Talk:Prince Andrew, Duke of York/Archive 2

“Prince” Andrews page needs prompt editing. Delete his titles.

“Prince” Andrews page needs prompt editing. Delete his titles. 2600:8807:2180:AF00:9DE6:4F01:89CB:131 (talk) 00:42, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

Hi, please see the discussions above. He lost his honorary military titles and the use of his "royal highness" style, but he hasn't lost his title as "prince". The palace and reliable sources continue to refer to him as "Prince Andrew" or "the Duke of York". Aoi (青い) (talk) 00:48, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

Although he hasn’t lost the use of His Royal Highness. As the article now states, he’s retained it but just agreed not to use it. DeCausa (talk) 09:53, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

Removal of HRH

It was wrong of the page editor to remove the HRH at this time. Instead a note needs to be added similar to Prince Harry that he still has it and is just not using it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yellowwallpaper3 (talk • contribs) 17:25, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

It has been adjusted accordingly. Keivan.f^Talk 19:05, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

May I suggest an indented item in the “Titles and styles” subsection, like this (with the explanation and references in footnotes)?

• 19 February 1960 – 23 July 1986: His Royal Highness The Prince Andrew
• 23 July 1986 – present: His Royal Highness The Duke of York
  • 13 January 2022 – present (public use): The Duke of York

The same could be done for the Duke and Duchess of Sussex. 89.159.128.49 (talk) 19:13, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 15 January 2022

He has been stripped of his titles and that should be reflected in the article. Why is he being protected. I will no longer support wiki. 91.110.203.73 (talk) 19:27, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: Provide a source saying he has lost his titles. Solipsism 101 (talk) 20:02, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

IP 91, do you think there is a conspiracy of silence here? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:26, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

The IP said simply raised a point about a protected page. Perhaps the IP is simply not clear on what is happening. What we currently state on the issue (various places) is:

• "On 13 January 2022, it was announced that his royal patronages had been handed back to the Queen to be distributed among other members of the royal family."
• "He ceased using his honorary military titles in January 2022."
• "It was reported that he would still retain his service rank of Vice Admiral."
• "On 13 January 2022, it was reported that while Andrew retains the style of His Royal Highness, he would no longer use it in a public capacity."
• "In 2019, Andrew's military affiliations were suspended and on 13 January 2022 they were formally returned to the Queen."
• "While Andrew retains the style of His Royal Highness as is his right as a British prince, he does not use it in a public capacity since 13 January 2022."

All these statements are sourced to BBC coverage on 2022-01-13.

Is there something we need to change or clarify? Meters (talk) 22:47, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

There’s no evidence that the IP “simply” raised a point about the obscure topic of WP page protection policy. It’s quite clear that the point being made is that by “covering up” the supposed “stripping” of his titles WP is “protecting” Andrew. Have some common sense. DeCausa (talk) 22:56, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

I didn't mean the IP was raising an issue about page protection. The page is protected and the IP could not make an edit. I assume the point was that the IP though that the page content should be changed. I think it quite possible the user thought that the title of "His Royal Highness" had been completely removed, and was simply confused by what we say and how we present the information. There was no call for this [1] appalling response that I removed. Meters (talk) 23:05, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

But don’t over compensate. The IP was making a patently spurious drive-by conspiracy-theory post. Nothing to be gained by giving it credence that it doesn’t deserve. DeCausa (talk) 23:12, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

My question, as well as the comment you removed, was directed to the anon IP, not you. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:24, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

References

New article

Should we create a new article called "Virginia Giuffre v Prince Andrew" or something similar? It would avoid duplication and overlap between this article and Virginia Giuffre. PatGallacher (talk) 22:50, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea to me. —AFreshStart (talk) 22:53, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Yes, a good idea. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:08, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Seems sensible and it now exists: Virginia Giuffre v Prince Andrew. The only thing to watch out for is there is nevertheless continues to be enough material in this article to match the weight that it it may have in his bio per WP:DUE. We don’t want to inadvertently create a POV fork. An obvious case in point would be, if he wins it — reputation (sort of) restored — then there needn’t be much here and most of it should be in that article with a relatively briefish coverage here. If however he loses, it really hits the fan and it’s all over for him and wider implications for the monarchy then it needs major coveraage in this article even with the subsidiary article. WP:CRYSTLE and all that, but just sayin’. DeCausa (talk) 23:35, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Agreed. When I created the Newsnight article I made sure that most of the repercussions were covered on this page as well, especially events that occurred many months later. I think we should keep an eye on this case and then decide how much info about it needs to be on this page as well. Keivan.f^Talk 22:41, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 18 January 2022

