On 2026-02-20 23:38:05 +0000, BTR1701 said:
"Your Name" <YourName@YourISP.com> wrote:
On 2026-02-20 21:18:02 +0000, super70s said:
I wonder if they'll ever get around to investigating Harry, he was
known to do some hard partying in Vegas before he settled down with
Markle.
Harry was investigated during his move to America. I didn't bother ever
reading what happened ... likely they let him off, like most rich gits.
Let him off for what? What crime did he commit? Having a spat with your
family and moving to another country isn't a crime. He may be an idiot
who doesn't have the balls to stand up to his bitchy wife, but what did
he do that could possibly warrant a criminal investigation by the
government?
Think real hard. It's pretty obvious what he would be investigated for
if some victim(s) came forth. There was no indication Andrew ever had
sex with Virginia Giuffre until 14 years after it happened and turned
up in court documents.
On 2026-02-21 14:33:37 +0000, The True Melissa said:
Verily, in article <10nahcb$n9en$1@dont-email.me>, did
YourName@YourISP.com deliver unto us this message:
He is of course still the son of a Queen, so technically still a
"prince" (lower-case) by birth.
Yep, that's the problem. The "royal highness" is supposed to be innate
and inborn.
Andrew is no longer a "royal highness" because he has no royal title.
He's now just plain old Mr. Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor".
This whole royalty thing may not last much longer.
It would take a new law, and *a lot* of time and money to get rid of
the royal family ... not only in the UK, but also every other country
that has them as the head of state (New Zealand, Canada, Australia,
etc.). That's one big reason why it's also not worth bothering with for these countries to become a "republic" - a huge pile of time and money wasted to achieve nothing useful. The royal family is simply a
figurehead and has no real power over anything these days.
Verily, in article <10nd9jd$1kgpm$1@dont-email.me>, did
YourName@YourISP.com deliver unto us this message:
On 2026-02-21 14:33:37 +0000, The True Melissa said:
Verily, in article <10nahcb$n9en$1@dont-email.me>, did
YourName@YourISP.com deliver unto us this message:
He is of course still the son of a Queen, so technically still a
"prince" (lower-case) by birth.
Yep, that's the problem. The "royal highness" is supposed to be innate
and inborn.
Andrew is no longer a "royal highness" because he has no royal title.
He's now just plain old Mr. Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor".
A lot of sources are describing him as "the king's brother." We could
also call him the Andrew formerly known as Prince.
This whole royalty thing may not last much longer.
It would take a new law, and *a lot* of time and money to get rid of
the royal family ... not only in the UK, but also every other country
that has them as the head of state (New Zealand, Canada, Australia,
etc.). That's one big reason why it's also not worth bothering with for
these countries to become a "republic" - a huge pile of time and money
wasted to achieve nothing useful. The royal family is simply a
figurehead and has no real power over anything these days.
I'm not sure that's completely true. Last I heard, the monarch still
vetoes minor laws every year. However, I will let the people in the
affected countries have opinions on that. To me, it's just a show.
Verily, in article <10nd9jd$1kgpm$1@dont-email.me>, did
YourName@YourISP.com deliver unto us this message:
On 2026-02-21 14:33:37 +0000, The True Melissa said:
Verily, in article <10nahcb$n9en$1@dont-email.me>, did
YourName@YourISP.com deliver unto us this message:
He is of course still the son of a Queen, so technically still a
"prince" (lower-case) by birth.
Yep, that's the problem. The "royal highness" is supposed to be innate
and inborn.
Andrew is no longer a "royal highness" because he has no royal title.
He's now just plain old Mr. Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor".
A lot of sources are describing him as "the king's brother." We could
also call him the Andrew formerly known as Prince.
This whole royalty thing may not last much longer.
It would take a new law, and *a lot* of time and money to get rid of
the royal family ... not only in the UK, but also every other country
that has them as the head of state (New Zealand, Canada, Australia,
etc.). That's one big reason why it's also not worth bothering with for
these countries to become a "republic" - a huge pile of time and money
wasted to achieve nothing useful. The royal family is simply a
figurehead and has no real power over anything these days.
I'm not sure that's completely true. Last I heard, the monarch still
vetoes minor laws every year. However, I will let the people in the
affected countries have opinions on that. To me, it's just a show.
On 2026-02-22 6:25 a.m., The True Melissa wrote:
Verily, in article <10nd9jd$1kgpm$1@dont-email.me>, didI've lived in Canada all my life and have been paying attention to news since I was quite young but have never heard of the Queen (or now the
YourName@YourISP.com deliver unto us this message:
On 2026-02-21 14:33:37 +0000, The True Melissa said:
Verily, in article <10nahcb$n9en$1@dont-email.me>, did
YourName@YourISP.com deliver unto us this message:
He is of course still the son of a Queen, so technically still a
"prince" (lower-case) by birth.
Yep, that's the problem. The "royal highness" is supposed to be innate >>>> and inborn.
Andrew is no longer a "royal highness" because he has no royal title.
He's now just plain old Mr. Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor".
A lot of sources are describing him as "the king's brother." We could
also call him the Andrew formerly known as Prince.
