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
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
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?
The cops took the phrase “the icing on the cake” literally, and I think it was an excellent choice.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Charles has always hated and envied Andrew. He removed him from Royal duties as soon as he had the power to do so.
What did he envy him for?
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.
You do not know these people. This is knitting circle talk. Charles removed Andrew because of Epstein and other local infractions, as well as knowledge of him sharing state secrets.
This is detailed in Tom Bower’s thoroughly researched book.
Again, hearsay and a book designed to sell books.
The law wanted to send a clear message, just 25 years too late.