Andrew Windsor (Formerly Prince Andrew, Duke Of York) 2A00:23C5:EB89:4A00:F509:6530:572C:7848 (talk) 00:11, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

 Not done He hasn't been stripped of his princely style and the Duke of York title. He's simply not addressed as His Royal Highness. Read the statement from the palace and check previous discussion threads. Keivan.f^Talk 00:16, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Incorrect spelling

To the editor,

There is a spelling mistake.

See the last paragraph of the “Allegations of sexual abuse” tab; “….departure from public ifle” [145] 197.184.182.104 (talk) 17:11, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

 Done. Peter Ormond 💬 17:19, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Should article be titled Andrew Windsor?

This section title was not meant as a serious request. Semi-serious, as that's probably not necessary. Would someone who understands the arcana of this please chime in? We can't have this constant editing and re-editing of the same sections of the article re his nomenclature, titles, and so forth. Moncrief (talk) 18:24, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

In all seriousness, re the Titles and Honours section, we have both his HRH title still being current, but also the note that he won't be using it in a "public capacity". What other relevant capacity is there? He's allowed to use it privately? Why keep HRH listed as a current title? Moncrief (talk) 18:28, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

Think of it as proper name v common name. His title is still HRH The Duke of York but he will only ever be referred to as The Duke of York. Nthep (talk) 18:31, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

I'll say just one more thing and then bow out towards topics I know more about. A source as sympathetic to the Royal Family as Royal Central says full stop that the Queen has "remove[d]... [his]... HRH status": [2]. It's hard to square that with the title being current, as it states in the Titles and Honours section. Expect a lot of edit-warring unless better explained in the article. Moncrief (talk) 18:38, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

@Moncrief: - probably best to thrash out the articl title via a WP:RM. As for constant editing and reverting, a WP:RFC is probably going to be needed. Once there is consensus, an edit notice can be created alerting editors to the situation. Mjroots (talk) 18:33, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

If sources begin to call him Andrew Windsor, then we should begin to follow. As @Martinevans123 says, it is unlikely that sources will suddenly stop calling him Prince Andrew. We don't need to speculate though and this style will either emerge or it won't. For now BBC says Prince Andrew in their headline[3] and in the body refer to him as Prince Andrew The latest announcement means Prince Andrew loses military titles including Colonel of the Grenadier Guards - one of the most senior infantry regiments in the British Army. The Times uses it in the headline, but omits it throughout the actual article: calling him simply "Andrew" (not sure their style before this announcement).[4] Solipsism 101 (talk) 18:37, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

He is still a prince and Duke of York. PatGallacher (talk) 18:34, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

But no longer "Randy Andy", of course: "The 'playboy prince', they called him in the 1990s, after his divorce from Sarah Ferguson; before the marriage, pretty much from the age of 18, he was known as Randy Andy, or as the Daily Mail put it, 'Randy Andy and His Web of Armcandy.' Gosh, how things have changed. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:43, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

I suppose I do have one more thing to add. The sentence in the Titles section that includes the wording "...it was announced that while Andrew retains the style of His Royal Highness as a British prince..." has as its citation this BBC article: [5]. That article says no such thing about that fact being announced. Nothing in the announcement, as described in that article, says anything like Andrew "retains the style of HRH". If that fact is true, then source it better and divorce it from the verb "announce", since that part wasn't actually announced today. Otherwise it's WP:OR. Moncrief (talk) 19:10, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

@Moncrief: I don't know if he retains it because he's a prince of royal blood or for some other reason, but he retains it per sources. The BBC source states: "Like Harry and Meghan, Prince Andrew retains his title HRH but will not use it in any official capacity." Apparently this piece of info came from the palace but was not included in the announcement. I guess the right verb would be "reported" instead of "announced". Keivan.f^Talk 01:42, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Who is entitled to HRH is a matter for Letters Patent decreed by a monarch. Unless the Queen amends the relevant existing LP in respect of Andrew, he is still entitled to use HRH. But, if he chooses not to use it publicly, and expects the world to follow suit, so be it. That doesn't affect his entitlement, which lies dormant. If it turns out he is totally vindicated (unlikely), and he chooses to resume using HRH, that would be his choice too. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 02:21, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

