Prince Andrew to no longer use 'His Royal Highness' as Queen removes his military roles

[EnterpriseSovereign]

The Duke of York will no longer use the style 'His Royal Highness’ in any official capacity, royal sources have said.

It follows the news Prince Andrew will return his military affiliations and royal patronages to the Queen, Buckingham Palace has announced.

ITV News Royal Editor Chris Ship understands the decision to strip Andrew of all his honorary military roles follows discussions among senior members of the Royal Family - including Andrew’s mother, the Queen, his brothers and sister.

The duke saw the Queen on Thursday where she told him face to face that his military roles, his HRH style, and his patronages were being removed from him.

The Duke of York is facing a civil case trial over allegations he sexually assaulted Virginia Giuffre when she was 17, a minor under US law. Andrew has denied the claims and says he has no recollection of having met Ms Giuffre.

On Wednesday a US judge dismissed a motion by Andrew's legal team to have the lawsuit thrown out, after his lawyers argued Ms Giuffre had waived her right to pursue the duke by signing a confidential settlement with disgraced financier Jeffrey Epstein.

Commenting on that decision on Thursday, Andrew's legal team said: "Given the robustness with which Judge Kaplan greeted our arguments, we are unsurprised by the ruling. However, it was not a judgement on the merits of Ms Giuffre’s allegations.

The duke's office added: "This is a marathon not a sprint and the Duke will continue to defend himself against these claims."

Announcing the removal of Andrew's roles, Buckingham Palace said: “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.”

Earlier in the day, more than 150 Royal Navy, RAF and Army veterans wrote to the monarch, calling on her to strip Andrew of all his ranks and roles within the British armed forces due to allegations made against him.

The Palace said previously that the duke’s military appointments were in abeyance after he stepped down from public duties in 2019.

But until now he still retained the roles, which left the eight British regiments, including the Grenadier Guards of which he was Colonel, in limbo more than two years on.

Link.
Being a civil trial as opposed to a criminal one, am I right in assuming all they can do in this case is award damages to the plaintiff, in this case Virginia Giuffre? And for that matter, can they ask that Prince Andrew be extradited, or how would this work?

[Gandalf]

So he lost parts of his make believe job, but does he still live in his royal luxury?

[Broomstick]

Being a civil trial as opposed to a criminal one, am I right in assuming all they can do in this case is award damages to the plaintiff, in this case Virginia Giuffre?

In a US civil case (which if I recall correctly is the situation here) yes, pretty much all that can be done is a financial award to the plaintiff.

I'm not sure whether or not Andrew's presence could be required for a civil trial. For criminal charges he would need to be present as the US has no criminal trials in absentia. For a civil trial a lawyer that has the legal standing to represent him might be all that's needed.

So he lost parts of his make believe job, but does he still live in his royal luxury?

Yeah, even if he loses all of his personal assets due to a court judgement it's not like the asshat will be homeless or anything, or even living in a crappy studio apartment with the only furnishing a card table and a rickety folding chair, living on canned beans and handouts even that's what he might deserve.

[Solauren]

Being a civil trial as opposed to a criminal one, am I right in assuming all they can do in this case is award damages to the plaintiff, in this case Virginia Giuffre? And for that matter, can they ask that Prince Andrew be extradited, or how would this work?

Civil Cases are about monetary compensation then anything else. In this case, the courts could award damages to Ms. Giruffre. How they would go about enforcing that decision is beyond me, however.

I suspect it's not a criminal case due to a variety of factors.


The United States government can ask for Prince Andrew to be extradited, however, that is used in criminal matters. (I have never heard of it being used in a civil matter.) The likelyhood of Prince Andrew being turned over are very low, so long as he remains a recognized member of the Royal family, and in succession for the throne. I don't know if there is legal means to remove him from either.

Now, a quick read over of Ms. Giuffre's wikipedia adds an layer of complexity to the case -

Age of Consent in the United Kingdom is 16. She first meet Prince Andrew when she was 17 in London. He was not in a position of authority or trust over her (in a legal sense). That could make it very hard to argue sexual abuse for anything that happened in the United Kingdom.
However, it's illegal to pay for sex with anyone under the age of 18. Proving a financial transfer from Prince Andrew to Epstien for sex could be very, very difficult.

