her work ethic.
Yes, you are right. Anne is living proof there are other ways to do things. Always had a full country life but does her bit for the FIRM with such dignity and vigor.
She just has a wise head on her. Only one who does. T
She also made the wise decision that her children would not have royal titles.
Best decision she ever made.
Anne's children were never entitled to royal titles. If Captain Phillips had accepted an Earldom, which was customary for the groom of a princess, Anne's children would have the titles of children of an earl. Royal titles were never on the table.
She never wanted any titles for them, which is what was so unusual.
Indeed. Interesting to note, pre-Meghan, Harry publicly said he wish he was untitled like Anne’s children rather than being saddled with the Prince title. Now? He insists his own children are prince/ss and when Anderson Cooper asked why he didn’t give up the titles, he snapped, “What difference would it make?!”
Yes Harry has done a complete 180 on the Prince value. Now that he can monetize it.
A relief from news in the U.S.. Thank you.
I thought it might be time to pivot as we all so worn out with the US hellscape. Thx.
Only to see Peter and Zara as the front line of royal duty performer candidates in a William reign. There is nobody else. Beatrice and Eugenie are now beyond the pale, nobody wants them performing investitures. Anne this year has performed over half of them, with William and Charles performing one quarter each.
There is a real effort being made to save Beatrice and Eugenie who are quite good about royal duties. They are staying Princesses - for now, but I am inclined to agree with you. T
Why would Peter and Zara perform investitures? They're not royal. They only perform royal duties when sharing hosting duties in Buckingham Palace garden parties.
Because William clearly doesn't want to and there are no other people of the blood to do the work. When Charles passes, working royals will be William and cancer survivor Kate, who have always been workshy, septuagenarian Anne, sexagenarian Edinburghs and their children, who being almost completely invisible and doing reasonably well in school seem to have signalled their decision to lead private lives. And I can't think of any organization in the universe except Insane Clown Posse that would want Beatrice or Eugenie to represent the king at their event.
There is literally no support for William and Kate in terms of performance of royal duties.
I hasten to add, I sort of agree with you. Neither Peter nor Zara can afford to give up their day jobs to do investitures.
I am not sure if Kate is allowed to do them , but you are right. it's getting thin. Edward could.
I don't disagree, but I don't think that Peter or Zara would be able to perform investitures. Those need to be done by an actual royal. More likely The Prince Edward Duke of Edinburgh would start performing investitures if Anne is no longer around to share in the duties.
In regard to Princesses Beatrice & Eugenie, they have also done garden parties and similar appearances at Jubilees (Iike the Phillips children). Most likely, they would be used in a similar vein going forward: additional hosts. In other words, not taking on their own royal duties, but assisting the main royals.
It's a shame that it appears that the out and about meet 'n' greets with the public in various towns will go by the wayside due to the Workshy ones. It's truly where and how the Royal Family have forged a connection to communities across the UK. Not doing so (IMO) places the monarchy on a shakier foundation going forward.
dont forget its only ten years before Prince George can be roped in.
Poor boy. He already has that 1000 mile stare.
I thought Sophie did a lot of royal work.
she does but not investitures.
She does, I should have mentioned her. Thanks for the heads up.
I dont think they do investitures. So far only William and Anne
Can William elevate his cousins? Zara and Peter seem solid and Louisa and James have potential. Not to mention Kitty, Eliza, and Amelia Spencer. Just saying, that balcony needs to full and preferably with fresh faces and no baggage.
William doesnt want a full balcony. This is going to be an on going bone of contention. He prefers more focused approach rather than lots of retail politics doing openings and visits. Personally think its not the right approach but we will see.
Zara & Peter have their own lives and careers. I'm sure they're willing to help out occasionally. Louise is at university, and James is only 17.
Kitty, Eliza, and Amelia are from Diana's side of the family. You may as well stick Carole, Michael, and James Middleton on the balcony while you're at it.
And how Carole Middleton would LOVE to knight someone! But not gonna happen.
And that was ONCE.
The grandchildren of QEII (Peter, Zara, Beatrice, Eugenie) have helped out in hositng garden parties multiple times.
Just May 2024. Name another.
They went to street parties during the jubilee, but that’s not the same thing.
And this past year. And in 2023 as well. And before COVID.
WHERE ARE THE QUEENs CORGIS?
Apparently Andrew/ Fergie will keep them. maybe fergie will find a way to monetize them with dog food ads. T
The idea was that Sarah would look after them. Hope they have been rescued.
Sarah is a dog person, actually. How did we get so fixated on the Windsor crew? Oh right. i wrote about Andrew....
I thought there were only 1 or 2 left at the Queen’s death. And that Sarah took them in.