If he loses all his titles he'll become Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor. Proxima Centauri (talk) 13:29, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

I seriously doubt "losing all his titles" could ever extend to no longer being a prince. He is the son of a monarch, and nothing can ever change that. That is why he's a prince. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 18:31, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Unbalanced introduction

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I know Wikipedia is written by random nobodies with typically no relevant experience, but is it too much to ask for a little bit of quality control? The introduction devotes for example, a mere 34 words to his marriage and progeny, and a whopping 171 words to the child sexual abuse case. This stretches the idea that Wikipedia is "not a newspaper" and is therefore not slanted to recent events, to credulity. The article itself notes that his marriage was the subject of much coverage and scrutiny and scandal, and while there are obviously significant differences, it seems quite obvious that if it were happening now, rather than decades ago, he probably would have faced the same consequences (being forced to withdraw from public life and hand back his titles and patronages). The introduction at least, should be a high level summary, and arguably, the problem here is not just the excessive detail about recent events, it's how it glosses over the significance of past events to this man's life and the wider public image/standing of the monarchy. And before anyone says, oh well, it's Wikipedia, you can fix it yourself, no, I can't. The article is edit locked to newcomers like me. Senator Bash (talk) 08:44, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Yes, the lede is largely about him being convicted in the court of public opinion. Please consider removing (from the lede) the lawsuit in "civil law court system" (not criminal court):
"Andrew has been accused of child sexual abuse by Virginia Giuffre, who alleges he initiated a sexual encounter with her knowing that she was a minor who was sex trafficked by American financier and convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein. Following intense negative reaction to a BBC television interview in November 2019 responding to Giuffre's allegation (which he categorically denied, stating he has no recollection of meeting her),[3] and his connections to Epstein, Andrew stepped down from public duties "for the foreseeable future". (Note: I am not trying to downplay how serious the accusation, in civil court, are.) 89.8.91.103 (talk) 10:45, 14 January 2022 (UTC) 89.8.91.103 (talk) 10:49, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

It's a whopping 171 words because it's a whopping international scandal. But yes, one might argue that Jimmy Savile has a more balanced lead section as it stands. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:17, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

In Prince Andy's case, if the shoe does not fit - you must acquit! Regarding the lede: the lede does not need all the juice, from juicy scandals; there is enough room in the rest of the article. 89.8.91.103 (talk) 11:28, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

The lead section should summarize the whole article. Simple as. Juice or no juice. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:50, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Yes. Towards the end of the lede, it tells about FBI and "person of interest". That is arguably a big deal. In regard to lawsuit in civil court, one can summarise by saying: "He is named in one lawsuit under civil law (as of 2022)". That can maybe be mentioned toward the end of the lead. 89.8.91.103 (talk) 12:01, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

This seems to be written as if the editors here expect Andrew to be dragged in front of a US court, which is never going to happen, especially in light of the Anne Sacoolas scandal. Totally premature to be building this article up for something that is just not going to happen.--2A00:23C4:3E08:4000:3495:5B52:F8EF:7194 (talk) 12:19, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

It seems that the civil court (and media) is expecting him to testify (from the UK) by video-link. Anyhow, there is a balance between a (short) summary, and nothing burgers about maybe testifying (albeit under civil law and maybe pleading the fifth amendment). 89.8.91.103 (talk) 12:29, 14 January 2022 (UTC) 89.8.91.103 (talk) 12:31, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Anne Sacoolas had diplomatic immunity under the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations. Solipsism 101 (talk) 12:32, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Ah yeah, 'cos she's a diplomat lol. Shucks, a Sacoolas / Duke of York swap sounded quite fair to me. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:35, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

"It's a whopping 171 words because it's a whopping international scandal." I seriously doubt that. Meghan caused more of an international stir and brought about more trouble for the Monarchy and more angst in the British public with one single unverified claim of institutional racism, than has ever happened thus far over this issue. Why? It's obviously not because people think alleged racism is worse than alleged child abuse. It's because there is a clear difference between a scandal that merely speaks to a personal failing, and one that could be a sign of huge issues at the centre of power structures. Based on the evidence, Saville was clearly the latter, by a huge margin. It is why in the domestic market at least, this scandal has barely been able to compete even this week with the Downing Street parties scandal. And this was the week where arguably we have reached peak scandal and thus peak consequences for Andrew and the Monarchy and the country, assuming, as it seems likely, no new revelations or accusers are going to come to light. With a look back at history and even a comparison to other recent scandals, within and without the monarchy, the word allocation here, for a summary, is clearly wrong, and by a huge margin. It could be a quarter of that size, and still look decidedly skewed to recent events. Senator Bash (talk) 14:34, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Could be trimmed to an extent, info about BBC interview probably excessive detailing, but it should be prominent and lengthy so people have a reasonable understanding of what went on from the lead (in terms of investigation, suit, and resigning patronages). Solipsism 101 (talk) 16:52, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

