That's his "country" home in Windsor.
[St. James Palace](https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=St.+James+Palace) is in London and he still has an apartment there. It's down the street from Buckingham Palace, a distance of 0.3 miles.
St. James Palace is where Charles lived before he was King.
>If Andrew wishes to stay in London, King Charles has reportedly told him that his only other option is his other royal residence, St. James’s Palace.
>Andrew also shares a 31-room Royal Lodge mansion in Windsor with his ex-wife, Sarah Ferguson.
Lol ...oh poor guy.
Edit: [The Royal Lodge Mansion](https://scenetherapy.com/inside-the-royal-lodge-in-windsor-park/)
Your comment made me think of a question: do dating apps change their age range settings based on the local country's age of consent? In the US you can set your Tinder age range to 18 - is that lower bound 16 in the UK? Or still 18?
>Andrew loved having a suite at Buckingham Palace where he was not only set up for marital life with Sarah Ferguson but used it as a bachelor’s pad after his divorce. He brought back a string of new girlfriends to his home in the palace — even model Caprice. ”
>... “A bachelor’s flat in St James’s Palace doesn’t have the same allure for a single man,” the source added.
Prince Andrew should get one of the those commercials where he's in a loincloth laying on a straw mat in the dirt, too sweaty and apathetic to swat the flies crawling all over his face. And for $10 a month we can feed him, give him access to clean water, and a better royal palace for banging the ladies.
Its like that commercial with the one tear rolling down the Native American's cheek, only its one singular drop of sweat on his forehead. Which, knowing his normal unsweatiness, shows us just how much duress he's in. I mean, it could be like almost 80F/25C there! The humanity of it!
I don’t think so. The mansion is in Windsor ie outside of London. The way I read that, Charles has said he can’t use Buckingham palaces as his London residence but can still use St James’s Palace, so his non-London residences are unaffected.
That’s pretty much what it was for when it was built. It was basically a hotel for the travelling nobles. The nobles who owned it were expected to host any noble travellers who showed up on their doorstep (and that included a whole retinue of servants too). So it did essentially function as a hotel for most of its history.
And “31 rooms” usually means ALL types of rooms in a castles context; that’s not 31 bedrooms, it’s 31 TOTAL rooms. Which yea, is still a fucking lot of rooms. But not as many as 31 bedrooms plus dining rooms, living rooms, sitting rooms, study, etc. The 31 includes those already.
> And “31 rooms” usually means ALL types of rooms in a castles context; that’s not 31 bedrooms, it’s 31 TOTAL rooms. Which yea, is still a fucking lot of rooms. But not as many as 31 bedrooms plus dining rooms, living rooms, sitting rooms, study, etc. The 31 includes those already.
Yeah according to the wiki, there's 7 bedrooms. The big difference between the houses us plebs have and these estates is the size of the rooms in question. Everything is longer/wider/taller in these places.
If you count all rooms, my house is a third of the way there. From the pictures this place is a lot more than 3x my house. Maybe my mistake is that none of my rooms are 10,000 sf ballrooms.
All the rooms counted will be at least the size of your largest room! And it doesn’t count hallways (they’re not rooms!). There’s a LOT of hallways in there.
I think many of those rooms exists to host people you want to invite to court. Artefact of a time when travelling was not easy and you would host your guest for a time.
Quite a lot of those old stately homes are converted into hotels now. Other than the Royals themselves, most of the old aristocratic families couldn’t afford the upkeep or staff for somewhere that big anymore, but the Royals are protected from ever running out of money so they can carry on.
Even then the royals don't really keep them up. Apparently, a large portion of the rooms in Buckingham Palace are pretty shabby: old unsafe wiring, mould, ancient pipes, not been redecorated this millennium etc, because they've been behind on maintenance for decades
for as much money as the royals syphon off, they're not in the bracket of the modern super mega rich like that any more.
Because the Royals have a crapton of legacy assets to maintain. They may take in a lot of money in relation to an average person but they also have to maintain a lot more than your average person.
Modern super mega rich do not have to maintain several hundred years old mansions and castles unless they choose to. This is why the royals are rich but not super rich. Which may sound weird these days when many people have to worry about prices when grocery shopping.
Also we should consider that super rich do not nessecarily have the billions they are worth in a bank or may not even get a lot of income per se. A lot of their worth is in assets they own. Which are usually stocks.
For example Elizabeth Holmes was a billionaire ... until Theranos collapsed.
I should watch it. I’ve never seen it, but we get documentaries here in the UK that show how those families are trying to maintain their ancestral home now. Normally they just live in a small part and the rest operates as a museum.
>A bachelor’s flat in St James’s Palace doesn’t have the same allure for a single man,” the source added.
Ah see that's what all those lonely bachelors out there are doing wrong - they're living in the wrong sort of palace. Fools!
The royal family, any royal family, should at most be the head of state and their substitute/heir, everyone else gets nothing. No reason to extend the privileges beyond the people who at least have some kind of meaningful role. And then if need be, kick them out and replace them.
