Prince Andrew, Duke of York Current Events 7: Feb 2015 - Sep 2022


If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
See posts with no answers
Status
Not open for further replies.
They fade away because the press has many scandals to cover - no magic about that.
 
Last edited:
royal rob said:
There has been so many stories over the years but some how they just fade away like magic ! Strange that mmm I wonder why ?


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community
Click to expand...

To claim and to poke is one, to show evidence is two. Daily Mail is master in claiming, naming and shaming. When it comes to evidence they usually fall (very) short. Nothing new under the sun.
 
In fairness as much as I don't respect the Daily Fail they do have evidence this time, e-mails from Andrew personally to one of the companies.
 
Prince Andrew's consultancy fees sounds quite trite. It is known that enlightened western Europeans love money and are often greedy. One has to determine a right amount of money to procure a required opinion in mass media or business contract.

On a different note ... Selective media outrage is pathetically fake.
 
Last edited:
Whatever the truth about whether or not he was paid (which would take this from a storm in a tea cup to an actual storm) the questions remains why was he spending his time working with two foreign companies and not a British company?
 
royal rob said:
The truth about Andrew's £15m house sale: As furore grows over Prince's links to corrupt Kazakh regime, we expose new details surrounding the mysterious sale of Prince's marital home to oligarch | Daily Mail Online


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community
Click to expand...

Strangely given Coutts’ policy on Kazakhstan and referrals, the Palace suggested last night Prince Andrew had sent the email as a favour to the bank.

‘The Duke of York works to encourage economic growth in the United Kingdom and from time to time he is called upon by UK companies who wish to make contact with overseas markets,’ they said, in response to an inquiry about the email.

Asked to comment on what Ms Thirsk’s emails reveal about how intimately the Prince’s private office were involved in the sale of Sunninghill Park, a spokesman said the Palace stands by its statement distancing Andrew from the matter.

Quite how it justifies that position is anyone’s guess. But the public will surely reach its own conclusions.

For, as we have seen, the written record of what took place during this strangest of property deals tells a very different story.
Click to expand...

And here's the Daily Fail's front page:
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CjFyhAXWEAIaCUn.jpg
 
Worst job to have ..PR for Prince Andrew . Truly find something else for him to do, something that doesn't involve money.
 
tommy100 said:
In fairness as much as I don't respect the Daily Fail they do have evidence this time, e-mails from Andrew personally to one of the companies.
Click to expand...

I think back to the time that he halted the specific foreign trade representative work and yet even a year later, his page on royal.gov said he was still in the role. My opinion of him plummeted. At best, it was lazy. It appeared petulant. At worst it was deceptive, long after he was to have stopped that official role.
I find him difficult to trust. JMO.
 
Andrew has a number of engagements relating to the role already booked in his diary - often these things are booked a year or so in advance and definitely six months in advance. He didn't remove that information when he announced he was stepping down but when he had finished the actual role.

This is no different to someone resigning or retiring from their job - they don't stop being in the job they day they tell their boss but the day they actually leave e.g. in my job I am required to give six teaching weeks' notice. I won't stop being a teacher half way through the 10 week term when I retire but at the end of the following holidays i.e. 13 weeks after I tell the boss. I will still be able to claim that I am employed by the school until then.

I see Andrew's situation as exactly the same - it took about 8 months for him to actually stop doing the job from the time he announced he was stepping down until he actually stopped doing the job and during that time he kept it up on his website as he was still doing the job.
 
But there are many jobs where you leave the day you tell management. Especially jobs that involve money clients etc. totally different to teaching


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community
 
GracieGiraffe said:
Ah, Andy's in the paper again I see.
Click to expand...

:whistling:Yes - something about financial shenanigans involving his Kazakhstan chums.
Wonder how the Mail got it's hands on the emails revealing the various schemes.
 
Last edited:
This is starting to get serious and it is damaging to the monarchy.

Prince Andrew faces calls for inquiry into his deals with Kazakh oligarch | Daily Mail Online

Some of the MPs had this to say:
Pressure was growing last night for an inquiry into Prince Andrew’s links with Kazakhstan.

MPs and human rights campaigners said there was a worrying lack of transparency about the Duke of York’s business dealings with the former Soviet republic.

Yesterday, Liberal Democrat leader Tim Farron told the Mail: ‘No one should be above the law and if evidence is put forward, then it should be investigated without fear or favour.’

Sir Vince Cable, the former Business Secretary, called for Andrew to be prevented from playing any official role in representing British trade overseas. He said: ‘It would not be right for him to be speaking for the British Government.’

Shadow Commons leader Chris Bryant said: ‘I don’t think there has been enough transparency or scrutiny on the way this nebulous role has been used.’

The former Foreign Office minister added: ‘When I was at the Foreign Office, nobody could ever tell whether he was looking out for himself or whether he really had the interests of the country at heart.’

Robert Barrington, of Transparency International UK, the anti-corruption campaign group, told the Mail: ‘You would expect that any deals involving an official British trade envoy should be transparent, with clarity over what the deal involved, who was paid commission and how much commission was paid.