😵💫
You are, as always, the best source on all things royal. This has been long overdue. Prince Andrew and Fergie have been a source of embarrassment for all involved. Will their daughters lose their royal titles as well?
So far not, and Beatrice has just been made vice chair of Outward Bound society with Prince Edward as chair , which is a real gesture towards her by the King as it was his father's favorite charity. T
My understanding is that Beatrice and Eugenie will stay princesses
Formerly known as Prince
Formerly known as Prince is the best pop reference I’ve ever read
A cheap joke but irresistable!
I presume that Prince Harry and his wife will soon find themselves losing their titles, unless Harry shows an interest in becoming a working royal again (rather than making Netflix documentaries or attending LA Dodgers baseball games). That might not happen until Charles passes away, but Harry would do well to consider that as a realistic possibililty.
Harry is never coming back as a working royal. QEII was not going to have him back after the grace period ended nearly five years ago. Same goes for Charles and for William. Harry made his bed in choosing commercial trading on his name.
I'm not convinced that Harry won't make a comeback of some sort. I'm sure that King Charles will have learned a salutary lesson regarding Harry's hard exit from the RF. Harry had no choice but to sell his Royal intel and grievances as that's what has paid the rent and lifestyle.
Charles won't allow this situation to apply to his brother.
But Harry could be such an asset. Creative thinking and PR are desperately needed regarding what to do about Harry. Such a pity about his wife. As Tina says, "deluded wife".
Yes its a huge pity. Harry has so many assets when hes not encumbered by Meghan.
As long as Harry remains entwined with his deluded wife, he'll never have true relations with his family because that decision is up to the King, not Harry.
Harry and Meghan decided to trade on their titles first. That's what caused Megxit. Not the reverse.
Yes I guess that's right. I am a Harry fan and feel very sad about this situation though. Can forgiveness play a part?
Its too complicated. The British people do still have a soft spot for harry but unless he's divorced it wont happen.
Do you think that Harry would ever leave Meghan? With the children at stake it would be incredibly difficult. Plus traversing from the US to the UK in a shared custody situation would be a nightmare. What a horrible mess if it's true he really wants to come home.
Fan of what? Harry’s cheeky chappy routine isn’t adorable now that he’s married, in his 40s and shown himself for who he is - an entitled brat who doesn’t take responsibility for his actions, but blames others.
I think we cant take away from harry that he served bravely in the army for ten years and was deployed twice and was extremely popular - and talented - as an officer. His Invictus charity is a genuine hit, so he's redeemable with the public but not with william who in the end will call the shots.
From the gossip I've read, it doesn't sound as if Harry thinks he needs to apologize for the hurt he's caused his family. Until that happens, reconciliation on a purely familial-level (i.e., not factoring in royal considerations) sounds unlikely.
I really don't think he realized what he was doing at the time, which is why they built in a "trial year" to give him/them the opportunity to return.
Agree. He needs to apologize but thats the sticking point. Meghan wont let him.
you got it
Gosh so much hate for one woman. I'm not surprised they left. I heard they were happy to give up their titles. I dare say when their titles are eventually taken from them, they will continue to do what they do and the critics will continue to bad mouth them no matter. Goes to show the toxic state they are in. I wish them and their kids the best, because no matter what they do, they will always be criticised by people who do not know them, not walked in their shoes, do not appreciate any good they have and are trying to do and would never withstand the onslaught of abuse they and in particularly she gets. It is both sad and rather depressing, since we seemed to forgiven the king for his own friendship or support for a certain Jimmy Saville, but yes, let's continue to say how flawed the Duchess of Sussex is, with the same equivalence!
Glad to see a fan here. They don't have many. T
I guess I am sort of a fan, although I would qualify it as someone who recognises that they, haven't always made good choices, and wish they had better advisors. But I suspect that it is difficult for them. I am not always into them or viscerally against them as some commentators seem to be. I think on the whole they are trying to find a path that can work for them, given the circumstances, the background and the environment they find themselves. Therefore, I'm happy to cut them a bit of slack. I suspect the Duchess was not prepared for the royal world she entered, but neither were the royals with her. A clash of cultures, a lack of understanding, constant commentary and finding one's way. Many people have experienced this but most haven't had the joy of the constant scrutiny of the British Media that can be fickle and febrile at the best of times. I also acknowledge that the Catherine, the Princess of Wales, also experienced an element of this along the way, but she grew up in the UK and had a background that understood that world better. What I really do not like is how the Duchess of Sussex is constantly the one put under the spotlight, almost always where the blame is laid, no matter what the Duke might have said or done. As once a female engineer and now a technologist working in a male dominated world that level of uneven commentary/scrutiny really sucks. I have a young adult daughter so feel strangely protective. I don't know them and I suspect you have better insights from your vantage point and connections. But I can see and read which makes me somewhat sympathetic to their plight. That said, she's clearly no pushover, has a supportive husband, two happy kids and an impressive mother, and a fair few of loyal friends and she looks to be very happy with them all. She does have a voice and she actually doesn't appear to say anything controversial about the royal family, so I'm always surprised by the vitriol and side comments. Therefore, I would welcome a future post on this from you as I know you will bring a lot of thought-provoking insight, and sharp commentary perspectives. It would be good to get a better understanding too, although I suspect I will still be on the sympathetic side. On an aside, I read your interview in the NYT which was enjoyable and I am looking forward to listening to the podcast later today. You know Tina, you are an impressive, inspirational trailblazing icon and I am sure, the best kind of mentor another female (and male) could have.
