Former Prince Andrew has just been arrested in Norfolk

His preference for a stream of women rather than one may be a deplorable deed in the eyes of some people but he is no different to many men in this country from the poorest to the richest

Aren't they supposed to be people we peasants admire?

Andrew's acts and behaviour may well be viewed as treasonous by some, if not many, ie. a treasonous act is one that damages the monarch.

The Crime and Disorder Act 1998 formally abolished the death penalty for this offence, replacing it with a maximum sentence of life imprisonment. The last person executed for treason in the UK was Lord Haw Haw, in 1946.

The Treason Act 1351 remains the basis for treason but is considered largely dormant or outdated for modern threats. There have been calls to update this law to deal with modern terrorism.

Tuliptree 00.06 "Monica but they are not any family are they?"

They may not be 'any' family, whatever that means, but they certainly are A family. Factually the RF individuals collectively constitute a family; they are human beings with emotions, differing personality traits etc just the same as you and I. They factually experience all the complications, ups and downs, births marriages and deaths, disagreements and arguments that all and "any' families experience. No matter what AMW has done and even though all titles, privileges etc have been taken away from him- he still and always will -whatever happens- remain a family member.

Brothers/sisters/mothers etc are not usually party to the intimate details or email correspondence of their family member's life, behind closed doors, and can see no reason why that would be any different for the RF. Hence why the R protection officers are being interviewed.

I accept the public's trust has been impacted as a result of AMW's behaviour- as we can see in multiple differing concerns and speculative opinions as to what the RF knew or did not know. However a case can not be made that the monarchy does not comprise of a family. Neither can it be said that they care not experiencing a conflict between their royal role/duties/ responsibilities/public image risks alongside their role as a family member to AMW.

Plus there is a separate thread "The future of the Monarchy" .

This thread, explicitly, or at least how I understand it, is about AMW's arrest, the ongoing investigation process, the human side of that for him and him as a RF family member and the legal and constitutional issues that arise from all of this.

If you are "disgusted" more generally about the RF/monarchy specifically- perhaps the other thread provides a better platform?

sixandahalf

*His preference for a stream of women rather than one may be a deplorable deed in the eyes of some people but he is no different to many men in this country from the poorest to the richest*

Aren't they supposed to be people we peasants admire?

I don’t count myself as a peasant, do you? We are citizens with all the rights of UK citizens.
Being separated ( divorced?) AMW can have relationships with women as he pleases.
It isn’t that that’s the problem for him it’s how he acted as trade envoy.

Seeing oneself as a peasant is sad

M0nica

Individual members of the RF are entitled to some privacy. AMW lived at Buck House at the time and having a stream of sexual partners, assuming all are of age and there willingly, is not a crime.

His preference for a stream of women rather than one may be a deplorable deed in the eyes of some people but he is no different to many men in this country from the poorest to the richest.

In fact AMW's antics with women, apart from the possibility that one or two may have been under age in one jurisdiction or another are the least of AMW'S 'sins.

His real crime is the one he was arrested and uestioned about yesterday - that he sold national secrets - which is what that privileged commercial iformation he had was - to a foreign power. In this case to an American who was in a position to us it to the UK'sdisadvantage. If that is not treason I do not know what is. I beleive that is the one crime you can still be executed for.

AMW's "antics with women" allegedly led him to have sex with women who were trafficked, so we are aware that not all, if any, may not have been "willing". Having sex with a person who has been trafficked is a crime and ignorance that they were trafficked is not a defence.

The more he used prostitutes the more the risk increased that they were trafficked, especially in certain countries. I don't see how, to you, this is a lesser crime than his alleged behaviour in public office.

Anniebach

Seeing oneself as a peasant is sad

Think that might have been said in jest so to say - and not seriously.

Why would we see ourselves that way anyway? Rather than as someone who might have been royalty in a previous life (ie reincarnation) or married royalty in this life (albeit into some other country's royal family and not our own) aka best day's work ever chucking the guy concerned.

Andrew's acts and behaviour may well be viewed as treasonous by some, if not many, ie. a treasonous act is one that damages the monarch.

Not the Monarch (although that may have been the original narrow definition) personally, but, by definition, the Crown and thereby the State.

Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor was, too, as a trade envoy, bound by the Official Secrets Act.

Allira- I agree. The Treason Act 1351 referred to 'monarch'.

The British 'monarchy' has gone through several transitions since then but I won't got through them all.

in 1917 King George V changed the RF name to more British sounding Windsor form the German Saxe-Coburg and Gotha.
Also with a public relation focus response he transformed the image of the monarchy by creating public spectacles (e.g. public royal weddings) and utilising mass media, such as the first Christmas broadcast in 1932- ie he sought to establish the "Royal Family' as a national symbol rather than just "rulers".