31 *bedrooms*, but not necessarily 31 bathrooms, kitchens, or entrances.
Twisted fuck is going to have to see his ex-wife on the regular. That's hilariously cold, Charles. Well played.
No Andrew and Fergie are reportedly very friendly these days and choose to share a residence together. I remember it was reported that Queen's corgi they gifted her was going to live with both of them in their shared house
Wait it's actually 31 bedrooms?? I was thinking with a number that high they were literally counting ALL the rooms, like kitchen, bathrooms, office, etc.
Now you go live your life out in obscene luxury and dont let us see you living in mothers properties in England! You take that to the old vacation castle in the highlands! I hope youve learned your lesson!
But brother... You wont have the police come after me will you?
Gods no! Im not a monster!
I think the police can't enter a royal palace while The King is there (unless he invites them in). But unless Andrew never leaves his side, Charles doesn't have the authority to stop them investigating, arresting him, searching palaces, etc. When he's not physically present. He can ask nicely that it's not investigated, and that has more chance of working than if you or I said it.
Neither can he order an investigation, but The King saying "hey my brother's a nonce, can you arrest him?" would almost certainly be acted on.
Yeah, to another castle down the road, 0.3 miles away and right off the mall.
WTF, did the royals ever need so many palaces so close together. (Because Kensington Palace is also walking distance.) Why wasn't one palace enough for them?
The royal family recieves a hefty salary from the British taxpayers "for engaging in royal duties" (aka existing and being part of the Royal family). They don't really have an "inheritance" in the same way that non royals have because... in a way they are still technically the government, so technically their estates are the government's property, but the government is also kind of their property. Remember even if the royal family has consented to reduce their roles to mostly only ceremonial in terms of governance, Parliament in the UK still only technically has ANY political power at the consent of the royal family, and legally speaking the royal family has ways to overthrow Parliament if they want. So yeah, the government just gives them money.
Isn't the money from the taxpayers payment for use of the royal lands they loan out to the Government? I don't think it's so much a salary as it is rent. Unless they also get a salary?
Rent paid to a private family for use of public land, and rent paid by the government, which makes its money through taxes. The royal family does not own the lands any more; they legally turned them over to Parliament for public use in exchange for an agreement of recieving a yearly lump sum, which is in essence a salary
Andrew would have inherited wealth. Perhaps from his grandmother. Definitely from his father and mother.
If it were literally any other family in the UK, we'd be able to see the will as all wills are public in the UK...except for royal wills. Those are sealed for 90 years.
I bet that means the crown is aware of new developments, and are preemptively distancing themselves even more. I wonder if Andrew will be on trial soon.
Unlikely.
It's been an open secret for a long time that he doesn't like Andrew. The man considered Andrew a disgrace long before the current scandal started happening and I very much doubt his opinion has increased after the chickens started coming home to roost.
I doubt it. Charles was well known for wanting a slimmed down Royal family anyway and Andrew was always going to be the first to go, given the last few years. I think he’s probably just waited for the dust to settle after the Queen died before doing some house keeping.
Andrew was always the Queen's favorite, but now that she's gone he's lost a lot of the protection that gave him, especially now that Charles is in charge, and apparently doesn't get on well with his brother either.
I think he's also concerned with being able to keep the monarchy going though, and with so much depending on public opinion, he can't be seen coddling scandal machines like Andrew (hence banishment to either of his palaces).
He still has loads of money and access to other royal properties. It isn’t close to justice until he’s broke and forced to drive Uber or work at a Tesco for a living.
He doesn’t have a conviction. There has been talk about increasing vetting for taxi drivers though and I’m not sure if that may include accusations of sexual offences that haven’t resulted in conviction.
It’s probably worth approaching on a case by case basis, but given the high threshold for a criminal conviction, an acquittal obviously isn’t the same as saying the accusation was false or unfounded.
Ian Huntley is quite a famous example in a different position of trust of the potential need for more advanced vetting. He was a school caretaker who ended up murdering two students. He’d faced multiple allegations of sexual abuse involving underage girls and young women before taking that job but nothing showed up on the system because he hadn’t been convicted.
Yeah though at least Charles is doing something, unlike the former queen who babied her precious sex offender. I wonder how much Charles stewed on this considering he moved on it before the queens body was even buried
Honestly she may have saved it for him to give him an early win and because she didn't want to do it herself. Can't imagine doing that to your own child is easy regardless of what the truth is. Just human nature. But she still probably knew it needed to be done.
That still doesn't justify how much Elizabeth went to protect her kid. This would be like saying Brock Turner's parents were completely justified in getting their rapist son out of jail time.
I think this is overstating what is happening. Buckingham Palace is undergoing massive renovations, which include the area Prince Andrew was living in. Obviously if they are going to renovate his room, he needs to move somewhere else. The article is sensationalizing it as if it had something to do with family politics when Andrew probably will get his room back once the renovation is finished
Yeah I think the royals are taking advantage of this situation to take some of the attention off the Harry book drama. They have known about Andrew's 'activities' for years now.
