• gnutrino@programming.dev
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    39
    ·
    12 hours ago

    I can’t help but wonder if they would have dared had he still had his title?

    I would assume that the king and other interested parties will have known this was coming for a while and that is why he lost his title.

    • fiat_lux@lemmy.worldOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      12 hours ago

      Maybe, I’m not so sure. I had thought they knew it was very likely the accusations were true, but they spent a lot of time sidestepping action. If public criticism hadn’t been so relentless, they might have been content to sweep it under the rug, as is tradition.

      But I have never kept close track of the royal family, largely because I always assumed they were untouchable.

      • gnutrino@programming.dev
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        12
        ·
        11 hours ago

        they spent a lot of time sidestepping action

        That’s sort of my point though, they spent years protecting him and then suddenly a few months ago something made them turn on a dime and strip him of his titles very rapidly. I suspect that “something” was being told the police had enough evidence to arrest him.

        • DagwoodIII@piefed.social
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          13
          ·
          10 hours ago

          Someone asked Ernest Hemingway how he lost all his money.

          “Gradually, then all at once.”

          Same situation. One person says something and it’s dismissed. Ten people say it and it becomes gossip fodder. A hundred people say it and it becomes an open secret. A million people say it and he gets arrested.

        • hector@lemmy.today
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          10 hours ago

          I wonder if the one that defected with his wife to california had something to do with all of this too, and not just snobbery to his new wife.

    • ohulancutash@feddit.uk
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      edit-2
      12 hours ago

      Charles has always hated and envied Andrew. He removed him from Royal duties as soon as he had the power to do so.

        • ohulancutash@feddit.uk
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          22
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          11 hours ago

          Charles has a complex that his parents never loved him, and merely bred him to be Sovereign. It’s why he still refuses to move in to Buckingham Palace. Andrew was unquestionably Elizabeth’s favourite child, with his frequent failures and bankruptcies excused and waved away.

          • SaveTheTuaHawk@lemmy.ca
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            6
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            10 hours ago

            You do not know these people. This is knitting circle talk. Charles removed Andrew because of Epstein and other local infractions, as well as knowledge of him sharing state secrets.