The 1936 abdication shifted the line to George V1 and later Elizabeth II, and made the family's personal life more visible and relatable to the public, further transitioning the perception from an "untouchable sovereign" to a "public serving family". Fine if all behaving in line with public expectation and trust but with evident risks.

AMW now has brought the "public serving RF' perception of the Briths monarchy into disrepute. So no doubt the RF realises modern transition is required to rebuild/maintain that public trust.

I think having multiple partners is undesireable. The "peasant " was in semi jest.

I wonder how questioning the security officers will go, will they be economical with the truth out of a feeling of duty to the royal family or will they spill?
Certainly I believe the laws of the land are more important than a sense of duty to anyone.

"
AMW's "antics with women" allegedly led him to have sex with women who were trafficked, so we are aware that not all, if any, may not have been "willing". Having sex with a person who has been trafficked is a crime and ignorance that they were trafficked is not a defence."

There are thousands of workers in the UK that have been trafficked many of them sex workers, your town has trafficked workers, that you and your families the advantage of. All those who cross the channel in small boats are trafficked I'm sure many of them have been abused or enslaved, are we going to jail all those who has benefitted in ignorance.

Fallingstar

I wonder how questioning the security officers will go, will they be economical with the truth out of a feeling of duty to the royal family or will they spill?
Certainly I believe the laws of the land are more important than a sense of duty to anyone.

I agree. Those security officers were probably decent people who knew what was going on but would have been told not to speak about it.

I think they may now be glad of the chance to say what they saw as they may have found it uncomfortable to know what was going on and remain silent.

David49

"
AMW's "antics with women" allegedly led him to have sex with women who were trafficked, so we are aware that not all, if any, may not have been "willing". Having sex with a person who has been trafficked is a crime and ignorance that they were trafficked is not a defence."

There are thousands of workers in the UK that have been trafficked many of them sex workers, your town has trafficked workers, that you and your families the advantage of. All those who cross the channel in small boats are trafficked I'm sure many of them have been abused or enslaved, are we going to jail all those who has benefitted in ignorance.

All those who cross the channel in small boats are trafficked I'm sure many of them have been abused or enslaved

No, they are not although a small proportion are trafficked.

Stating half-truths with confidence as facts does not make them true.

The security officers well knew that he was visited by a string of women, on arrival they introduced themselves as "Mrs Windsor" and entered through a side door (service entrance).
My guess is the security officers didn't ask how old they were or if they were trafficked.

Message deleted by Gransnet. Here's a link to our Talk guidelines.

David49 we can simply bury our heads in the sand saying this stuff goes on everywhere and it isn’t challenged so why make a big deal out of it, and am sorry if that wasn’t your attitude but it does seem to be a bit like that. But at some point people have to challenge it and put the perpetrators under the spotlight, and if it only helps a few under age girls from being preyed upon is well worth it. It sends out a message.

David49

The security officers well knew that he was visited by a string of women, on arrival they introduced themselves as "Mrs Windsor" and entered through a side door (service entrance).
My guess is the security officers didn't ask how old they were or if they were trafficked.

You stated that everyone who arrives in the UK across the Channel by small boat is trafficked.

If you meant just those who are trafficked to work in the sex industry, that was not made plain. A matter of semantics.

Anyway, that is not how Epstein worked.

If female visitors were known as Mrs Windsor ages would not be known surely

If the proposed bill gets through, to remove AMW from the line if succession, will the other Commonwealth countries concerned agree,
and
will the Princesses also lose their ranking?

Maremia

His more 'provable' crime is the one he is currently charged with.
There may be more 'real' crimes hidden in the murky maze of the Epstein Files.

I’m sure any other alleged ‘crimes’ will be very well hidden in the Epstein files. I’d be very surprised if anything came to light which could be used as evidence.

The 5th in line concerns me too.

Maremia

If the proposed bill gets through, to remove AMW from the line if succession, will the other Commonwealth countries concerned agree,
and
will the Princesses also lose their ranking?

It's a big "if". Parliament has more important matters to discuss, such as climate change, or national defence. All this takes Parliamentary time, and the woes of the Windsor monarchy are not a priority.

David49

The security officers well knew that he was visited by a string of women, on arrival they introduced themselves as "Mrs Windsor" and entered through a side door (service entrance).
My guess is the security officers didn't ask how old they were or if they were trafficked.

Of course they wouldn’t, as it was nothing to do with them. They were there to protect the palace and its residents, so if Andrew told the gatekeeper ‘ Mrs Windsor’ was arriving at 8 ( and we have only the word of the convicted fraudster that that was what happened) and maybe gave a registration number, then their job was to tick her off on their clipboard, nothing else.

Maremia

If the proposed bill gets through, to remove AMW from the line if succession, will the other Commonwealth countries concerned agree,
and
will the Princesses also lose their ranking?

Apparently, The House Of York still stands, and so no, Bea and Eugenie would still be princesses.