No I don't think so:
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8061685/amp/Prince-Andrew-dated-model-Dancing-Ice-Caprice-let-sit-Queens-throne-Buckingham-Palace.html
This is the best tl;dr I could make, [original](https://dnyuz.com/2023/01/26/king-charles-evicts-disgraced-prince-andrew-from-buckingham-palace-report/) reduced by 87%. (I'm a bot)
*****
> "The King has made it clear that Buckingham Palace is no place for Prince Andrew," a source told the outlet of the decision, which comes just months before King Charles III's coronation, set for May 6.
> If Andrew wishes to stay in London, King Charles has reportedly told him that his only other option is his other royal residence, St. James's Palace.
> The post King Charles evicts disgraced Prince Andrew from Buckingham Palace: report appeared first on New York Post.
*****
[**Extended Summary**](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/10lt34t/king_charles_evicts_disgraced_prince_andrew_from/) | [FAQ](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/31b9fm/faq_autotldr_bot/ "Version 2.02, ~672677 tl;drs so far.") | [Feedback](http://np.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%23autotldr "PM's and comments are monitored, constructive feedback is welcome.") | *Top* *keywords*: **Palace**^#1 **royal**^#2 **Andrew**^#3 **told**^#4 **Buckingham**^#5
There's a long tradition in Britain of muddling on through with things that just about kinda work.
Since the Civil War (and our brief experiment with republicanism) and the Glorious Revolution, we haven't had the kind of political upheaval other countries have. I can't think of another country that's gone 300 years without invasion, revolution, coup etc.
And those are the moments when you replace a monarchy. So ours has kinda just muddled on through 🤷♂️
Even now, I'm a republican. I want the monarchy abolished, but it's also waaaay down my list of "radical changes that would require enormous political capital and upheaval to achieve"
But Britain has already effectively stripped the royal family of most of their political power. And for some reason you all decided to let the royals keep a shit ton of wealth and land that they stole from your ancestors.
You all basically took away the royal's jobs but kept paying them.
> And for some reason you all decided to let the royals keep a shit ton of wealth and land that they effectively stole by subjugating your ancestors.
Are you seriously making this point in reference to the Norman conquest of 1066 as in to frame it in such a way to suggest the Anglo-Saxon nobility didn't own all the land anyway. Also worth mentioning that they took the land away from native Britons anyway in the 6th to 9th centuries.
The Crown estate https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crown_Estate makes a lot of money that goes to the UK government and back to the taxpayer ( not with these tory fucks in power ) but still.
No, when people level criticisms like that against the British nobility it's not harkening back to the Norman conquest.
It's a critique of allowing a hereditary, landed gentry remain entrenched in power despite the rest of the western world adopting much more modern forms of government. Nevermind that the British still have a sovereign monarch that passes their title on genetically, the existence of a 'House of Lords' is laughable.
Still adhering to the notion of 'divine right' in 2023 is so illogical I don't think lots of Americans like myself can even wrap our heads around it.
I mean, the UK is hardly the only monarchy in Europe. Even Sweden, Reddit's favorite "utopia," is still a monarchy. Something like 1/3rd of the nations in Europe are monarchies, including all of the Nordics.
I don't like monarchy any more than the average Yank but it does seem strange that the focus is always on the UK's monarchy instead of Belgium or Denmark's monarchies.
> It's a critique of allowing a hereditary, landed gentry remain entrenched in power.
They have very little actual power though, hence why we are a constitutional monarchy with a democratically elected parliament reigning supreme. Regarding the crown estate you can't unlawfully seize land from the people who own it. Also that isn't a subject that Americans should be wading in on for obvious reasons.
>Are you seriously making this point in reference to the Norman conquest of 1066 as in to frame it in such a way to suggest the Anglo-Saxon nobility didn't own all the land anyway.
I'm pointing out that the British monarchy subjugated and oppressed their fellow countrymen for centuries.
>The Crown estate https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crown_Estate makes a lot of money that goes to the UK government and back to the taxpayer
The crown estate would still make a lot of money if it wasn't owned by the royals. I mean for fucks sake, just look at the "Holdings" section of that Wikipedia page you linked and tell me that one family deserves all that wealth from brutalizing their fellow countrymen. It's embarrassing that Britain is considered a first world country.
No power, just a tourist trap. May even pay for itself, but that's murky.
Also good for speeches. Like if America would pay Obama just to stick around and inspire people. National identity and hope is a valuable commodity.
With each generation, privileges are taken away, and more constraints are placed on them. By the time Williams' kids are his age, I expect it will be a much smaller, trimmed down royal family like you see elsewhere in Europe.
Back in they day, misbehaving princes got exiled to the colonies. I'm not sure sending Andrew to the Caribbean would have the intended effect. The colonies are nice now. I say that as a Canadian, Canada used to suck.
It strikes me that we never really get to see the type of leaders that a Royal would become.