The UK and US areas of the Virgin islands are right next to each other. Ms. Giruffre has stated she had sex with Prince Andrew during an orgy on one of Epstien's properties in the Virgin Islands. (Little Saint James) The question is, can they prove that it was a actually on Little Saint James? (Which is a US Virgin Island. AOC is 18, so depending on when it happened, it's applicable as sexual assault and abuse. However, if Mr. Epstient owns properties in both territories that are near each other, proving it happened in US territory is going to be difficult.

I fully believe Ms. Giuffre is not lying about her involvement with Epstien, or meeting Prince Andrew. It would not surprise me to learn that you can line up Prince Andrews travel records to the dates she has filed. I'm just pointing out the difficulties with going after Prince Andrew specifically, and with the US trying to go after people for stuff that partially happened outside their legal jurisdiction.

Now, I also have to wonder something - does the US know all this, and is hoping to use this to get Prince Andrew to make a deal with them? Say, dismissing the lawsuit as settled out of court, and he turns states witness to bring the rest of Epstien's buddies down?

[Solauren]

So he lost parts of his make believe job, but does he still live in his royal luxury?

Yeah, even if he loses all of his personal assets due to a court judgement it's not like the asshat will be homeless or anything, or even living in a crappy studio apartment with the only furnishing a card table and a rickety folding chair, living on canned beans and handouts even that's what he might deserve.

As I have mentioned before, the Royale family has very limited personal assets compared to their 'wealth'. The Queen, and the Royal Family, holds just everything in trust for the people of the United Kingdom and the government of the United Kingdom.

Prince Andrew is estimated to be personally worth 32 million euros. Half of that is a Swiss Chalet he owns, that he is trying to sell for 17 million euros. (That he bought a few years ago for 13 million, I have no idea if it's mortgaged or was purchased flat out) He reportedly gets about 250,000 euro per year as a salary, a pension from the navy, and possibly an allowance from mummy.

[EnterpriseSovereign]

Prince Andrew and Virginia Giuffre reach settlement over sexual abuse claim

A private settlement has protected the most shamed of British royals and his family from the scrutiny of an American court, ITV News US Correspondent Emma Murphy reports

The Duke of York and his accuser Virginia Giuffre have reached an out-of-court settlement in the civil sexual abuse claim filed in the US.

Ms Guiffre accused Prince Andrew of allegedly sexually assaulting her when she was 17-years-old, a minor under US law.

She claimed that the abuse took place while she was travelling with Jeffrey Epstein, a convicted financier and Andrew's friend. The duke has strenuously denied these allegations and previously attempted to get the lawsuit dropped.

David Boies, who represents Ms Giuffre, said in a letter submitted to the US District Court that lawyers on both sides were informing the judge that a settlement in principle has been reached. The letter indicated the sum would not be disclosed but said a dismissal of the lawsuit will be requested within a month.
When asked for comment on the settlement, Ms Giuffre’s lawyer David Boies said: “I believe this event speaks for itself.”

[LadyTevar]

I understand there's now a question on "Where are the funds coming from", if he's going to use money from the public funds the Royals draw on.

[Crazedwraith]

I understand there's now a question on "Where are the funds coming from", if he's going to use money from the public funds the Royals draw on.

All I've heard about this so far suggests not. It's going to be his, and possibly the queen's private incomes. Not the Royal Grant. (eta: supposedly. the feasibility of that is another matter. And whether you think it makes a moral difference)

-

This feels like a really bad end to this. It's not an exoneration, it's not technically an admission of guilt. Up until now Guiffre was saying she wanted the day in court more than money. I can't help but wonder about the strength of either of their claims or what they think of the courts that led to this.

