[Bones McCoy]

Not a prince, still a nonce, always a count.

[davidjay]

I do wonder whether our late dear queen might have nipped this in the bud if she'd been a bit less devoted to her favourite son. The idea that the young master was allowed free reign with the under-parlourmaid and what did the silly little gel expect may well still have lingered.

[Abernathy]

I think that there may be some danger of the important significance of Chaz's actions here being overlooked by many.

The hereditary principle (which was always a complete nonsense in any case) that says that certain individuals, by dint of nothing other than the random accident of their birth, are entitled to wealth, power, and untrammeled privilege above any one else, is being directly undermined by Chaz's forcible removal of his brother's princehood - though bizarrely, Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor apparently retains his position in the "line of succession" to the throne (even though he is supremely unlikely ever to realise an ascension to the top of the monarchy) .

One day, this may be viewed as a significant waymarker on this country's long journey toward the abolition of the corrupt, obscenely unjust institution of monarchy.

[Boiler]

One day, this may be viewed as a significant waymarker on this country's long journey toward the abolition of the corrupt, obscenely unjust institution of monarchy.

Meanwhile, France has just jailed one of its former presidents for, errr... corruption; and then there's Trump. Neither institution is immune.

I really, REALLY cannot get worked up about this, at all; it has precisely zero effect on my life. It doesn't pay my leccy bill, it doesn't make this festering URTI I'm developing any better, it doesn't affect my choice for what I'm having for my tea tonight, it doesn't make my garden look any better. So why should I care?

[Andy McDandy]

Royal reporting depends on an assumption that they're better than us. Otherwise, what would be the point of covering them?

It's also based on the idea that the family ('The Firm') are somehow a microcosm or representation of the wider country - "the king and the land are one", as Arthurian myth put it. Hence the terminology used, owing a lot to sports writing.

[Oboogie]

I do wonder whether our late dear queen might have nipped this in the bud if she'd been a bit less devoted to her favourite son.

^This.
I'm hearing a number of callers (Any Answers and LBC) expressing the view that the Queen was infallible but now she's gone we can get rid of the monarchy because Charles was too slow to deal with Andrew.
It seems to me this is rather unfair on Charles, whilst Liz protected Andrew for around 20 years, by contrast Charles has acted relatively swiftly (3 years). In fairness to the late Queen, I do accept that more damning evidence has emerged since her death but I do detect a double standard at work.

[Abernathy]

I’d hazard a guess that Brenda had that much cash sloshing about, and by that stage in her life, she regarded 12 million quid as little more than loose change, and more than worth it to get her favourite son off the hook of a serious scandal, as she saw it.

[Oboogie]

I’d hazard a guess that Brenda had that much cash sloshing about, and by that stage in her life, she regarded 12 million quid as little more than loose change, and more than worth it to get her favourite son off the hook of a serious scandal, as she saw it.

Probably. Ironically, that £12m payment is very damning evidence that she knew, even then, just how serious Andrew's offences really were - something the rest of us won't know until the Epstein papers are finally released.

[kreuzberger]

How do we know that he was her favourite kid?

Was she actually asked and replied, "defo not jug ears or the horsey one, and certainly not the drip."?

[Oboogie]

How do we know that he was her favourite kid?

Princess Diana's butler Paul Burrell has certainly expressed that opinion in his book and in interviews, although it seems to have been received wisdom long before Burrell's time.

Who knows.