Prince Andrew's titles & patronages revoked.

Post Reply New Topic

Agreed, I think the "I'm a dirty old man, so what?" defense would have played better, though admittedly I'm not nearly as familiar with British politics and celebrity as I am the US version, so I can't really claim to know what would and would not work there.

And its not as if this is unknown among the British establishment, The architect of Brexit, Nigel Farage as well as the current conservative prime minister Boris Johnson both have a "roving eye" been through several divorces and are married to women half their age. The British tabloids might crack a joke or two at their expense (as they have with Andrew over the years labelling him "Randy Andy) but in the end the public still approve of all of them. The Queen knew Andrew;'s nocturnal activities in the bedrooms of young women but he was still her favourite son up till his indiscretion with Epstein,. Interestingly Queen Victoria's favourite son was her eldest "Bertie" was also a sex addict.

Now that he's a British civilian, IMO, he should always watch his back.

Ah, I'm not as up on royal gossip as you, but Randy Andy does ring a bell somewhere.

Do you remember some years back when Charlie Sheen basically fell apart in public? I've always felt like his response, basically owning the whole thing with a sort of "yeah, cocaine has been good to me, so what?" rather than the usual denial and apology paired with a rehab stint should be the blueprint for all celebrity scandals going forward, he even got commerical deals out of it:



Seriously, watch it, the dude literally turns being under house arrest into a marketing slogan and media asset, every PR person in the world should have this saved on their phone somewhere to remind them how to handle scandals.

Not coincidentally, I suspect a certain NYC real estate developer was also taking notes, as this could have been the blueprint for how he campaigned, the media jujitsu of turning bad coverage into good is all there.

I think in this respect the US public is far more willing to forgive and rehabilitate public figures than the UK. I notice (for example) Michael Jackson music is being played on the radio again. During the Neverland saga his music was banned.
I wouldn't be surprised if members of the Jan 6 riot, OJ Simpson and Charlie Sheen all take part in some reality TV show in the future and shares in their popularity go up again.

Andrew's best chance is to probably keep a low profile (rather than keep popping up in the news) to stay afloat with the British establishment whom he has curried favor (and quite successfully in the past) but he will be persona non-grata for the forseeable future in the British media.

Unlike Megan and Harry he's too old to be popular if he moved to the US unless he marries some American celebrity.

You know, I don't actually know if we're more forgiving relative to other cultures as I just don't have the relevant experience, but we do tend to value when people come clean and own their mistakes, especially as opposed to lying about them and getting caught.

I don't think Michael Jackson ever disappeared from the airwaves here, it would have left too big of a hole in the 80s playlists, the man was literally too big to cancel. If I think about it, it's actually pretty hard to get kicked off of US radio if you're a musician, there are token efforts here and there, like Robin Thicke or Chris Brown, but they usually don't work, even R Kelley is still on the radio last I checked. I think on some level people must realize that if they banned every "problematic" artist from the airwaves, we'd quickly be down to Christian rock and New Age, between groupies, appropriation, wife beating, the occasional light kidnapping or murder, etc almost all of the big artists have something in their closet, best to just enjoy the music and not think too hard about it.




OJ is never coming back, lol. Everyone knows he did it, but somehow it's become this sort of national in joke, "oh, he's still looking for the real killers!", which is pretty weird when you think about it, but it's totally true. You know, maybe if he confessed and did some long public penance that didn't look put on he could do it, but I don't see that happening, I don't think he has it in him. Now that I'm thinking about it, I kinda wonder what the reaction would be at this point if he just came out with it, like "yeah I killed the b*tch, I couldn't take seeing her running around with my money and her new man", I could see some people going for it, the old Chris Rock "I'm not saying he should have killed her, but I understand" thing.



Heh, at his age, I'd be tempted to just say "f*ck it" and reinvent myself as the British Hugh Hefner, start licensing "Randy Andy's" to a fancy OnlyFans competitor, dish up dirt on the Royals, start lounging around in a bath robe with young women frolicking around, sounds a lot more fun that what he's doing. Then again, I have a very American mischievous streak, so probably not the best advice.

MJ was literally banned form the airwaves in Australia. He had been the butt of jokes here for many years for his "sleepovers" with little boys. I think he's a perfect example of separating the man from his music. There was no sugar coating his unusual tastes which if I was being charitable could be described as eccentric.

I understand OJ was a respected sportsman and like R Kelly there will be those who might remember his time in the sun. I've watched users on Youtube who have amassed a following say they still listen to R Kelly. Again, one can enjoy the art while not being too vested in the artist.

Prince Andrew was a consummate royal patron and well respected despite his foibles for girls. His decision to marry Sarah Ferguson came across as somewhat strange as the frumpy, unrefined redhead didn't really seem his "type" and completely unlike the pretty little things he normally dated/flocked around him. But who knows what was going on in his head. Charles gave up Diana Spencer for an old crone (Camilla) who looked like a pastured horse. Harry had the prettiest girls in England at his beck and call and gave that all up for a divorcee in her late 30s. Shades of the abdicated Edward.

It's almost like personality fit and mental connection are more important to forming a life long relationship than how a woman looks ...

Last edited by DW_a_mom on 15 Jan 2022, 2:44 am, edited 1 time in total.

I really wish more public figures would use a more honest spin instead of denial. No one is perfect. Are we on this board really outliers on that?

(PS - I like seeing you and Cyberdad have a nice conversation for once.)

"The Firm" is something Elizabeth II came up with regarding the business side of the royal family. As for Andrew escaping prosecution because of his mum, you're going to have to point out how that works according to actual facts. Considering that King Charles I was prosecuted and put to death, even ruling kings haven't been above or able to escape the law as far back as 1649.

Huh, I have weird associations, but to me "the firm" always referred to British intelligence, while "the company" was American intelligence. I'm also a Cold War history nerd, so make of that what you will.

Right? Own and move on seems to be the better strategy for PR, I'm not sure why people still try to run the old playbook, it just makes them look dishonest.

Also, I'm on a new med, so far so good, we'll see if it sticks.

I'll assume the queen didn't have that in mind when she nicknamed her family.

Or did she...

I might link back to a post I made on another thread about Channing Tatum's undercover cop in 22 Jump Street where his "Chad" type character lamented that he'd slept with 1000 women but all he wanted now was one life-long relationship.

I think that's relatable and might apply to Andrew, Charles and Harry. Andrew quite literally had no shortage of female admirers and probably (based on his reputation) could have slept with any number of women he wanted to. My guess is that there was also pressure on him (as probably with Charles and Harry) to settle down and have children. The type he wanted to settle down with was somebody who matched his personality (my understanding is that he still gets along famously with his ex-wife even during the time the allegations about Virginia Giuffre surfaced). So yes, you are probably correct.

But I think deep down all men are to some extent programmed to want a female partner who they can talk to and whom understands them. With age, looks become less important. In the case of the royals Charles, Harry and Andrew their chosen life partners hardly are anything in the looks department (I am probably being unkind to Camilla, Megan and Sarah F. but it's just they aren't what people expected).

Megan aint ugly.... or are you saying theres something wrong with my eyes....