This whole royalty thing may not last much longer.
It would take a new law, and *a lot* of time and money to get rid of
the royal family ... not only in the UK, but also every other country
that has them as the head of state (New Zealand, Canada, Australia,
etc.). That's one big reason why it's also not worth bothering with for >>> these countries to become a "republic" - a huge pile of time and money
wasted to achieve nothing useful. The royal family is simply a
figurehead and has no real power over anything these days.
I'm not sure that's completely true. Last I heard, the monarch still
vetoes minor laws every year. However, I will let the people in the
affected countries have opinions on that. To me, it's just a show.
King) vetoing anything in THIS country. I feel sure the news would have reported it if they did and that there would be some ill will towards
the monarchy in that case.
I don't know how popularly the Royal Family is here in terms of the
overall sentiments of the country. You don't hear a lot of anti-monarchy sentiments and they usually get a decent turnout when they make a Royal Visit. The Queen's motorcade crossed my street on one visit when I was
in my teens but I couldn't be bothered to go see.
I'm offended at the thought of the Royals (and they're supporters)
thinking the Royals are somehow better people than the rest of us
On 2026-02-22 6:25 a.m., The True Melissa wrote:
Verily, in article <10nd9jd$1kgpm$1@dont-email.me>, didI've lived in Canada all my life and have been paying attention to news since I was quite young but have never heard of the Queen (or now the
YourName@YourISP.com deliver unto us this message:
On 2026-02-21 14:33:37 +0000, The True Melissa said:
Verily, in article <10nahcb$n9en$1@dont-email.me>, did
YourName@YourISP.com deliver unto us this message:
He is of course still the son of a Queen, so technically still a
"prince" (lower-case) by birth.
Yep, that's the problem. The "royal highness" is supposed to be innate >>>> and inborn.
Andrew is no longer a "royal highness" because he has no royal title.
He's now just plain old Mr. Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor".
A lot of sources are describing him as "the king's brother." We could
also call him the Andrew formerly known as Prince.
This whole royalty thing may not last much longer.
It would take a new law, and *a lot* of time and money to get rid of
the royal family ... not only in the UK, but also every other country
that has them as the head of state (New Zealand, Canada, Australia,
etc.). That's one big reason why it's also not worth bothering with for
these countries to become a "republic" - a huge pile of time and money
wasted to achieve nothing useful. The royal family is simply a
figurehead and has no real power over anything these days.
I'm not sure that's completely true. Last I heard, the monarch still
vetoes minor laws every year. However, I will let the people in the
affected countries have opinions on that. To me, it's just a show.
King) vetoing anything in THIS country. I feel sure the news would have reported it if they did and that there would be some ill will towards
the monarchy in that case.
I don't know how popularly the Royal Family is here in terms of the
overall sentiments of the country. You don't hear a lot of anti-monarchy sentiments and they usually get a decent turnout when they make a Royal Visit. The Queen's motorcade crossed my street on one visit when I was
in my teens but I couldn't be bothered to go see.
I'm offended at the thought of the Royals (and they're supporters)
thinking the Royals are somehow better people than the rest of us and I resent the idea that I'd be expected to bow in their presence or call
them "Your Highness" or whatever. I resent the taxes spent on their
upkeep too. But the institution itself may have some merit just in terms
of preserving some stability: an institution that COULD conceivably do something important in really dire circumstances, like helping pull
people together in the event of a major war. (The UK is approaching that now, but a civil war, and I still have a faint hope that the King will
call for new elections so that a more sensible party can govern.)
However, Piers Morgan was interviewed in a Fox News clip I just saw and
said that the charges which the justice system *could* levy might well
see Andrew in prison FOR LIFE. Morgan is not a lawyer so I have no idea
if he has talked to credible people about this or is just
sensationalizing but it certainly looks like these are very serious
charges. Morgan also said he could imagine the entire monarchy being
swept away as one of the consequences of this affair!
It might not even be a bunch of smaller charges added up but a single charge
of "misconduct in public office". Besides, like Canada, I think the Brits >> usually make sentences for multiple offences concurrent so 10 two-year
sentences is usually served in two years (minus time off for good behaviour,
prison overcrowding, etc.)
Isn't he the one who made his military training in Canada?
The Royals get money from the government via something called the Civil >List; they also have income from land and rents from tenant farmers
which they bequeath to each generation in turn. If Andrew tries to spend >money from such sources, the King may pushback saying it isn't really >Andrew's money so much as money he got by being a royal and therefore >directly from the government or indirectly by virtue of the government >letting him have that money.
I'm absolutely speculating on all of this from little bits that I've
heard over the years; I may be completely wrong. None of the punditry
has said anything like this and they'd know better how things work than
I do.
| Sysop: | Amessyroom |
|---|---|
| Location: | Fayetteville, NC |
| Users: | 59 |
| Nodes: | 6 (0 / 6) |
| Uptime: | 20:58:42 |
| Calls: | 810 |
| Calls today: | 1 |
| Files: | 1,287 |
| D/L today: |
11 files (21,026K bytes) |
| Messages: | 194,568 |