I totally agree! I feel like Brits are almost brainwashed into hating Meghan Markle by their media. It's like a national sport! The degree of nastiness and sheer venom that is spewed out in the never ending media articles about Meghan and so called royal experts is breathtaking! Where does all emanate??
Too long to explain but will try to do in future posts! She has made so many mistakes and will never admit them.
He absolutely had choices. It’s ridiculous to say their only choices for money was going on a whingefest about how hard done they are. Absolutely had other choices.
His whinge fest was very short term thinking.
I think Harry no does understand how he blew it but will not go the full dsitance and apologize, the critical step to rehabbing his image.
See my views above!
He has certainly not accepted that. however.
I agree. That is why he might be de-princified at some point
He's Diana's son and will always be a Prince of the blood is the truth, even if he they strip him of it.
I can't imagine the Prince of Wales allowing that to happen. Clearly, there is a tacit agreement that he would be involved in any major decisions involving members of the working royals. Prince Harry and his virago wife have passed the point where reconciliation is feasible.
Looks that way now. But anything could happen and William may be forced to expand the footprint and Harry the only place to turn.
There are rumours that Prince William wants to drastically reduce the size of the Royal Famluy, and restrict titles to working royals only. On that basis, the Duke of Sussex could well lose his titles
Thats where they are headed at the moment but see above
That sounds like an article crediting King Charles' long known idea to William. It is Charles who has planned to reduce the size of the working royals since the 90s. That's why Prince Edward & Sophie didn't use Princess & Prince titles for their children when they were born. (Princesses Beatrice & Eugenie were born well before these plans started taking place.)
It could happen, but I suspect not unless they make another of their colossal mistakes that makes the wolves start howling for it. I would advise him to keep his head down and stay out of UK as a real hue and cry about him will make William urge the King to give himt he Andrew treatment.
I couldn't help but think of the Deluded Duchess of Montecito when the news of Andrew broke. Do you think she will finally, finally succumb to her stated desire for privacy after this?
No? Me neither.
Thanks for such an interesting report, as always. I didn't know what options they were considering for Andrew.
It's Fergie I "worry" about now.
Fergie will thrash around and find some new grifting terrain in foreign territories.
Maybe Andy should pack it in and join her. Shades of the Windsors. Andy and Fergie are truly one of history’s oddest couples.
No me neither
I want to defend Harry and Meghan. Nothing they have done compares to the Brit journalist -- a close friend of Camilla's -- writing that he would love to see Meghan forced to ride a horse naked through London with Brits throwing excrement at her. The response from the Palace? Nada.
One suspects that if Camilla has her way, Harry (the stanch defender of his mother) will never be reconciled with Charles.
The trouble with the Royals is they are all super competitive for good press. Always have been .Each of the households is still ruthless about slinging mud at the other or just not stepping up to defend each other in favor of their own principal.
The palace do not respond to anything on behalf of Harry and Meghan since 2021. Period. That’s the way Harry and Meghan want it.
You want to pretend Jeremy Clarkson said that on behalf of Camilla, knock yourself out.
The only person who has damaged Harry’s relationship with Charles, William, Catherine and most of his family, is Harry. He is a big boy, who made big boy decisions in print and on camera.
Get real. Clarkson wouldn't have written that if he wasn't aware Camilla would approve, now would he? What a low life. Public outrage made him apologize. And the palace didn't defend Harry and Meghan, period.
I find it harder to defend a woman who was having an affair with a married man (and future king) than a young man who felt mistreated. But that's me....
I actually think Clarkson's venom was purely to generate click bait and that even Camilla would have thought it would back fire on him which it did.
Love your stuff. Always a pleasure to read. Makes me laugh out loud on occasion—excellent inside stuff. I, too, had to look up mephitic. What a stinker of a word.
New to me too but I was desperate to use it
Many thanks. Love your newsie, insider's post on Andrew.
gracias !