It's been trimmed down now to only include relevant information. I don't think it can be made shorter than what it already is. Keivan.f^Talk 17:49, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

It could be trimmed much further than that, there's plenty of superfluous wording, but it's a start. The are only a few pertinent details needed for a summary, some of which are actually absent. It should say who Virginia is, what she is alleging and when it supposedly happened (both with respect to Andrew and the wider Eppstein traffick/abuse ring), what Andrew has said about it (how on Earth his denial somehow got left on the cutting room floor is beyond me), what he and the Queen have done about it, and the current trial (start date and status). Four sentences at most, I would guess. Certainly don't add detail that can be inferred (nobody really needs to be told for example that a Prince of the United Kingdom being found to have been friends with Eppstein and later accused of child sexual assault himself lead to a negative reaction). Senator Bash (talk) 18:17, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Then write it down here for us to see what it is that you actually have in mind. Not to mention that he hasn't been wiped out of the face of the monarchy for "positive" reactions to his friendship with Epstein. Him being stripped of his honorary military affiliations and patronages is a consequence of negative reactions, that's a fact. Keivan.f^Talk 19:46, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

I already practically wrote it. I have no idea what the rest of your reply is about. But to repeat, no, it really doesn't need to be explained that the loss of ranks and patronages is a bad thing that resulted from the negative reactions to him having done a bad thing. Readers really aren't that thick. The facts are simply the facts, albeit in a streamlined form given this is after all just a summary - an allegation, a denial, a consequence, and now a wait for the outcome of the trial. Senator Bash (talk) 01:24, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

Overkill: Directly mentioning the name of accuser (now plaintiff) Virginia Giuffre, in the introduction. Her legal efforts have not gotten prince Andy convicted in a court of law (as of January 2022). 89.8.91.103 (talk) 20:10, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

No one else has ever taken Andrew to court in his life? This is uncharted territory for the entire British Royal family?? But you think she should not even be named? Wow. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:16, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Well, this is an encyclopedia. The "she said, he said" narratives are now in the hand of a lawsuit. The lawsuit might be titilating - but I hardly see any reason to mention her name; WWEBHD - What Would Encyclopedia Britannica Have Done? Encyclopedia Britannica would not mention a plaintiff/accuser - in the introduction - if the lawsuit has not lead to a conviction. 89.8.126.227 (talk) 21:46, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Regardless of whether her accusations are true or not, she is a notable person and is not anonymous and is the individual who essentially put an end to Andrew’s whole royal career. I don’t see a reason for her name being removed. And I don’t see a “he said, she said” statement in the lead. The third paragraph merely says that she made an allegation, which he categorically denied, but he eventually resigned from public roles and gave up his affiliations due to his involvement in a sexual assault lawsuit. That’s everything that paragraph essentially says. There’s no indication that it’s supporting either Giuffre or Andrew’s viewpoints, and all of these should be included in the lead because it’s one of the most significant events of Andrew’s life, if not the most significant. Keivan.f^Talk 08:18, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

The summary in the lede as it is now is reasonable and concise stating the main points. The sex allegations interest readers a great deal. Proxima Centauri (talk) 10:00, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

"Prince " Andrew WRONG!

This man was stripped of all titles and all military ranks on January 13,2022. His new title is Andrew. This was well covered by the world media 3 days ago. Why is he still listed as Prince? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.104.74.63 (talk) 06:38, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

To explain it, he has agreed not to use the HRH style. but still has the right to it. This is granted by Letters Patent and can only be revoked by Letters Patent. His princely title and dukedom may possibly be removed by an existing Act or an Act would be needed to remove it -- the titles being intangible property which cannot be capriciously seized without some form of legal authorisation, as a matter of domestic law (and I add international law from my own research). (All from the trusty Wales Online here.) Solipsism 101 (talk) 11:11, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

The Wales Online article is very good, and was written by a law professor. Quoting:

"He retains the title of “prince” from birth, and remains the Duke of York, which is a peerage. Under the law, both titles and peerages are forms of intangible property (incorporeal hereditaments). A general principle of law is that property cannot simply be seized from someone without prior legal authorisation. He also remains in the line of succession for the throne. Again, we have to go back to 1917, this time to consider the example of the Titles Deprivation Act. This allowed for peerages and the title of “prince” to be removed from those “who have, during the present war, borne arms against His Majesty or His Allies, or who have adhered to His Majesty’s enemies”."