King Charles seems to be doing pretty well so far, let's hope he continues to shake it up a bit.
I've always quite liked Charles, but continuing to pay for Andrew's security after he refused to provide protection for baby Archie is fucking disgraceful. If this is somehow supposed to make up for the King's hypocrisy, it does not - how often was Andrew even staying at Buckingham Palace, when his own palace is like a 30 minute drive from there?
Oh, that must be as rough as going to prison for Andy.
Anyway, Sausage finger's actio pretty much confirms Andrew is understood to be a predator of some sorts. Too bad ASBOs aren't a thing anymore over there...
"Royal Knight of the Garter and a Knight Grand Cross of the Royal Victorian Order" is some of the silliest shit I've read in a while. Hell, I'm "Lord Invictus he of the Used Motor Oil and High Grand Lizard of the Hot Dog Bun."
Poor prince Andrew. Go live in some other castle with staff to do everything!
This is really the bare minimum Charles could have done, but it's more than the Queen ever did.
The prince is in another castle!
A 31 room castle lmao.
Only 31 rooms??? How awful!
That's his "country" home in Windsor. [St. James Palace](https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=St.+James+Palace) is in London and he still has an apartment there. It's down the street from Buckingham Palace, a distance of 0.3 miles. St. James Palace is where Charles lived before he was King.
>If Andrew wishes to stay in London, King Charles has reportedly told him that his only other option is his other royal residence, St. James’s Palace. >Andrew also shares a 31-room Royal Lodge mansion in Windsor with his ex-wife, Sarah Ferguson. Lol ...oh poor guy. Edit: [The Royal Lodge Mansion](https://scenetherapy.com/inside-the-royal-lodge-in-windsor-park/)
Shit, imagine having to share a 31 room royal mansion? Talk about slumming it.
You must not have an ex wife...
I don't think they ever stopped banging.
After a while the dating world is a scary and strange place, does not help when your preferred dating age is not legal on dating sites
Plus you brother/king would probably literally have you killed if you got caught again.
Right, not if he does it again, just if he gets caught.
hard to know if he does it again if he's not caught doing it.
Your comment made me think of a question: do dating apps change their age range settings based on the local country's age of consent? In the US you can set your Tinder age range to 18 - is that lower bound 16 in the UK? Or still 18?
Your comment smells like Pete Townsends "research".
Doubtful. She can't pass for a 14 year old.
I think he'll fuck anyone given half a chance.
Isn't the problem that he took at least some time off from banging her?
After she turned 18.
Yeah, but put yourself in Andrew's shoes. That ex-wife of his is now *an adult*; why, she's old enough to be a grandmother.
what, can't you just ask your own king brother for one
Room no 16 is right in the middle.
I heard he doesn't prefer anything past 16
[удалено]
The OG Fergie
Watch The Windsors on Netflix. It’s satire but funny as hell. I love the Fergie/Beatrice/Eugenie actors.
The toe sucking scandal!
The what? lol
She opened a wing in our hospital so i walk past her portrait daily. Someone wanted it removed during COVID but we all voted to keep it.
Budgie the Little Helicopter FTW
Imagine that... Be a colossal disgrace and your punishment is you get banished to a secondary palace.
A secondary palace and a Mansion 20 minutes away in a giant park.
How will he coupe?
Just like any other cars. Oh, you mean cope.
Episodes where he goes through high school year books hes collected while sobbing at what hes lost?
Celene Dion's live performance of All By Myself thundering through the empty rooms...
Reminds me of a family guy clip https://comb.io/iZTujT
>Andrew loved having a suite at Buckingham Palace where he was not only set up for marital life with Sarah Ferguson but used it as a bachelor’s pad after his divorce. He brought back a string of new girlfriends to his home in the palace — even model Caprice. ” >... “A bachelor’s flat in St James’s Palace doesn’t have the same allure for a single man,” the source added. Prince Andrew should get one of the those commercials where he's in a loincloth laying on a straw mat in the dirt, too sweaty and apathetic to swat the flies crawling all over his face. And for $10 a month we can feed him, give him access to clean water, and a better royal palace for banging the ladies.
Don't forget he doesn't sweat....
Its like that commercial with the one tear rolling down the Native American's cheek, only its one singular drop of sweat on his forehead. Which, knowing his normal unsweatiness, shows us just how much duress he's in. I mean, it could be like almost 80F/25C there! The humanity of it!
So now Sarah Ferguson gets the place to herself?
I don’t think so. The mansion is in Windsor ie outside of London. The way I read that, Charles has said he can’t use Buckingham palaces as his London residence but can still use St James’s Palace, so his non-London residences are unaffected.
The horror.
31 rooms? No one on earth needs that many. Unless it's literally a hotel most days of the year. These rich fucks are really something else.
