Prince Andrew loses military titles and use of HRH

[313ghazi]

The Duke of York's military titles and royal patronages have been returned to the Queen, Buckingham Palace has said.
Prince Andrew, 61, will also stop using the style His Royal Highness in an official capacity, a royal source said.
It comes as he faces a US civil action over sexual assault allegations - claims he has consistently denied.
A source close to the duke said he would "continue to defend himself" against the case brought in New York by Virginia Giuffre.
But the source insisted a judge's ruling on Wednesday that the civil action could proceed was "not a judgement on the merits of Ms Giuffre's allegations".

• Giuffre unlikely to just want money, says lawyer
• What do charities get from having a royal patron?
• Maitlis: Prince's jaw-dropping TV interview now critical
• What's next for Prince Andrew?

Buckingham Palace said in a statement: "With the Queen's approval and agreement, the Duke of York's military affiliations and Royal patronages have been returned to the Queen.
"The Duke of York will continue not to undertake any public duties and is defending this case as a private citizen."
All Prince Andrew's roles have been returned to the Queen with immediate effect, and will be redistributed to other members of the Royal Family, a source said.
The issue had been widely discussed with the Royal Family, the source said.
Like Harry and Meghan, Prince Andrew retains his title HRH but will not use it in any official capacity.

Image source, DAVE M. BENETT/GETTY IMAGES
Image caption,
All of Prince Andrew's roles have been immediately returned to his mother, the Queen
A spokesperson for the Ministry of Defence said it had no comment about the duke's military titles being handed back to the Queen, and that it was a matter for the Palace.
On Thursday, a letter - released by anti-monarchy pressure group Republic - was signed by more than 150 Royal Navy, RAF and Army veterans asking the Queen to strip Prince Andrew of his eight British military titles.
Lt Stuart Hunt, who served in The 1st Royal Tank Regiment and signed the letter, welcomed the prince losing his military titles but suggested the matter should have been resolved sooner.
The 52-year-old told the PA News Agency: "It's an unsavoury business... I'm just glad he's not associated with the military now.
"Whether he's guilty or not, he has brought things into disrepute... He's not fit to serve in an honorary rank. He has forgone that right by getting into this sort of situation."

The response from Buckingham Palace has been swift and almost brutal.
The Royal Family is being firmly distanced from the toxic fall-out from the allegations against Prince Andrew.
He will have to defend himself against Virginia Giuffre as a private citizen, there will be no more His Royal Highness in this court case.
This is claimed to have been by mutual agreement, a stepping back rather than something imposed.
But the military titles and royal roles will go to other members of the family, which means they won't be coming back to Prince Andrew whatever the outcome.
The door is being closed on a return to public life.
Although he does seem to be keeping his constitutional role as "counsellor of state", one of four royals who can undertake the Queen's official duties, should she be unwell.
The court case will still make headlines, and there will be concerns it could cloud a jubilee year, but this unambiguous decision will have already answered the inevitable calls for his removal from his remaining public roles.
Prince Andrew has strongly denied any wrongdoing - and his representatives say that fighting the case is a "marathon and not a sprint".
Although this must feel like a huge and rapid retreat.

The duke had a 22-year career in the Royal Navy, and served as a helicopter pilot during the Falklands War.
The latest Palace announcement means he has lost military titles including Colonel of the Grenadier Guards - one of the most senior infantry regiments in the British army.
The other UK military titles he no longer has include:

• Honorary air commodore of RAF Lossiemouth
• Colonel-in-chief of the Royal Irish Regiment
• Colonel-in-chief of the Small Arms School Corps
• Colonel-in-chief of The Royal Lancers (Queen Elizabeth's Own)
• Colonel-in-chief of the Yorkshire Regiment
• Commodore-in-Chief of the Fleet Air Arm
• Royal colonel of the Royal Highland Fusiliers
• Royal colonel of the Royal Regiment of Scotland.

The duke will also lose several overseas honorary roles including colonel-in-chief of The Royal Highland Fusiliers Of Canada, colonel-in-chief of the Royal New Zealand Army Logistic Regiment, colonel-in-chief of the Princess Louise Fusiliers of Canada and colonel-in-chief of the Queen's York Rangers (1st American Regiment).
But he will retain his service rank of Vice-Admiral, the Palace has confirmed.
As an ex-member of the armed forces, he was promoted in line with his still-serving peers and made Vice-Admiral by the Navy on his 55th birthday in 2015.
The duke was due to be promoted to Admiral on his 60th birthday in 2020, but asked to defer this after stepping back from public duties in 2019.
At the time, the Palace said his other military appointments had been suspended.
Several other charities and organisations had cut their ties with the duke, but he continued to hold dozens of royal patronages - including being a patron or member of prestigious golf clubs, schools and cultural trusts.