He cannot use HRH in any official capacity, but an act of Parliament would be required to formally strip him of that title. This was done to Diana, so it is not impossible. I don't know if he continues to be the Queen's personal aide de camp. His name is Andrew Windsor-Mountbatten as stated in a prior section of the talk page.--FeralOink (talk) 12:40, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

If you don't change this than wiki is a joke. The only place he can call himself prince is Buckingham Palace. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.104.74.63 (talk • contribs) 06:45, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Given your prior comments (and associated block) on BLPs, I'm not inclined to take your comment seriously other than to say your question has been asked and answered above. Aoi (青い) (talk) 08:44, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

You have either misread or misunderstood what the Palace said. Please go back and read it again. Wikipedia has it exactly correct. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 09:06, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

There are Italian princes who can only call themselves such in their living room and republics which have existed in hotel rooms. It doesn't matter, as long as they are recognised by law and, more importantly, referred to by their titles by reliable sources. Solipsism 101 (talk) 20:50, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

He has agreed to stop using the HRH title, but so far he is still using the titles of Prince of the United Kingdom and Duke of York. I wouldn't rule out the possibility that he will be stripped of them before long, but this has not yet happened. Put in a move request if you want, but it will probably go against you at present. PatGallacher (talk) 22:42, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

An RM is a non-starter. You might as well go and march round Royal Lodge with a placard and megaphone. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:47, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

The Andrew formerly known as Prince is perhaps amusing, but wrong. Jonathunder (talk) 02:58, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

That gets my Support in any future RM! DeCausa (talk) 07:51, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Current (non-honorary) military rank

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This article probably needs to be much clearer on the current military rank of Andrew, if he even has one. The recent announcements made it clear he wasn't stripped of his "service" rank when he returned these ceremonial ones. As far as I can tell from a couple of BBC News reports (about both Andrew and Anne), while it (hopefully!) doesn't carry any actual military authority, this rank is conferred by the Queen as a means to ensure senior Royals are (officially? ceremonially?) still considered military officers well into their Autumn years (and perhaps from adulthood for members who never actually served at all?), and they are then promoted in line with some kind of pro rata table, as if they were an average serving officer (as distinct from the privelage of being able to retain your rank as a Retiree). As the article current says, Andrew did defer his last pro rata promotion when it came due during this scandal, but that would seem seem suggest (and which the article is silent on), that even after the announcements of this week, he still holds that rank, and thus he is still a Naval Officer in some form. Senator Bash (talk) 19:06, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

He has the Naval rank of Vice-admiral. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:14, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

The articles says that he has been stripped of his 'honorary' military affiliations. His naval ranks weren't affected and can be found under Prince Andrew, Duke of York#Naval ranks. Keivan.f^Talk 19:30, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

All except the last are historical. One generally can't have more than one military rank. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:34, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

True. But he retains that one, apparently. Keivan.f^Talk 19:39, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

What I was really looking for was for this to be properly explained in the article. Obviously it can be inferred from what little is mentioned in the article currently that he is still a Vice Admiral, but this being Wikipedia, I fear readers might have just assumed that was probably an oversight. If nobody here actually knows whether this is a proper rank or not, well, I guess nobody knows. Although with the article already containing the part about 150 veterans writing a letter because they were upset about him still holding what are definitely merely ceremonial ranks, I thought it a rather obvious oversight not to point out explicitly that even after this week's announcement, he still holds an actual official/quasi-official military rank, which is something that you would have thought would have annoyed them just as much if not more so (and is, just like those ceremonial ranks, apparently entirely within the gift of the sovereign to award or remove, which is, I presume, not how it really works for actual service personnel, even if technically it is, they being her soldiers/sailors/flyers after all). I had a poke about earlier, but unsurprisingly, Wikipedia had no helpful information regarding this convention. Senator Bash (talk) 01:16, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