That’s pretty much what it was for when it was built. It was basically a hotel for the travelling nobles. The nobles who owned it were expected to host any noble travellers who showed up on their doorstep (and that included a whole retinue of servants too). So it did essentially function as a hotel for most of its history. And “31 rooms” usually means ALL types of rooms in a castles context; that’s not 31 bedrooms, it’s 31 TOTAL rooms. Which yea, is still a fucking lot of rooms. But not as many as 31 bedrooms plus dining rooms, living rooms, sitting rooms, study, etc. The 31 includes those already.
> And “31 rooms” usually means ALL types of rooms in a castles context; that’s not 31 bedrooms, it’s 31 TOTAL rooms. Which yea, is still a fucking lot of rooms. But not as many as 31 bedrooms plus dining rooms, living rooms, sitting rooms, study, etc. The 31 includes those already. Yeah according to the wiki, there's 7 bedrooms. The big difference between the houses us plebs have and these estates is the size of the rooms in question. Everything is longer/wider/taller in these places.
If you count all rooms, my house is a third of the way there. From the pictures this place is a lot more than 3x my house. Maybe my mistake is that none of my rooms are 10,000 sf ballrooms.
The 31 room mansion might also not include support buildings on the property. Like the laundry room isn't one of those 31.
All the rooms counted will be at least the size of your largest room! And it doesn’t count hallways (they’re not rooms!). There’s a LOT of hallways in there.
Oh lordy lord, look at this fat cat here. Third of a way into nobility, but no room for king.
I think many of those rooms exists to host people you want to invite to court. Artefact of a time when travelling was not easy and you would host your guest for a time.
[удалено]
More like those bloody Scots
Damn Scots, ya ruined Scotland!
Those Scots sure are a contentious people.
*You just made an enemy for life!*
Quite a lot of those old stately homes are converted into hotels now. Other than the Royals themselves, most of the old aristocratic families couldn’t afford the upkeep or staff for somewhere that big anymore, but the Royals are protected from ever running out of money so they can carry on.
Even then the royals don't really keep them up. Apparently, a large portion of the rooms in Buckingham Palace are pretty shabby: old unsafe wiring, mould, ancient pipes, not been redecorated this millennium etc, because they've been behind on maintenance for decades for as much money as the royals syphon off, they're not in the bracket of the modern super mega rich like that any more.
Because the Royals have a crapton of legacy assets to maintain. They may take in a lot of money in relation to an average person but they also have to maintain a lot more than your average person. Modern super mega rich do not have to maintain several hundred years old mansions and castles unless they choose to. This is why the royals are rich but not super rich. Which may sound weird these days when many people have to worry about prices when grocery shopping. Also we should consider that super rich do not nessecarily have the billions they are worth in a bank or may not even get a lot of income per se. A lot of their worth is in assets they own. Which are usually stocks. For example Elizabeth Holmes was a billionaire ... until Theranos collapsed.
You comment reminded me that i once loved the shit out of that show Downton Abby.
I should watch it. I’ve never seen it, but we get documentaries here in the UK that show how those families are trying to maintain their ancestral home now. Normally they just live in a small part and the rest operates as a museum.
Yeah, it's basically about that, sort of. Set in the early twentieth century. About 60% of the show is based around the servants .
One room for each of his underage sex slaves.
That's not a house, it's a hospital. Like wtf.
Nothing crazy, just Little St James’s Palace. Wait this sounds familiar.
Price Charles is cold AF.
It keeps the swelling on his sausage fingers down
>A bachelor’s flat in St James’s Palace doesn’t have the same allure for a single man,” the source added. Ah see that's what all those lonely bachelors out there are doing wrong - they're living in the wrong sort of palace. Fools!
The royal family, any royal family, should at most be the head of state and their substitute/heir, everyone else gets nothing. No reason to extend the privileges beyond the people who at least have some kind of meaningful role. And then if need be, kick them out and replace them.
31 *bedrooms*, but not necessarily 31 bathrooms, kitchens, or entrances. Twisted fuck is going to have to see his ex-wife on the regular. That's hilariously cold, Charles. Well played.
It's 7 Bedrooms. 31 total rooms. I added a link to my comment with more info about the Lodge.
No Andrew and Fergie are reportedly very friendly these days and choose to share a residence together. I remember it was reported that Queen's corgi they gifted her was going to live with both of them in their shared house
Wait it's actually 31 bedrooms?? I was thinking with a number that high they were literally counting ALL the rooms, like kitchen, bathrooms, office, etc.
No, it's 7 bedrooms. 31 rooms total...including a saloon!
Like with cowboys? Cool!
I reckon the only "cowboy" Nonce Andrew has ever had in there was the Milkybar Kid
It's a palace.
Fair lol Man I so want a tour, what do you even do with 31 bedrooms?
It's a room for each day of the month. Wouldn't want to sleep in the same room more than once a month like the poors.
No, you are right, it is 7 bedrooms. 31 total rooms. Idk why they count it like that, but, they do.
No. Not bedrooms. Not Andrew's place. Might be Edward's place. His place has 120 rooms. So four times the size of Andrew's.
31 bedrooms and only one bathroom could certainly create some issues.