‘A set-up in which middle men take unknown cuts from unknown deals should be considered very high risk for corruption.’

Referring to the Greek/Swiss deal, Hugh Williamson, of Human Rights Watch, said: ‘This story is very concerning because it shows that new trade arrangements were being negotiated without being placed in the context of the UK Government’s policy on human rights and also because the Prince may have been benefiting personally from these deals.’
Click to expand...

The 81 year old Newport MP Paul Flynn had this to say:
Labour MP Paul Flynn, who has campaigned for Parliament to lift its arcane rule that royals cannot be criticised in the Chamber, said Prince Andrew should lose his royal status.

He said Andrew and other ‘minor royals’ were often too constrained, adding: ‘These hangers-on lead a miserable existence.

‘We should liberate them from their status of minor royals and allow them to lead full, normal lives with proper jobs like they have always wanted. We are not short of officials who can cut ribbons in this country.’
Click to expand...
The Duke of kent is turning 81, Alexandra is turning 80 and they've had health issues. The Gloucesters is turning 72 and 70 this year - so this problem will resolve itself.

Anne, Andrew and Edward are children of the monarch - so they are not minor royals and I am 100% sure that they will continue with their duties as long as they wants, both under the Queen and Charles (with the exception of Andrew if he's done something illegal.)

And Paul Flynn must be taken with a large pinch of salt, because he is a long-time anti monarchist and he has repeatedly described himself as a hardened republican. He has never had anything nice to say about Charles and William, but he is a big fan of Queen.

He talks about Her Majesty in this article:
''Hardened republican''Newport MP pays tribute to the Queen (From South Wales Argus)
 
Last edited:
Andrew is such a minor royal that he can be appointed to serve as a Counsellor-of-State and as such chair the Privy Council and sign bills into law when HM is overseas.
 
ROYAL NORWAY said:
This is starting to get serious and it is damaging to the monarchy.
Click to expand...

It won't damage the monarchy. I have British friends who I speak with now and again. Some time ago, in regarding to the Virginia Roberts allegations, I was told Andrew has fallen so low in the opinion of the public well before this that it won't matter. At the time I was told the big question people had with Andrew is how he managed to afford the Swiss chalet. I don't think these allegations are a surprise or a shock.

The only thing that could damage the monarchy is the monarchy's reaction to a demand for a serious investigation. I can understand the Queen's desire to protect a favorite son. I think you mentioned it a few posts ago, I'm more worried about her health than anything else. She does not deserve this.
 
Part of the reason Andrew gets away with things is because people lost respect for him a long time ago. It sounds like it could be picking up speed and while he might be the Queens favourite it has been rumoured for just as long he isn't Charles. I won't be surprised if Andrews wings get clipped in a serious way when Charles takes the throne. I don't think it would matter that much. He has the Privy Councel etc because of where he is ranked in the family not because he is this amazing Royal. I feel so bad for the Queen Andrew has been warned before he had his role taken off him but he seems to be doing pretty much the same thing just without the title and it seems he is making money of it which if true is a real problem for the Family they are supposed to be unbiased. How has Andrew afforded his lifestyle? He pays the rent for the girls, protection, looks after fergie, bought a Villa which seems way out of his price range cause lets not pretend Sarah put any money towards it. Don't be surprised if there is an official investigation and has he been paying tax and declaring his earnnings etc? Things could get way worse before they get better. I feel so sorry for the Queen and The Duke they deserve time just to relax not have yet another cloud over the family caused by a York.
 
We shouldn't forget that The Queen is a very wealthy woman who has probably set up sizeable trust funds for her younger three children.
 
For some people though, a lot is never enough to lead the sort of lifestyle they want.
Regardless of Andrew's present reputation, which is very very low among those who take any notice of him, I think there should be a public inquiry into his business dealings. The British public deserves transparency. Let the cards fall where they will. If there's an inquiry and Andrew is exonerated, fine. If it's proved that he has been involved in underhand dealings then everyone will know the truth, and he can retire completely from public life in disgrace, and face whatever other penalties come his way. The fact that Andrew is the Queen's son shouldn't matter at all.
 
Curryong said:
For some people though, a lot is never enough to lead the sort of lifestyle they want.
Regardless of Andrew's present reputation, which is very very low among those who take any notice of him, I think there should be a public inquiry into his business dealings. The British public deserves transparency. Let the cards fall where they will. If there's an inquiry and Andrew is exonerated, fine. If it's proved that he has been involved in underhand dealings then everyone will know the truth, and he can retire completely from public life in disgrace, and face whatever other penalties come his way. The fact that Andrew is the Queen's son shouldn't matter at all.
Click to expand...

I totally agree with all of what you've said here especially where you stated that Andrew's position by birth as son of the monarch doesn't matter. In a lot of other "scandals" pertaining to Andrew and the Yorks, its mostly been allegations that he "may" have been involved (as with Epstein and the parties ad nauseum). With what has come out now, he is specifically cited as having dealing that may or may not have been legit or in the interest of the UK or even that he was doing business deals to line his own pockets.