Image source, Getty Images
Image caption,
Prince Andrew at Naval Air Station Portsmouth in 1983
The chair of the Commons Defence Select Committee, Tobias Ellwood, welcomed the returning of the Duke of York's military titles and royal patronages.
He told the BBC's Newscast podcast that the duke's change in status ahead of the US civil case was "necessary" to protect the reputation of the military.
"Prince Andrew already had stepped back from many of his public duties - I think all of them, as well - so I think this was anticipated, indeed it was expected, from this perspective, so I'm actually not surprised.
"It's important that the problems that Prince Andrew has incurred aren't bled over into the regiments that he was representing," Mr Ellwood said.

Image source, REX/Shutterstock
Image caption,
Prince Andrew is seen leaving his Windsor home for the first time since a US judge ruled he should face the civil charges brought against him by Virginia Giuffre.
Earlier, Ms Giuffre's lawyer David Boies said a money settlement alone will not be enough for his client - telling the BBC she wants to be vindicated.
The prince's lawyers had argued her case should be dismissed, citing a 2009 deal she signed with convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein.
But in a 46-page decision, Judge Lewis A Kaplan dismissed Prince Andrew's contention that the case against him was "legally insufficient" and could not go on to be heard at a future trial.
Ms Giuffre, now 38, filed a civil case in New York in August 2021 under the state's Child Victims Act, which allows survivors of childhood sexual abuse to pursue a case which otherwise would have been barred because too much time had passed.
In court documents filed as part of her civil case against Prince Andrew, Ms Giuffre said she was the victim of sex trafficking and abuse by the late billionaire financier, Epstein.
She alleged that part of her abuse involved being loaned out to other powerful men.

I
mage source, Reuters
Image caption,
Ms Giuffre claims the late billionaire financier trafficked her to have sex with Prince Andrew when she was 17.
Ms Giuffre claims Epstein trafficked her to have sex with Prince Andrew when she was 17.
She alleges the duke abused her on three occasions - both in the UK and the US - when she was a minor under US law.
In an interview with BBC Newsnight in 2019, the Queen's second son said that he had no recollection of ever meeting Ms Giuffre, and her account of them having sex in the US and UK "didn't happen".
The duke withdrew from public life shortly after the interview, which he used to repeat his denials of Ms Giuffre's claims and explain his one-time friendship with Epstein and the late financier's girlfriend, Ghislaine Maxwell.

Last month, Ms Maxwell was found guilty of recruiting and trafficking underage girls to be sexually abused by Epstein.

Prince Andrew loses military titles and use of HRH

It comes as the prince faces a US civil case over claims he sexually assaulted a woman when she was 17.

www.bbc.co.uk

 

[vi-va]

Prince Andrew fails in bid to dismiss US sexual abuse lawsuit

A judge in New York has rejected Prince Andrew’s attempt to persuade a US court to throw out a sexual abuse lawsuit brought against him by longtime American accuser Virginia Giuffre.
Giuffre, now 38, says she was forced into sex at 17 with Andrew, the Duke of York, by associates of his, the late sex offender and financier, Jeffrey Epstein, and Ghislaine Maxwell, the British media heiress who was convicted in New York last month of sex-trafficking girls for Epstein.
Giuffre’s lawsuit against Prince Andrew can move forward, Manhattan federal judge Lewis Kaplan ruled on Wednesday morning, noting it was too early to make a determination on the duke’s attempts to undermine Giuffre’s claims.
Giuffre, who has also alleged that Epstein and Maxwell sexually abused her, said they had coerced her into having sex with Andrew in London. Giuffre has also accused Andrew of engaging in sexual misconduct on other occasions. She filed suit against the royal on 9 August last year, citing battery and intentional infliction of emotional distress.
Now Prince Andrew is facing trial, the palace must find a way to ‘de-royal’ him
David McClure
Read more
Prince Andrew’s legal team had argued in court papers and proceedings that Giuffre’s 2009 settlement with Epstein shielded the duke from her lawsuit. The settlement with Epstein, which was unsealed on 3 January, awarded Giuffre $500,000.
Their agreement contained a provision that stated it was releasing: “Second parties and any other person or entity who could have been included as a potential defendant … from all, and all manner of, action and actions of Virginia [Giuffre], including state or federal, cause and causes of action.”
Andrew was not mentioned by name in this settlement.
Kaplan pointed out that this push for dismissal largely relied on the royal’s discussion of the 2009 agreement.
Kaplan said: “The law prohibits the court from considering, at this stage of the proceedings, the defendant’s efforts to cast doubt on the truth of Ms Giuffre’s allegations, even though his efforts would be permissible at trial.”
He continued: “In a similar vein and for similar reasons, it is not open to the court now to decide, as a matter of fact, just what the parties to the release in the 2009 settlement agreement signed by Ms Giuffre and Jeffrey Epstein actually meant.
“The court’s job at this juncture is simply to determine whether there are two or more reasonable interpretations of that document. If there are, the determination of the ‘right’ or controlling interpretation must await further proceedings.
“With limited exceptions, the motion must be decided solely on the basis of the allegations of the complaint without regard to any extraneous claims or materials,” Kaplan also wrote. “The 2009 agreement neither appears in nor is referred to” in Giuffre’s civil complaint.