[Eternal_Freedom]

This feels like a really bad end to this. It's not an exoneration, it's not technically an admission of guilt. Up until now Guiffre was saying she wanted the day in court more than money. I can't help but wonder about the strength of either of their claims or what they think of the courts that led to this.

Having seen a lot of court cases come and go in the last few years at work, and being the cynical bastard that I am, I can't help but think this is actually the best outcome for her:

1. She no longer has to go through the potentially traumatic and/or embarrassing experience of giving evidence in court.
2. She no longer has the risk of outright losing the case and thus potentially having to cover Andrew's lawyer fees (which are gonna be extensive by now). She also no longer has to worry about paying her own lawyers through whichever arrangement they have.
3. She gets the settlement money.
4. As you said while it's not an admission it's not an exoneration either, the suspicion is going to follow him for the rest of his life - after all, if there was nothing to it why'd he settle the case? Yes I am aware this falls into the "Only criminals call their lawyers" trope, but the suspicion will be there anyway for many people.

Thus if she (or more likely, her lawyers) have any doubt at all that they have a slam-dunk case, this is the best outcome.

The less cynical part of me looks at it as fairly typical of cases where there isn't some easily demonstrable slam-dunk evidence, like forensics or a clearly-violated contract. It basically boils down to two sides playing chicken and hoping the other flinches first. I've seen tens of dozens of cases go from "nope, no chance of settling, we're definitely taking this to the courtroom, let's go" a month before trial to "we're talking about it" a week before, then two days before "we've settled it, thanks."

All of this is said with the following caveats. 1. I am not involved with this case so have no in-depth knowledge, 2. I work in the British court system not the US and 3, as mentioned I'm a cynical bastard.

[Crazedwraith]

-snip-

All very true and insightful. Thanks for sharing.

[Gandalf]

I understand there's now a question on "Where are the funds coming from", if he's going to use money from the public funds the Royals draw on.

Most speculation is that he'll sell one of his holiday homes.

[Gandalf]

Here's an interesting fact about the settlement: Apparently Giuffre has a gag order on her about the whole thing that lasts until the end of the upcoming Jubilee celebrations.

I wonder how they argued for that PR shield to be in there.

[Crazedwraith]

Here's an interesting fact about the settlement: Apparently Giuffre has a gag order on her about the whole thing that lasts until the end of the upcoming Jubilee celebrations.

I wonder how they argued for that PR shield to be in there.

Wow thats puts a spin on things. I wonder if they told Andrew 'settle give her whatever, the Queen will pay for it if you stop fucking up her Jubilee' for both her personally and the sake of the royal 'firm' staying around

Because coupled with Megan and Harry and now a cash for honours scandal involving Charles' charity not a lot of good fir for them atm.

[LadyTevar]

((SNIP))

Pretty close to the US system as well I believe.

[bilateralrope]

Here's an interesting fact about the settlement: Apparently Giuffre has a gag order on her about the whole thing that lasts until the end of the upcoming Jubilee celebrations.

I wonder how they argued for that PR shield to be in there.

Secrecy being part of settlement agreements is nothing new. Just offer enough money for the other person to agree to stay quiet. And if someone agrees to secrecy, they aren't really in a position to argue against the other party wanting to upgrade the secrecy from an agreement to a court order.

The part I find unusual is that the secrecy part has an expiry date.

[Broomstick]

2. She no longer has the risk of outright losing the case and thus potentially having to cover Andrew's lawyer fees (which are gonna be extensive by now). She also no longer has to worry about paying her own lawyers through whichever arrangement they have.

The US system does not have the "loser pays winner's lawyers". Each side pays their own lawyers, win or lose. In this particular case, as it was a US civil case, that was not a consideration.

In some types of cases in the US lawyers take on those cases agreeing to only get paid if they win. If their side loses the case they get nothing. Don't know if that applies in this case or not.

[Eternal_Freedom]

2. She no longer has the risk of outright losing the case and thus potentially having to cover Andrew's lawyer fees (which are gonna be extensive by now). She also no longer has to worry about paying her own lawyers through whichever arrangement they have.

