Prince Andrew served with legal papers over sexual assault lawsuit (Telegraph)

It's perfect advice for someone trying to avoid papers being served.

That is correct MissAdenture.

But if that advice had been given, and acted on by the Queen, then she is culpable.

Not really, because no crime has been committed.

Well yes you’re right MissAdventure, but she would be guilty/culpable of preventing the delivery of the papers to Andrew. That is only if she had directed that no one was allowed to enter the estate in order to serve the papers.
We don’t know if Andrew committed a crime, but we do know that he is avoiding having the papers served to him by hiding himself in vast estates not generally accessible to the public. If the Queen is assisting him in his avoidance, surely she is culpable?

He is simply visiting his mother, as is usual.
I've been known to visit mine if there was something I wanted to avoid happening at mine.
A lot of things depend on being given papers in person.
It's advised not to let bailiffs in if they have come to serve notice to quit.

I must just say, my mum didn't know, or she would have turfed me out to face the music!

"We don’t know if Andrew committed a crime, but we do know that he is avoiding having the papers served to him by hiding himself in vast estates not generally accessible to the public. If the Queen is assisting him in his avoidance, surely she is culpable?"

If. A tiny word but a very important one. We don't know if the Queen is assisting him in his avoidance, so your last sentence should read, "If the Queen were assisting him in his avoidance, surely she would be culpable?"

Since I used the word if I don’t think that the sentence needs changing, so I don’t accept the revised option. I wrote the sentence and do not need to be told how someone else thinks it should be written.

varian

In a way it's a pity he's been stopped from performing public duties - that might have have enabled someone to serve the legal papers directly to him in public.

Maybe that is the very reason why he no longer performs public duties. They are a sinister lot and that wouldn’t surprise me at all. Whatever happens he will never live this down , deservedly so.

Extraordinary. As pointed out here, the idea that Guiffre settled with Epstein and therefore settled with Andrew is bizarre. The fact he keeps fighting with such poor arguments speaks volumes.
twitter.com/RepublicStaff/status/1437834214267830274?s=20

This has been spotted just down the road from Kensington Palace.
twitter.com/RepublicStaff/status/1437836967916580864?s=20

I read somewhere that it was Prince Charles who insisted Andrew should step back from public duties and is making sure he stays there. I think Charles is very aware of the damage Andrew has done to public opinion of the RF.

Is there a time frame for these papers to be legally served?

In that case, well done Prince Charles. If it’s true that Prince Harley insisted on Andrew stepping down/back from public cities, it tells us again that the Queen’s judgement is poor. Note I said if.

Who is Prince Harley?

Prince Handrew's brother.

If Charles is making decisions such as this it tells me the
Queen is as usual making the right decisions.

Surely it’s sensible to allow Charles to have a say in things , she is 95, may outlive Charles, may not.

Surely it’s sensible to allow Charles to have a say in things , she is 95

And yet she still gets to approve and sign off all our laws....

Zoejory clearly Prince Harley is Prince Charles. My iPad has a mind of its own, and since it does, I’m sure others do too.

MissAdventure

Prince Handrew’s brother.

Thanks for your humour, it made me laugh

Indeed Alegrias. She should have stepped back long ago, despite the promise she made. She didn’t need to abdicate, just step back.

maddyone

MissAdventure

Prince Handrew’s brother.

Thanks for your humour, it made me laugh

Oh I am glad.
I was worried you may be offended.

maddyone

Indeed Alegrias. She should have stepped back long ago, despite the promise she made. She didn’t need to abdicate, just step back.

Agreed maddyone, but I'd go further. She promised to serve the country, or words to that effect. Maybe the country would be better served by her abdicating and handing over her position to someone else.

Alegrias1

maddyone

Indeed Alegrias. She should have stepped back long ago, despite the promise she made. She didn’t need to abdicate, just step back.

Agreed maddyone, but I'd go further. She promised to serve the country, or words to that effect. Maybe the country would be better served by her abdicating and handing over her position to someone else.

I can't say for certain of course, but things I've read seem to suggest that she would never do this. The reason seems to be paraphrased as (but my paraphrase, that of a crusty old republican)

"If there is any merit in this 'inherit the role by succession' idea then a corollary is that you can't give it up otherwise it starts to look like any other job"

But I may be further misinterpreting other people's misinterpretations.

I think you are right , Petera. Personally I wish the whole lot of them would disappear in a puff of smoke but it’s not going to happen.