In the future, please link directly to the article or video as the main link.
Noted, thank you.
Edit: I flipped them around
Thanks!
sounds like staff need to give Randy Andy the old Red Eye (Visine in beer-gives you the shits).
Specifically the red eye formula drops. Too much, or the right amount depending on how you look at it, can actually kill a person.
They can’t call him sir, that’s an honorific in England that has meaning and he lost all formal titles, legally he isn’t a sir anymore he’s a Mr.
deleted by creator
No, they just can’t attempt to use the title like when they’re ordering house staff around, he’s a commoner now and he needs to accept that fact.
He should be working at McDonald’s f this scumbag
I think we really should stick to calling him “Prince Andrew.” If we don’t we’re letting the monarchy separate itself from him…but that’s bullshit; he has the privilege of being a prince and his status as prince is not just what gave him the liberty to be a monster, but I think we can assume it’s what actually made him a monster.
The Andrew formerly known as a prince.
I heard a very interesting argument that if the Royal family can remove Andrew from the line of succession, then the line itself can be manipulated, and anyone else could be added. In that case, what is the point of having a royal family?
I kind of feel like the Royal line has been nothing but manipulated. Usurpations, rule changes, and exceptions to primogeniture have been there since the beginning.
The line has been manipulated several times by Parliament, including the selection and elimination of kings.
The point of the royal family now isn’t to be a defined lineage, but an agreed upon vessel to hold power when Parliament temporarily breaks. Even then, Queen Elizabeth II was kind of shit at it.
It’d be nice if this led to just getting rid of the concept of royal families in general
I’m not sure what the point is in any case. Whatever about how the monarch is chosen…having a monarch is bad! And this monarchy is particularly bad!
A monarchy is a family business. Anyone in the family can run it. Monarchies are inherently unstable when the monarchs die because of this.
Seems a little threadbare as a theory.
People have been adding other people to royal families for the entirety of recorded history.
Sometimes its through marriage, but sometimes its adoption, sometimes they just make up a lineage.
Now, theres arguments against royalty, for sure, but if the royal family wasn’t allowed to prune itself, find the best people and merge them into the royal family, etc, there never would’ve been royals in the first place. Royal families begin with individuals but they remain by caring about “good breeding” (and other ways of consolidating power).
Consolidating is the real purpose. It can be obscured with religious lines of divinity, or what have you, but royal families are always shopping for people to incorporate.
Eh… I have mixed feelings on that.
Firstly, I don’t think his position made him a monster. I absolutely think it made it easier to become one, but there are plenty of opportunistic pedophiles who aren’t princes. In fact I don’t think it’s a far stretch to say the vast majority aren’t princes
Secondly, correct me if I’m wrong but hasn’t the majority of his privilege been stripped from him? Yeah, he can still visit royal places and such, but doesn’t he have about the same “power” as an in law or something?
There’s also the question of if the monarchy enabled his actions. Though, again I admit they may not have done enough after learning of his actions.
As a Canadian who never really paid attention to British royalty, this feels a lot like blaming a family for one member committing a mass murder. But that could just be a lack of understanding on my part.
That’s a good point, though powerful people do seem more likely to be a monster, to not see other people as people. Bring a members of the royal family is just one way in which one can be a powerful person. But certainly the way Virginia talked about prince Andrew was that he saw being a monster as his birthright.
I don’t know what majority of his privilege means…he’s still living a luxurious life on his estate with servants. That seems like a pretty extreme level of privilege to me…maybe privilege no human being should have, but certainly not just for being born into a family of historical mass murderers, and certainly not for being a pedophile. Until prince andrew is treated the same as any other person, I will not believe that he is not getting special treatment on account of his royal status.
I am an immigrant to Canada and I cannot understand how “chill” everyone here is about the monarchy. Is it not clearly an irredeemably evil institution? I really don’t get it.
Folks say they have no real power here but that’s definitely untrue, and even if it were (and again…it’s really not)…we should still sever ties, if nothing else to show that we don’t endorse what the royal family has done!