The US system does not have the "loser pays winner's lawyers". Each side pays their own lawyers, win or lose. In this particular case, as it was a US civil case, that was not a consideration.

In some types of cases in the US lawyers take on those cases agreeing to only get paid if they win. If their side loses the case they get nothing. Don't know if that applies in this case or not.

Fair enough, I will gladly concede that point since, as stated, my knowledge is of the UK courts - though if she doesn't have "no win, no fee" lawyers then her going to court and losing would still be pricey since she doesn't have anything in a settlement to offset those costs against. It'd also suck as the "false accuser" epithets would most likely be getting hurled her way in short order. After all, it must be false, the court said so.

As in interesting side note, in UK courts the "loser pays winners costs" is the more common ruling but not guaranteed, especially if you piss off the Judge with late paperwork, courtroom behaviour that's just short of contempt of court etc. Sometimes it'll be "each side pays their own costs," - there was even one case I clerked where the claimant won damages, but was such a pig-headed bastard of a litigant in person that he had to pay the defendant's costs, which where now higher than the damages since the claimant was such a jerk and kept delaying things. So really a Pyrrhic victory there.

[Elheru Aran]

2. She no longer has the risk of outright losing the case and thus potentially having to cover Andrew's lawyer fees (which are gonna be extensive by now). She also no longer has to worry about paying her own lawyers through whichever arrangement they have.

The US system does not have the "loser pays winner's lawyers". Each side pays their own lawyers, win or lose. In this particular case, as it was a US civil case, that was not a consideration.

In some types of cases in the US lawyers take on those cases agreeing to only get paid if they win. If their side loses the case they get nothing. Don't know if that applies in this case or not.

Fair enough, I will gladly concede that point since, as stated, my knowledge is of the UK courts - though if she doesn't have "no win, no fee" lawyers then her going to court and losing would still be pricey since she doesn't have anything in a settlement to offset those costs against. It'd also suck as the "false accuser" epithets would most likely be getting hurled her way in short order. After all, it must be false, the court said so.

As in interesting side note, in UK courts the "loser pays winners costs" is the more common ruling but not guaranteed, especially if you piss off the Judge with late paperwork, courtroom behaviour that's just short of contempt of court etc. Sometimes it'll be "each side pays their own costs," - there was even one case I clerked where the claimant won damages, but was such a pig-headed bastard of a litigant in person that he had to pay the defendant's costs, which where now higher than the damages since the claimant was such a jerk and kept delaying things. So really a Pyrrhic victory there.

To the paying lawyers issue: in the US the judge *can* assign the penalty of paying the winner's court costs to the loser. I think paying the lawyer is still up to the parties, I don't think the judge can make one pay for the other's lawyer as that might be a conflict of interest kind of deal (but IANAL). Judges do have a certain discretion in assigning penalties, and smacking down the occasional dickhead is a rare pleasure, so you can be assured that it does happen on occasion that they'll lay down whatever kind of punitive consequences they can upon such individuals.

Note that this can obviously vary a great deal from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, state to Federal, and so forth.

[Solauren]

I understand there's now a question on "Where are the funds coming from", if he's going to use money from the public funds the Royals draw on.

Most speculation is that he'll sell one of his holiday homes.

He already had one up for sale. Odds are, it sold, and he offered her the proceeds.

[Solauren]

Secrecy being part of settlement agreements is nothing new. Just offer enough money for the other person to agree to stay quiet. And if someone agrees to secrecy, they aren't really in a position to argue against the other party wanting to upgrade the secrecy from an agreement to a court order.

The part I find unusual is that the secrecy part has an expiry date.

I have to wonder something.

Her Royal Majesty is probably not in the best of health or spirits. She's 95 years old, lost her husband less then a year ago, and a bunch of other shit has been exposed about the Royal Family.

What if she's planning to abdicate at the end the Jubilee? That should put Charles on the throne (there are theories that the Queen allowed Charles to marry Camillia, a divorcee, in exchange for him giving up his claim to the throne to William).