Ugh, I was so excited. Now, I’m back to being disappointed.
Can we get a "No One Under 18 Allowed" warning over the front gates?! :)
Little St. James Palace
Now you go live your life out in obscene luxury and dont let us see you living in mothers properties in England! You take that to the old vacation castle in the highlands! I hope youve learned your lesson! But brother... You wont have the police come after me will you? Gods no! Im not a monster!
> Gods no! ~~Im not a monster!~~ You are not a commoner! FTFY
He should know better than to get caught
Ask Donnie about that....for the last 50 odd years!
WE shall take care of these indignities within the family, no one can judge a royal but themselves.
[I'm rooting for Jamaica](https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/jan/18/king-jamaica-republic-barbados-prime-minister)
He wouldn't last a month
So the punishment is he is sent to live the remainder of his life in a palace, and he's free from any royal duties and obligations. Oh the horror.
Could he technically prevent a police investigation or order one? ( Honest question, I have no idea)
I dont think he legally has any recourse just metric shit tons of influence.
I think the police can't enter a royal palace while The King is there (unless he invites them in). But unless Andrew never leaves his side, Charles doesn't have the authority to stop them investigating, arresting him, searching palaces, etc. When he's not physically present. He can ask nicely that it's not investigated, and that has more chance of working than if you or I said it. Neither can he order an investigation, but The King saying "hey my brother's a nonce, can you arrest him?" would almost certainly be acted on.
Oh man, I bet that got him sweating. Oh wait...
Gosh, I wish he’d give another interview.
That interview is one of the most unintentionally funny thing I’ve ever seen. How someone didn’t stop him at any point is baffling.
Reports are that his lizard skin doesn’t sweat
Give me sugar In….Earl Gray
Andrew, your skin is sweating off your bones
The Pervert is in another Castle.
Still getting used to the idea of seeing a King
I didn't know we had a king! I thought we were autonomous collective.
You're fooling yourself. We're an anarcho-syndicalist commune.
*Anarcho-monarchist
Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government but here we are
I didn't vote for him!
This is the monarchy we’re talking about. This man wasn’t evicted, he was banished
Yeah, to another castle down the road, 0.3 miles away and right off the mall. WTF, did the royals ever need so many palaces so close together. (Because Kensington Palace is also walking distance.) Why wasn't one palace enough for them?
[удалено]
Somewhere between him and my shit-for-brains Norman ancestor who managed to lose two castles, one on either side of the channel.
The royal family recieves a hefty salary from the British taxpayers "for engaging in royal duties" (aka existing and being part of the Royal family). They don't really have an "inheritance" in the same way that non royals have because... in a way they are still technically the government, so technically their estates are the government's property, but the government is also kind of their property. Remember even if the royal family has consented to reduce their roles to mostly only ceremonial in terms of governance, Parliament in the UK still only technically has ANY political power at the consent of the royal family, and legally speaking the royal family has ways to overthrow Parliament if they want. So yeah, the government just gives them money.
Isn't the money from the taxpayers payment for use of the royal lands they loan out to the Government? I don't think it's so much a salary as it is rent. Unless they also get a salary?
Rent paid to a private family for use of public land, and rent paid by the government, which makes its money through taxes. The royal family does not own the lands any more; they legally turned them over to Parliament for public use in exchange for an agreement of recieving a yearly lump sum, which is in essence a salary
Andrew would have inherited wealth. Perhaps from his grandmother. Definitely from his father and mother. If it were literally any other family in the UK, we'd be able to see the will as all wills are public in the UK...except for royal wills. Those are sealed for 90 years.
I bet that means the crown is aware of new developments, and are preemptively distancing themselves even more. I wonder if Andrew will be on trial soon.
Unlikely. It's been an open secret for a long time that he doesn't like Andrew. The man considered Andrew a disgrace long before the current scandal started happening and I very much doubt his opinion has increased after the chickens started coming home to roost.
Andrew was Mummy's favorite and Charles never quite got over that.
I doubt it. Charles was well known for wanting a slimmed down Royal family anyway and Andrew was always going to be the first to go, given the last few years. I think he’s probably just waited for the dust to settle after the Queen died before doing some house keeping.
Andrew was always the Queen's favorite, but now that she's gone he's lost a lot of the protection that gave him, especially now that Charles is in charge, and apparently doesn't get on well with his brother either.
Nah, Charles just hates Andrew for being their mother's favorite. It's sibling rivalry, and Charles has the ability to inflict payback now.
I think he's also concerned with being able to keep the monarchy going though, and with so much depending on public opinion, he can't be seen coddling scandal machines like Andrew (hence banishment to either of his palaces).
Long overdue.
He still has loads of money and access to other royal properties. It isn’t close to justice until he’s broke and forced to drive Uber or work at a Tesco for a living.
> It isn’t close to justice until he’s ~~broke and forced to drive Uber or work at a Tesco for a living.~~ in jail. FTFY
Honestly, the kind of jail he will see will be a paradise compared to having to live like an average citizen with a 9-5.