I, no joke, would rather Canada declare Justin Bieber king of Canada than leave it with the British royal family. Obviously we shouldn’t have a king, but we could at least pick a Canadian I guess. Anyone would be better.
I do want to point out, the British monarchy has zero power in Canada. Any status they have is purely symbolic.
Everyone says this, because so far the monarchy has generally done what parliament asks in terms of, for example, appointing a prime minister, appointing senators, etc. Except there was the “King-Byng affair” in which the crown refused to exercise its constitutional power at the behest of the elected government. Now in retrospect, that may have been for the best…but that absolutely should resolve anyone’s question that the monarchy “has zero power in Canada.” People generally remember this as the crown “saving us from ourselves” …I don’t have any strong feelings about that, as long as we recognize that it had the power to do something and still does. I think it shouldn’t have power…if someone else wants to say it should at least we can talk about that…but when we pretend that the monarchy has no power we have to talk about that first.
But ask Australians…they had no interference from the monarchy in their democracy until their “1975 constitutional crisis,” in which the people voted for a prime minister (some evil socialist who did crazy dangerous tankie things like bring in universal healthcare and pull out of the war in Vietnam…practically stalin), the queen then dismissed him, dissolved parliament, and appointed the liberal party leader as her new prime minister, and told them to have a new election.
Legally, Canada is in the exact same position as Australia was at that time. The only real differences are: (a) another 50 years of the monarchy not going rogue and fucking with democracy, but also (b) precedent of the monarchy going rogue and fucking with democracy and getting away with it.
I’m a lawyer, and it blows me away that lawyers here don’t know this stuff…like your whole government is built on a rug that could be pulled out from under you at any time! And look…if the monarchy tried to do something that was overwhelmingly unpopular, it would create a constitutional crisis, but I am sure we would get through it and get to the right result. Absurd to leave that risk on the table if you ask me, but fine… What worries me more is when the question is a bit more ambiguous…what happens if it’s not overwhelming? what happens if the country is split 60/40 on an issue, but many of the 60% are not willing to cause a constitutional crisis, and the monarchy is willing to push the less popular option? (I mean, we know what happens, that’s what happened in australia!).
Well when the family has a long history of mass murder…
It’s kind of their thing really lol
The only good royal is dead royal.
Being a monarch or nobility of any kind is a crime against humanity. And yes, this applies to all, no exceptions. I don’t care how “constitutional” a monarch is. No one should have inheritable legal status or power. Inherited wealth is bad enough. Every king or noble should have to give up their title or give up their head.
I would argue for the heads, all of them, otherwise you get the Anastasia problem. Take all the toys away and there is nothing to fight about.
The pedophile traitor deserves a single finger salute and tell him to fetch his own beer.
Should be calling him by a number
Don’t post pictures of headlines. Link to the article
Sir Pedophile
People are very negative but they don’t understand the house of windsor and how tradional it is. What else is traditional. The stockades.
I think it’s particularly hilarious that for all the talk of tradition, the house of “Windsor” was a name chosen during WWI, barely more than a century ago. The original name was “Saxe-Coburg and Gotha”, but somewhat awkwardly German bombers built by Gothaer Waggonfabrik and popularly known as “Gothas” happened to be dropping explosives on London.
why did they not go with saxe-cokburg?
To answer your query specifically, Saxe-Cokburg would have been more honest for a bunch of Anglo-Saxons
on hindsite I wish I had used an x but then again it would duplicative of saxe. still. can’t have enough x.
yeah i’m still waiting for them to bring back volcano sauce too
Yeah but he got killed by his own son.
A huge piece of shit in almost every respect, but the character had his moments of poignancy.
a POS, but a good politician and he had his principles. not many lanisters could claim that much…
I am no true king.
You do the math. ;)
Right. You’re a potato.
His staff are on record as saying they call him “the cunt” when he’s not around. I forget which interview that was but it was a former staff member on a TV interview.
Seen it, I think it was an interview with one of the security staff
“Yes, sir. Flagon of ale for the child rapist, sir. And absolutely nobody has done anything untoward in it, sir”.
Where is he interacting with royal staff these days?