Prince Andrew has failed to dismiss the lawsuit against him – what happens next?
Read more
The judge also rejected Andrew’s claims that Giuffre’s civil allegations against him lack necessary specificity.
“Ms Giuffre’s complaint is neither ‘unintelligible’ nor ‘vague’ nor ‘ambiguous.’ It alleges discrete incidents of sexual abuse in particular circumstances at three identifiable locations. It identifies to whom it attributes that sexual abuse,” Kaplan wrote.
He said that Andrew’s position about the Giuffre complaint’s alleged vagueness, and how they limit his ability to mount a defense, was undermined by his denials.
“Moreover, the defendant’s assertion that he cannot reasonably prepare a response to plaintiff’s allegations plainly contradicts the content of his moving papers, in which he denies Ms Giuffre’s allegations in no uncertain terms,” he said.
Kaplan’s decision deals yet another blow to the embattled British prince, whose reputation and standing within the royal family has been saddled by his ties to Epstein and Maxwell.
High-profile criminal proceedings against Epstein and Maxwell over the past two years have further damaged his reputation.
Maxwell, the daughter of the late British press titan Robert Maxwell, was found guilty of five counts for luring girls as young as 14 into Epstein’s world for him to sexually abuse and is currently facing years behind bars when she is sentenced, at a date yet to be set.
Epstein, who in addition to Prince Andrew counted former presidents Bill Clinton and Donald Trump in his circle, killed himself in a Manhattan jail about a month after his July 2019 arrest on sex-trafficking charges.
Giuffre has claimed that Prince was “sweating profusely all over me” at a London nightclub on a night when they allegedly had a sexual encounter.
Prince Andrew said in a disastrous BBC interview that Giuffre’s statement about his perspiration could not be true, claiming: “I have a peculiar medical condition which is that I don’t sweat or I didn’t sweat at the time.”
Prince Andrew also maintained that on the evening cited by Giuffre, he went with his daughter, Beatrice, to a late-afternoon children’s party at a Pizza Express in Woking. After the party, Prince Andrew claims, he was at home with his children all night.
As part of Giuffre’s suit, her legal team has requested documents that would prove whether or not Prince Andrew can sweat.
Sigrid McCawley, one of Giuffre’s lawyers, said of Kaplan’s ruling: “Today’s decision by Judge Kaplan denying Prince Andrew’s effort to dismiss Virginia Giuffre’s case against him is another important step in Virginia’s heroic and determined pursuit of justice as a survivor of sex trafficking.”
Shortly after Kaplan’s decision, a development emerged involving the juror in Maxwell’s criminal case who has caused a stir over discrepancies between a post-trial media interview about past sexual abuse and his disclosures during the jury screening process.
A court filing revealed on Wednesday that this juror’s attorney asked for a copy of his completed screening questionnaire, where he was asked to provide answers about any history of abuse.

 

[Paul2]

What a disgrace

 

[Polestar 2]

What a disgrace

I think Boris Johnson is more disgrace. He got the cheek to claim going for mass government meeting rather than a party drink when whole UK is under lockdown.

 

[Paul2]

I think Boris Johnson is more disgrace. He got the cheek to claim going for mass government meeting rather than a party drink when whole UK is under lockdown.

I lost count to "what a disgrace" callable things over the last 5 years

 

[313ghazi]

I think Boris Johnson is more disgrace. He got the cheek to claim going for mass government meeting rather than a party drink when whole UK is under lockdown.

This government has pushed the barrier of disgrace into new frontiers. People put videos and pictures on social media about how their relatives died alone, how they were allowed 5 minutes through a window to say goodbye, during the same time the ruling elite were having garden parties.