Summary
Police say King Charles’s brother is in custody and officers are carrying out searches at addresses in Berkshire and Norfolk - read the police statement in full

  • thehatfox@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    261
    ·
    1 day ago

    As a British person that’s something I thought I’d never see.

    Arrested on his birthday too.

    • Nighed@feddit.uk
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      106
      ·
      1 day ago

      The late queen’s protection of him was a blemish on her record. I’m happy the king has cut him loose to face consequences… I wonder if they asked him before the arrest…

        • arrow74@lemmy.zip
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          8
          ·
          1 day ago

          That’s an interesting development then. Nothing stopping the king from issuing a pardon

            • arrow74@lemmy.zip
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              12
              ·
              edit-2
              1 day ago

              It’s the continual back and forth they’ve had for the last several centuries.

              They don’t want to lose more power or come off as weak, but they also don’t want to wield too much power and be removed.

              • idiomaddict@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                8
                ·
                1 day ago

                Yeah. I think throwing his brother under the bus would probably earn the king a whole lot of goodwill with the public, whereas pardoning him would outrage people.

                Though not much came of Jimmy Saville, but Andrew’s not dead

          • Depress_Mode@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            7
            ·
            1 day ago

            Charles also said something like “the law must take its course” in reaction to the news, so I think he might just let it play out

            • greygore@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              5
              ·
              edit-2
              1 day ago

              On June 6, ABC News’ David Muir asked Joe Biden, “Have you ruled out a pardon for your son?” Biden responded, “Yes.”

              A week later, Biden reiterated to reporters during an international summit that “I will not pardon him,” nor commute his sentence, a lesser action that would have reduced Hunter Biden’s sentence but not lifted his conviction.

              (source)

              Not saying Charles will do an about face like Biden, nor will I say that he’s not just throwing Andrew under the bus to avoid additional fallout, but let’s see what he does if/when Andrew faces real consequences.

              • CannonFodder@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                6
                ·
                23 hours ago

                Yeah, sucks that Biden had to do that. But he clearly saw how trump was going to weaponise the doj. They were already reneging on the plea deal that Biden jr had made.

            • fiat_lux@lemmy.worldOP
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              4
              ·
              23 hours ago

              Where are you hearing that? The charge is misconduct in public office, and while the initial arrest for it has been made based on sharing documents, the penalty itself can have a maximum of life in prison. Life in prison won’t happen, but given they’ve now searched 4 properties, I don’t think he’s getting away with just a fine either.

            • arrow74@lemmy.zip
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              8
              ·
              edit-2
              1 day ago

              No the King has that power. It is exercised today under the guidance of other officials, but the King can still use the power without reccomendation.

              https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_prerogative_of_mercy

              It is crazy how much power the UK monarchs still have. They choose not to exercise it often, but the option remains.

              So I dove into the law a bit more and the King must follow the ministers reccomendation when asked to pardon, but there is no indication that the King is limited on his ability to use this mechanism.

              However parliment can then check it if they so choose.

              Feel free to correct me though, it’s complicated text and I may be mistaken

              • IchNichtenLichten@lemmy.wtf
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                5
                ·
                1 day ago

                The convention is that the royal family don’t use these powers unilaterally. There’s an unspoken agreement here that they get to keep their palaces and fancy lifestyle on the understanding that they keep out of politics and legal issues so while Charlie could in theory do something like this, he also knows that if he did, it would pretty much signal the end of the monarchy in the UK.

      • 3abas@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        16 hours ago

        And what a record it was! Empire’s torture, internment and state killings, racist borders and racist policing, catastrophic wars sold on certainty they didn’t have, colonialism and ethnic cleansing and genocides, a little bit of family racism drama as a cherry on top, and a strong propaganda machine to sell her as a sweet old woman without much power and to ensure people still defend her and worship her.

        Her record was too tarnished to blemish.

    • fiat_lux@lemmy.worldOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      53
      ·
      edit-2
      1 day ago

      I’m not British but I’m also very surprised. I can’t help but wonder if they would have dared had he still had his title?

      on his birthday too.

      The cops took the phrase “the icing on the cake” literally, and I think it was an excellent choice.

      • gnutrino@programming.dev
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        47
        ·
        1 day 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
          11
          ·
          1 day 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
            15
            ·
            1 day 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
              18
              ·
              1 day 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
              6
              ·
              1 day 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.

              • greygore@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                1 day ago

                I would assume that he’d have more cover as a royal in the UK than as an immigrant in the US. Unless you were saying that he left the royal family in disgust for doing things like cleaning up for Andrew for so long, which I realize now was probably what you intended, but I’ll post this anyway in case someone else gets confused too.

            • fiat_lux@lemmy.worldOP
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              21 hours ago

              That’s fair. At the time I thought it might be because they were struggling to deal with both the Andrew situation and the Harry drama simultaneously, while Charles was generally more unpopular than his mother, and likely ill.

              But if they privately found out something that made the Andrew situation untenable, it makes sense that they would try to distance that ASAP. I wonder whether it’s something that has been released already or is even worse.

              Charles’ statement today on “we support the police”, plus letting them search The Lodge, definitely feels like they’re leaving him to rot. At least maybe a little.

        • ohulancutash@feddit.uk
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          9
          ·
          edit-2
          1 day 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
              26
              ·
              edit-2
              1 day 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.

              Meanwhile, Charles believes he was forced into an arranged marriage, and when that failed he was forbidden to marry the person he had always loved, with the Queen even refusing to be in the same building for a long time, despite the requirement for an heir and a spare already having been settled.

              Andrew was allowed to saddle the family with Fergie without consequence. But Fergie is an entertaining grifter, while Camilla is known as the “laziest woman in England” by her friends, so it’s not surprising she never got on with someone so duty-bound as Elizabeth.

    • SaveTheTuaHawk@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      21
      ·
      1 day ago

      Blame Queen Elizabeth. She was more interested in preserving the monarchy than Andrew’s victims. There has to be a better way to promote tourism.

    • BrightCandle@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      1 day ago

      Got to have a couple of examples of the rich and powerful going away for their crimes so the plebs don’t realise how stacked against them the system really is.