Andrew is told that, and then told to settle with his accuser, using the funds from the sale of his vacation home. He allows the expiry date as a 'fuck you' to the entire thing, knowing that Charles or William with have to deal with the resulting shit storm.

And then Andrew just retires into obscurity somewhere. A semi-isolated home in the French Alps and well paid staff, no one would ever know he was there. And then he just sits back, and laughs.

[Eternal_Freedom]

Secrecy being part of settlement agreements is nothing new. Just offer enough money for the other person to agree to stay quiet. And if someone agrees to secrecy, they aren't really in a position to argue against the other party wanting to upgrade the secrecy from an agreement to a court order.

The part I find unusual is that the secrecy part has an expiry date.

I have to wonder something.

Her Royal Majesty is probably not in the best of health or spirits. She's 95 years old, lost her husband less then a year ago, and a bunch of other shit has been exposed about the Royal Family.

What if she's planning to abdicate at the end the Jubilee? That should put Charles on the throne (there are theories that the Queen allowed Charles to marry Camillia, a divorcee, in exchange for him giving up his claim to the throne to William).

Andrew is told that, and then told to settle with his accuser, using the funds from the sale of his vacation home. He allows the expiry date as a 'fuck you' to the entire thing, knowing that Charles or William with have to deal with the resulting shit storm.

And then Andrew just retires into obscurity somewhere. A semi-isolated home in the French Alps and well paid staff, no one would ever know he was there. And then he just sits back, and laughs.

We get this speculation every time there's some sort of scandal or controversy it seems. She's not going to abdicate - she said as much (in public to the entire Commonwealth) waaaay back when she was still a Princess - "I do declare that my whole life, be it long or short, shall be devoted to your service." Plus she remembers her uncle's abdication and the shitstorm that threw up, I doubt she wants to repeat the process.

The part about Charles giving up his claim is also nixed by HM's recent declaration that she actively wants Camilla to be known as Queen Consort when the time comes.

She may be 95 and not in the best of spirits, but her sense of duty is stronger than that.

[Gandalf]

I think that the whole jubilee was just meant to be a huge PR event to get a new bunch of marketing on the royal brand out to the public. This way they can pivot after the last few years worth of problems.

A prince on trial for the Epstein of it all would probably dampen the whole thing.

[Bedlam]

It's been announced that Her Majesty has tested positive for Covid 19 today, symptoms are apparently mild at present and she is triple vaccinated but it's not a good thing for any 95 year old.

[Solauren]

We get this speculation every time there's some sort of scandal or controversy it seems. She's not going to abdicate - she said as much (in public to the entire Commonwealth) waaaay back when she was still a Princess - "I do declare that my whole life, be it long or short, shall be devoted to your service." Plus she remembers her uncle's abdication and the shitstorm that threw up, I doubt she wants to repeat the process.

There is a difference between someone abdicating over health reasons, and someone doing it to marry a two-time divorcee.

The the shit-storm wasn't so much about the abdication, it was over the fact that as King, he was also the head of the Church of England, and wanted to marry a (American) divorcee who's ex-spouses was still alive. Especially since many people believed her to be a gold-digger.
(A fact that now looks absolutely stupid, and spiteful, since their marriage lasted 35 years)

The part about Charles giving up his claim is also nixed by HM's recent declaration that she actively wants Camilla to be known as Queen Consort when the time comes.

I had no idea HRM said that about Camilla. That certainly puts those theories to rest (at least for me).

She may be 95 and not in the best of spirits, but her sense of duty is stronger than that.

Oh, I have no doubt she has a strong sense of duty. (Quite frankly, if the rest of the world shared her sense of duty over things, the world would probably be a better place).

I was just putting forward a theory as to Andrews actions. Hell, given what Andrew is like, he might believe it all anyway, even if it's not accurate.

[Eternal_Freedom]

I can agree that the potential abdication now is a different situation to 1936, but 1936 is gonna be one of her most significant childhood memories, so even the idea is likely to be repugnant to her.

As for Andrew? I can't imagine she's very well-inclined to him at the moment, so what he wants is likely the last thing on her mind.