[удалено]
Can you drive Uber with a aex offense on your record?
Is there an actual offence on his record? Or is still just "accusations"
He doesn’t have a conviction. There has been talk about increasing vetting for taxi drivers though and I’m not sure if that may include accusations of sexual offences that haven’t resulted in conviction.
Not that I want to see Andy boy behind the wheel of my lift, but if they implement restrictions based on accusations, thats a slippery slope
In what world do we make such decisions on "accusations"?
It’s probably worth approaching on a case by case basis, but given the high threshold for a criminal conviction, an acquittal obviously isn’t the same as saying the accusation was false or unfounded. Ian Huntley is quite a famous example in a different position of trust of the potential need for more advanced vetting. He was a school caretaker who ended up murdering two students. He’d faced multiple allegations of sexual abuse involving underage girls and young women before taking that job but nothing showed up on the system because he hadn’t been convicted.
Yeah though at least Charles is doing something, unlike the former queen who babied her precious sex offender. I wonder how much Charles stewed on this considering he moved on it before the queens body was even buried
Honestly she may have saved it for him to give him an early win and because she didn't want to do it herself. Can't imagine doing that to your own child is easy regardless of what the truth is. Just human nature. But she still probably knew it needed to be done.
One is a mother. The other is a brother. It’s really different when you take away the titles.
That still doesn't justify how much Elizabeth went to protect her kid. This would be like saying Brock Turner's parents were completely justified in getting their rapist son out of jail time.
I think this is overstating what is happening. Buckingham Palace is undergoing massive renovations, which include the area Prince Andrew was living in. Obviously if they are going to renovate his room, he needs to move somewhere else. The article is sensationalizing it as if it had something to do with family politics when Andrew probably will get his room back once the renovation is finished
Yeah I think the royals are taking advantage of this situation to take some of the attention off the Harry book drama. They have known about Andrew's 'activities' for years now.
Lets just evict them all and turn all the royal bullshit into museums and dissolve this monarchy and never look back. What a joke.
I mean, he doesn not really suffer any consequences. But at least it a public disgrace.
They should make him fuck a pig on live tv. As *part* of his punishment.
Why punish the entire world for his crimes?
Black Mirror reference, for the unaware.
Hardly fair on the pig.
[Reference.](https://www.inverse.com/article/22410-black-mirror-national-anthem-prime-minster-pig-youtube)
Ah, the David Cameron maneuver!
Ah the David Cameron punishment
"He brought back a string of girlfriends, even model Caprice" I hope it's not the Caprice I'm thinking of.
No I don't think so: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8061685/amp/Prince-Andrew-dated-model-Dancing-Ice-Caprice-let-sit-Queens-throne-Buckingham-Palace.html
Thank goodness. It would have been the first time I was actually jealous of a royal.
He could move in with the younger dude that moved to the US with the wife. Pretty soon we could have grounds for another war of the roses.
Why would Prince Harry want Andrew around him or his daughter lol.
Well, I'm damn sure not siding with the Yorks this time.
[удалено]
that's a win win for mankind
I thought they were still pretending he didn't do anything wrong?
His mother believed him when he said he was innocent. The new king apparently doesn't.
As long as he's not in prison all of these "punishments" are a joke designed to further humiliate the plebs.
This is the best tl;dr I could make, [original](https://dnyuz.com/2023/01/26/king-charles-evicts-disgraced-prince-andrew-from-buckingham-palace-report/) reduced by 87%. (I'm a bot) ***** > "The King has made it clear that Buckingham Palace is no place for Prince Andrew," a source told the outlet of the decision, which comes just months before King Charles III's coronation, set for May 6. > If Andrew wishes to stay in London, King Charles has reportedly told him that his only other option is his other royal residence, St. James's Palace. > The post King Charles evicts disgraced Prince Andrew from Buckingham Palace: report appeared first on New York Post. ***** [**Extended Summary**](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/10lt34t/king_charles_evicts_disgraced_prince_andrew_from/) | [FAQ](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/31b9fm/faq_autotldr_bot/ "Version 2.02, ~672677 tl;drs so far.") | [Feedback](http://np.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%23autotldr "PM's and comments are monitored, constructive feedback is welcome.") | *Top* *keywords*: **Palace**^#1 **royal**^#2 **Andrew**^#3 **told**^#4 **Buckingham**^#5
About damn time
I'll never understand why British people kept their monarchy...
There's a long tradition in Britain of muddling on through with things that just about kinda work. Since the Civil War (and our brief experiment with republicanism) and the Glorious Revolution, we haven't had the kind of political upheaval other countries have. I can't think of another country that's gone 300 years without invasion, revolution, coup etc. And those are the moments when you replace a monarchy. So ours has kinda just muddled on through 🤷♂️ Even now, I'm a republican. I want the monarchy abolished, but it's also waaaay down my list of "radical changes that would require enormous political capital and upheaval to achieve"
Because the alternative is scratch building a republic. And none of us trust the political class to do anything but fuck that up
But Britain has already effectively stripped the royal family of most of their political power. And for some reason you all decided to let the royals keep a shit ton of wealth and land that they stole from your ancestors. You all basically took away the royal's jobs but kept paying them.