So what you are basically arguing for is a sentence at the end of the military career section saying that he still holds that rank? Fine. I don’t think anyone would be against that. He served in the navy and it makes sense for him to have some sort of naval rank. We cannot speak for what veterans who penned the letter truly wanted, so we just put all the info together. If they feel that he should be stripped of that rank too they might as well write another open letter. Keivan.f^Talk 08:25, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

I don't know if he retains the title of Vice-admiral or not. The article is correct. Despite the following, there are two BBC references stating that Prince Andrew retains his service role as a Vice-Admiral in the Royal Navy: in Variety Queen Elizabeth Strips Her Son, Prince Andrew, of All Military Titles and Royal Patronages:

"Because the Queen is head of the British armed forces, with the power to bestow honorary military appointments, Prince Andrew also had a number of titles in the Royal Navy, Royal Air Force and Army including Colonel of the Grenadier Guards, Colonel-in-chief of the Royal Irish Regiment and Royal colonel of the Royal Regiment of Scotland. These have also now been removed, effectively leaving the prince a “private” citizen, despite his royal birth. The Queen’s unprecedented intervention, which comes in the year of her jubilee, celebrating 70 years on the throne, follows Wednesday’s news that a New York judge had thrown out Prince Andrew’s motion to dismiss Giuffre’s civil case."

As of now, he "will be forced to fight Giuffre’s claims of sexual assault in a New York courtroom." However, this is a civil case, so there is no possibility of any jail time.--FeralOink (talk) 12:54, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

• This thread is a non-issue. What’s written is accurate and sourced. “but this being Wikipedia, I fear readers might have just assumed that was probably an oversight” is just WP:POINTy nonsense and should ne ignored. Trolling to which WP:DENY is the correct response. We don’t edit on that basis. If Senator Bash actually wants to get off his rear and WP:SOFIXIT himself then he’s welcome, but nothing is needed. (And by the way, Variety is rather odd choice as a source. DeCausa (talk) 18:49, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

  Now indef blocked. Variety is the spice of life, you know. Andrew was just amazing on the Emily Maitlis Show, wasn't he! Martinevans123 (talk) 18:54, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

  Ah. Should have checked Senator bash’s (predictable) status before posting. DeCausa (talk) 19:24, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Teddy bears

What is the story about a grown man and military veteran who happens to be the son of a monarch having an unusually large collection of teddy bears?

• Brown, Lee (January 21, 2022). "Prince Andrew's 72 teddy bears get special attention, ex-maid says". New York Post.

• "Prince Andrew's bizarre obsession with teddy bears revealed". New Zealand Herald. 21 January 2022.

• "Prince Andrew 'would shout and scream' if bedtime teddy bear collection was out of place". National Post. January 18, 2022.

-- 68.50.12.230 (talk) 03:21, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

This is covered in Treatment of servants where it says: "Former royal protection officer Paul Page claimed in an ITV documentary that Andrew maintained a collection of "50 or 60 stuffed toys" and if they "weren't put back in the right order by the maids, he would shout and scream and become verbally abusive."" But it gives no indication of how old he was when this occurred. One might imagine at age 9 or 10. But the cited article from The Independent mentions the "duke's private apartment", so maybe not. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:33, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

p.s. the New York Post tells us he was 36. (But he had just ditched Fergie, so perfectly understandable.) Martinevans123 (talk) 10:03, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

That makes a lot of sense, since I would have guess that an unmarried male, 30-40 years of age, having a large teddy bear collection as someone still living in his mother's house (most likely a basement apartment if his mother was living in the Northwestern part of the States :-).

Seriously, Andrew admitted in a past interview that he started the collection while he was overseas as a part of the Royal Navy. Originally, I thought he was buying the bears for his young daughters until I saw the paragraph in which Andrew admitted to a different reporter in 2019 that an extremely large bear displayed in a waiting area was a wedding gift from his bride on their wedding day, which might imply that his collection might have started in the early '80s before Fergie and not when he was a small child. Source:

• Brown, Lee (January 19, 2022). "Prince Andrew would 'scream' if his stuffed toys were misplaced, ex-guard claims". New York Post.