Tina, will you be doing a followup on the BBC/Trump? It looks like Trump is not going to let this go.
Well good riddance to the once upon a time prince. You've gotta feel bad for him though, toughing it out on a 20,000 acre property. What will the fellow do there? Maybe he'll write a book.
He wont be allowed to. He will do what he does now. Look at videos of planes landing and hoping someone phones.
So agree with the kicker.
The fun of the story is you never know which shoe will drop next
Tina, DeBrett's says only an act of Parliament can remove Andrew's ducal title. So does he retain it while not "using" it? Does it help protect him from police prosecution? The king keeps muttering about not taking up Parliament's time, which seems like an oblique order that Parliament NOT strip Andrew of his title. No reputable or disreputable MSM source has consulted or quoted a single UK con law authority like Vernon Bogdanor on this.
https://debretts.com/royal-family/accession/questions-about-the-process-of-accession/
And do the royal warrants Charles sent to Lammy actually strip Andrew of his prince title? Or does he retain it legally while agreeing not to "use" it?
This all smells like a ploy to get something only Charles cares about -- the Royal Lodge for the non-negotiable Mrs. Parker Bowles and a censure without effect for Andrew. Andrew's caving so precipitously after three years and going quietly (so far) bespeaks a certain lack of rigor in the "necessary censure", aside from a fat payoff and pension.
I think the title is now formally stripped as Charles asked Lammy to remove him from the royal rolls. BUt he also doesnt want parliament in royal business because you never know where it will lead. Andrew mad ea big mistake being stubborn about Royal Lodge. A few months back he could have had Frogmore House Where Harry and Meghan lived on the Windsor estatel Now he's banished to darkest Norfolk.
It seems to me that the Palace cleverly figured out a workaround: removing the title from the Roll of Peerages: https://www.college-of-arms.gov.uk/images/downloads/Roll_of_the_Peerage.pdf
Andrew doesn't have any male heirs, so there is no one to inherit the title after he dies. The inheritance of a title (essentially inheritable property) is what necessitates a Parliamentary Act.
Since no one will inherit it, The King has essentially instructed through a Royal Warrant to no longer recognize the title; thereby effecting the same result without an act of Parliament.
beautifully summarized.
So the title disappears? Or does Andrew remain legally the Duke of York (and associated Scottish and Irish titles) unless and until Parliament strips him of them?
Is it so clever Andrew retains the title? I thought that was what Tom Sykes's non-lawyer peerage scholar source was implying.
I think the title disappears.
I don't follow Tom Sykes closely since I don't consider him a credible reporter.
According to the 2004 Royal Warrant (https://www.college-of-arms.gov.uk/RoyalWarrant2004.pdf) that established the Roll of Peerages, "Any Peer who is not entered on the Roll shall not:
(a) be entitled to any precedence attaching to his Peerage;
(b) be addressed or referred to by any title attaching to his Peerage in any civil or military Commission, Letter Patent, or other official document."
So, the Duke of York peerage is currently not officially recognized, and the title cannot be used in any official capacity. Regardless of the title still being extant.
In other words, the next time Andrew gets another passport, it will not have Duke of York on it. It will only have Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor on it.
This is about precedence and forms of address “attached to his Peerage”. It does NOT say the peerage itself is removed. My question is whether or not you can legally still be the Duke of York if people aren’t curtseying to you and you are not called the Duke of York. I’m still JS even if no one calls me by that name or accords me its rank (!).
With thanks for your information.
His title is no longer recognized and am pretty sure is retired.
Last Sunday, Prince Andrew was legally The Prince Andrew The Duke of York, and he could be called "Prince Andrew" or "The Duke of York." Now, he cannot legally be called by either.
He is only Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor, which comes from 5 February 1960 Letters Patent issued by QEII: "My descendants other than descendants enjoying the style, title or attribute of Royal Highness and the titular dignity of Prince or Princess and female descendants who marry and their descendants shall bear the name of Mountbatten-Windsor." https://www.thegazette.co.uk/London/issue/41948/supplement/1003
Does the Duke of York title still exist technically? Yes. Can it be used? NO.
Which is the same as can be said for The Duke of Albany title. Does the Duke of Albany title still exist? Yes. But it cannot be used by its rightful heir, either.
The 1917 Title Deprivation Act of 1917 was also about removing the Duke of Albany and The Duke of Cumberland and Teviotdale from Parliament as well. They were hereditary peers entitled to sit in the House of Lords. It was an entirely different scenario.
Maybe I should consult you on all matters titular for my next royal book. T
This is the point I wish just one MSM institution or reporter would call upon the many well-informed British con law experts and ask them if Andrew is still Duke of York. Thank you.
Spot on .