The only answer I can see is that if Andrew is clear of any misdoings, he needs to, as you say, be transparent. If he is hiding behind mummy's apron strings, it will just be another case where the public believes Andrew is bigger, brighter and better in his own mind because he's a "royal" and his reputation takes another fast slide down to the sewers once again.

I do agree that HM and the DoE do not need this aggravation and to be honest, I do hope they practice a little "tough love" on their kid and let him dig himself out if he needs to do so.
 
See the thing is, did he break the law? I have no idea because after reading a paragraph my mind goes numb., it's so boring. I agree he shouldn't be allowed to get away with things because he's the Queen's son but he shouldn't be subjected to witch hunts just because the tabloids don't like him.


If he got himself a sweet deal and it was legal, well good for him. I'm sure lawyers are going over it with a fine tooth comb.
 
Last edited:
The question in my mind is the type of MP calling for investigation. We all know one is a staunch republican, so of course he would call for one. Who are the others? Again, this in my mind is the major issue. Whether or not he engaged in wrongdoing is almost secondary. The transparency of the monarchy is of primary importance and their willingness to respond to reasonable requests for investigation.
 
:previous: If MPs from various viewpoints call for an investigation, then we'll know it's really serious. Prince Andrew could have done something that's legal, but that doesn't make it ethical. Even the appearance of conflict-of-interest has to be avoided by someone in his position. IMO if he retires from public life, he can do all the wheeling-and-dealing he likes so long as it's legal. However, when he's publicly representing the monarchy, which he presently does, that's a different matter. :ermm:
 
Even if he didn't break the law I as a British taxpayer would love to know why a member of the taxpayer funded Royal Family was helping two foreign companies set up a deal with no apparent benefit to the British economy. There are plenty of British businesses that need support rather than foreign ones. I think many people rightly question the lifestyle of the Duke, ues he probably has a trust fund but then so would Anne and Edward and they dont seem to have enough cash to buy £13million ski chalets
 
GracieGiraffe said:
The question in my mind is the type of MP calling for investigation. We all know one is a staunch republican, so of course he would call for one. Who are the others? Again, this in my mind is the major issue. Whether or not he engaged in wrongdoing is almost secondary. The transparency of the monarchy is of primary importance and their willingness to respond to reasonable requests for investigation.
Click to expand...

The problem with that is defining 'reasonable'.

Some people would see this situation as a 'reasonable request' but then the next person may want to see where specifically the money came from to pay for the refurbishment of Anmer Hall - saying 'private' isn't enough and then others would argue that every single penny that the royals spend would be a reasonable request to have accounted for.

What is 'reasonable'?
 
Iluvbertie said:
The problem with that is defining 'reasonable'.

Some people would see this situation as a 'reasonable request' but then the next person may want to see where specifically the money came from to pay for the refurbishment of Anmer Hall - saying 'private' isn't enough and then others would argue that every single penny that the royals spend would be a reasonable request to have accounted for.

What is 'reasonable'?
Click to expand...

Usually a judicial body, or quasi-judicial body makes such a determination as to what is reasonable, done on a case-by-case basis.

Your argument forms the basis of why certain groups are afforded immunity - we recognize a group can commit a wrongdoing but for various reasons we as a society won't investigate or impose a penalty. Harm to the institution itself is one of those reasons. However, while I suppose the Queen has such immunity, I'm not sure about her family. Perhaps they enjoy a de facto immunity.
 
tommy100 said:
Even if he didn't break the law I as a British taxpayer would love to know why a member of the taxpayer funded Royal Family was helping two foreign companies set up a deal with no apparent benefit to the British economy. There are plenty of British businesses that need support rather than foreign ones. I think many people rightly question the lifestyle of the Duke, ues he probably has a trust fund but then so would Anne and Edward and they dont seem to have enough cash to buy £13million ski chalets
Click to expand...

Maybe they have enough to buy such a chalet but would prefer to spend their money on horses or other things while Andrew chose a home for his ex-wife nd daughters.

Just because Anne and Edward don't appear to flash the cash doesn't mean they don't have it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

iceflower
Louis, Pauline and Camille Current Events Part 7: November 2024 -
Replies
0
Views
469
iceflower
iceflower
An Ard Ri
  • Sticky
King Felipe VI and Queen Letizia's Current Events 5: June 2024 -
Replies
21
Views
4K
iceflower
iceflower
iceflower
Gender, names & godparents for Princess Beatrice & Edoardo Mapelli Mozzi's second child
2
Replies
48
Views
5K
Gawin
G
Marengo
  • Sticky
King Felipe's Current Events 6, June 2024-
2 3 4
Replies
92
Views
8K
An Ard Ri
An Ard Ri
iceflower
  • Sticky
Prince Albert II of Monaco Current Events Part 35: September 2024 -
2
Replies
33
Views
4K
An Ard Ri
An Ard Ri

Latest posts

Back
Top Bottom