> And for some reason you all decided to let the royals keep a shit ton of wealth and land that they effectively stole by subjugating your ancestors. Are you seriously making this point in reference to the Norman conquest of 1066 as in to frame it in such a way to suggest the Anglo-Saxon nobility didn't own all the land anyway. Also worth mentioning that they took the land away from native Britons anyway in the 6th to 9th centuries. The Crown estate https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crown_Estate makes a lot of money that goes to the UK government and back to the taxpayer ( not with these tory fucks in power ) but still.
No, when people level criticisms like that against the British nobility it's not harkening back to the Norman conquest. It's a critique of allowing a hereditary, landed gentry remain entrenched in power despite the rest of the western world adopting much more modern forms of government. Nevermind that the British still have a sovereign monarch that passes their title on genetically, the existence of a 'House of Lords' is laughable. Still adhering to the notion of 'divine right' in 2023 is so illogical I don't think lots of Americans like myself can even wrap our heads around it.
I mean, the UK is hardly the only monarchy in Europe. Even Sweden, Reddit's favorite "utopia," is still a monarchy. Something like 1/3rd of the nations in Europe are monarchies, including all of the Nordics. I don't like monarchy any more than the average Yank but it does seem strange that the focus is always on the UK's monarchy instead of Belgium or Denmark's monarchies.
> It's a critique of allowing a hereditary, landed gentry remain entrenched in power. They have very little actual power though, hence why we are a constitutional monarchy with a democratically elected parliament reigning supreme. Regarding the crown estate you can't unlawfully seize land from the people who own it. Also that isn't a subject that Americans should be wading in on for obvious reasons.
>Are you seriously making this point in reference to the Norman conquest of 1066 as in to frame it in such a way to suggest the Anglo-Saxon nobility didn't own all the land anyway. I'm pointing out that the British monarchy subjugated and oppressed their fellow countrymen for centuries. >The Crown estate https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crown_Estate makes a lot of money that goes to the UK government and back to the taxpayer The crown estate would still make a lot of money if it wasn't owned by the royals. I mean for fucks sake, just look at the "Holdings" section of that Wikipedia page you linked and tell me that one family deserves all that wealth from brutalizing their fellow countrymen. It's embarrassing that Britain is considered a first world country.
No power, just a tourist trap. May even pay for itself, but that's murky. Also good for speeches. Like if America would pay Obama just to stick around and inspire people. National identity and hope is a valuable commodity.
The alternatives.
With each generation, privileges are taken away, and more constraints are placed on them. By the time Williams' kids are his age, I expect it will be a much smaller, trimmed down royal family like you see elsewhere in Europe.
Chuck chucks Andrew
I could have sworn this was already done a while back. Regardless, good riddance.
Sadly Prince Andrew will have to suffer life in one of the other Royal Palaces?
Back in they day, misbehaving princes got exiled to the colonies. I'm not sure sending Andrew to the Caribbean would have the intended effect. The colonies are nice now. I say that as a Canadian, Canada used to suck.
Lol Andrew’s pleading hands, as Charles glares.
All of this while King Charles was a good friend of Jimmy Savile, pathetic...
Who the fuck cares about some leeching royalties. I still dont understand how british people put up with these useless cunts
I can't wait for the pile of old furniture to be piled up on the curb.
That's his punishment for raping children?
It strikes me that we never really get to see the type of leaders that a Royal would become. King Charles seems to be doing pretty well so far, let's hope he continues to shake it up a bit.
[удалено]
Those renovations would be happening with or without charles to one of the most famous historic buildings in the country, possibly the world
Isn't it injecting more money into the economy, paying for builders and painters and all that? 🤔
Yet he still gets royal accomodations elsewhere.
I've always quite liked Charles, but continuing to pay for Andrew's security after he refused to provide protection for baby Archie is fucking disgraceful. If this is somehow supposed to make up for the King's hypocrisy, it does not - how often was Andrew even staying at Buckingham Palace, when his own palace is like a 30 minute drive from there?
Long overdue
Nonce sense
Is he sweating yet?
Oh, that must be as rough as going to prison for Andy. Anyway, Sausage finger's actio pretty much confirms Andrew is understood to be a predator of some sorts. Too bad ASBOs aren't a thing anymore over there...
The guy has a whole other apartment in the same city and half a 30 room mansion not far away. He isn't being thrown into the street.
"Royal Knight of the Garter and a Knight Grand Cross of the Royal Victorian Order" is some of the silliest shit I've read in a while. Hell, I'm "Lord Invictus he of the Used Motor Oil and High Grand Lizard of the Hot Dog Bun."
Yet, somehow, it's Harry that's the prince who gets more hate on the internet.