Charles will set him up for life...as long as he never returns to England.Does AMW even need a passport?
Dubai would probably welcome him with open arms though why is a mystery since he has zilch to offer anyone.
Sarah is probably paving the way for him. lol
imo
It must be unnerving to feel the level of animosity toward the royal family by so many Britons for their long history of looking the other way when the whole world is aware of the drama. Listening to random Londoners today the consensus appears to be a fatigue having a royal family. It wouldn't be the first country to consider getting rid of them. No matter how popular and what a draw they are for the tourist trade. They are an anachronism in today's world. An expensive one.'British public cheer Andrew's arrest with a smile and relief'
![]()
British public cheer Andrew's arrest with a smile and relief
Britain's typically pro-royal public welcomed the arrest Thursday of the former prince Andrew, whose friendship with convicted US sex offender Jeffrey Epstein has turned him into an outcast.www.cbs19news.com
And his successor Oliver Cromwell, who died from sepsis, was dug up and hanged and his head stuck on top of a pike at Westminster for 20 years. Talk about revenge.Yes, it’s true. Charles I was beheaded in 1649 during the English civil war. Parliament vs. the monarchy. I recently read a book about it.
Here’s a link:
King Charles I executed for treason | January 30, 1649 | HISTORY
In London, King Charles I is beheaded for treason on January 30, 1649. Charles ascended to the English throne in 1625...www.history.com
I wish she were still alive so she’d have to face the consequences of coddling her favorite child. Philip too.![]()
Andrew is arrested on his birthday in police raid on Sandringham home
Thames Valley Police held the eighth in line to the British throne on suspicion of misconduct in public office this morning.www.dailymail.co.uk
Wow. This is interesting. So glad his mother isn't alive to see this. Would she have been able to stop it? I wonder if he would have been arrested previously, and she did intervene?
Yes, he was her only real weakness, but it's one shared by a lot of mothers where a golden child, especially a son, is concerned. Over on the Mumsnet forums, the question is posed from time to time about precisely this scenario: if your child committed a really serious offence, such as rape or murder, would you hand them over to the police? A significant proportion of women say no, not under any circumstances, regardless of what he had done.His mother always overprotected Andrew. He got away with too much.
And on the day he reaches state pension age to boot .....Imagine being arrested on birthday![]()
He’ll probably have to contain him somewhere. If he doesn’t go to prison or his sentence ends before he dies, he’s too much of a security risk to be left to run free range.Charles will set him up for life...as long as he never returns to England.
He looks like he has been traumatized. about time, imo.An image that will live in infamy.
![]()
Thinking about this, I wonder if the late Queen realised towards the end of her life that she had cocked up with regard to Andrew and agreed to him paying £12m to Giuffre as a way of kicking the can down the road until after her death. In other words, did she realise there would be more to come out about Andrew and deliberately leave it all as a poisoned chalice to Charles to sort out.Yes, he was her only real weakness, but it's one shared by a lot of mothers where a golden child, especially a son, is concerned. Over on the Mumsnet forums, the question is posed from time to time about precisely this scenario: if your child committed a really serious offence, such as rape or murder, would you hand them over to the police? A significant proportion of women say no, not under any circumstances, regardless of what he had done.
Apparently in the UK no one is above the law, even royalty: here in America, well that is not the case- obviously.Unprecedented that the man who was second in line to the throne arrested at least in modern times.
I think that's a stretch.Thinking about this, I wonder if the late Queen realised towards the end of her life that she had cocked up with regard to Andrew and agreed to him paying £12m to Giuffre as a way of kicking the can down the road until after her death. In other words, did she realise there would be more to come out about Andrew and deliberately leave it all as a poisoned chalice to Charles to sort out.
Let's be honest here - they took so long to act here that he seriously ran the risk of being publicly lynched so they had very little choice in the endApparently in the UK no one is above the law, even royalty: here in America, well that is not the case- obviously.
Yes, it may be, but I'm also thinking that the Giuffre situation blew up when the late Queen was around 90 years of age and becoming noticeably frailer. Perhaps she just didn't have the strength to deal with it by the time it all blew up. Leaving it to her successor might have made sense, although probably nobody knew at the time of Charles' succession that he was himself ill with cancer.I think that's a stretch.