96.64.134.61 (talk) 00:21, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Yes it seems, from the trusty Mirror, that it was a ménage à trois, or at least a "ménage à nounours"? Martinevans123 (talk) 22:34, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Eeeew! Is the "highly-respected" Mirror implying that Andrew might be a closeted "furry"? Poor Fergie. Poor teddies. 108.71.214.235 (talk) 06:22, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

"Hip hop artist Kanye West used to use a teddy bear named Dropout Bear as his mascot." But I'm not sure that's a good look for the witness stand. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:59, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Kanye West had also married into Hollywood royality, the Kardashians, so teddies may not be unusual.

BTW, Fergie commented on her ex's "hobbies". After her wedding, she even had to share a public carriage ride with husband and "friend". Even a 1986 UPI article mentioned the incident. 108.71.214.235 (talk) 07:33, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 3 February 2022

He still has his titles on this page, but he has been stripped of them by HRH so this page is no longer factual. 62.64.254.93 (talk) 19:43, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

He has retained some. The article also describes those that have been relinquished. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:49, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

"The Andrew formerly known as Prince" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect The Andrew formerly known as Prince and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 February 10#The Andrew formerly known as Prince until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. ValarianB (talk) 15:38, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 16 February 2022

Giuffre is not saying she was under the age of consent. 103.20.233.154 (talk) 08:19, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. DrKay (talk) 08:44, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Potentially deceptive info should be clarified

current version

Honorary military appointments

In 2019, Andrew's military affiliations were suspended and on 13 January 2022 they were formally returned to the Queen.

Canada

• Colonel-in-Chief of the Queen's York Rangers (1st American Regiment)
• Colonel-in-Chief of the Royal Highland Fusiliers of Canada
• Colonel-in-Chief of the Princess Louise Fusiliers
• Colonel-in-Chief of the Canadian Airborne Regiment (disbanded)

New Zealand

• Colonel-in-Chief of the Royal New Zealand Army Logistic Regiment

United Kingdom

• Colonel of the Grenadier Guards
• Colonel-in-Chief of the Royal Irish Regiment (27th (Inniskilling) 83rd and 87th and Ulster Defence Regiment)
• Colonel-in-Chief of the Small Arms School Corps
• Colonel-in-Chief of the Yorkshire Regiment (14th/15th, 19th and 33rd/76th Foot)
• Colonel-in-Chief of the 9th/12th Royal Lancers (Prince of Wales's) (disbanded)
• Deputy Colonel-in-Chief of the Royal Lancers (Queen Elizabeths' Own)
• Royal Colonel of the Royal Highland Fusiliers, 2nd Battalion Royal Regiment of Scotland
• Honorary Air Commodore, Royal Air Force Lossiemouth
• Commodore-in-Chief of the Fleet Air Arm
• Admiral of the Sea Cadet Corps

Improved version

Honorary military appointments

In 2019, Andrew's military affiliations were suspended and on 13 January 2022 they were formally returned to the Queen.

Canada

• Colonel-in-Chief of the Queen's York Rangers (1st American Regiment)
• Colonel-in-Chief of the Royal Highland Fusiliers of Canada
• Colonel-in-Chief of the Princess Louise Fusiliers

... and so forth. Sorry, Duke of York, so sad.

Charliestalnaker (talk) 23:11, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

No need for this. Diana, Princess of Wales had to give up hers following divorce and Prince Harry was stripped of his back in 2021. We don’t need to cross information out. Keivan.f^Talk 08:11, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

References

The article is unclear, have his 'honorary' military titles/appointments been stripped or not? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.7.2.78 (talk) 19:36, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

Possible return to public life

The CNN wrote, "The [royaal] family will now be considering whether or how to integrate Andrew into the jubilee events. The current thinking is that he won't be involved in the more formal and official proceedings, but we may see him when the family makes its traditional appearance on the balcony of Buckingham Palace." https://edition.cnn.com/2022/04/29/uk/royal-news-newsletter-04-29-22-scli-gbr-cmd-intl/index.html It's probably too speculative for the article at the moment. Proxima Centauri (talk) 09:26, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

So speculative it’s not actually claiming any inside information: “will now be considering” is something we all could say. As far as jubilee events are concerned that’s definitely WP:CRYSTAL. There’ll be all sorts of media speculation over the next month - no need to put anything in the article until it actually happens, particularly as it’s so close at hand. As far as a more general return to public life is concerned, the CNN article actually specifically confirms “no story”: “And it remains to be seen whether the royal family are inclined to cede to pressure against Andrew, or take the opposite path by attempting to gradually reintroduce him to public life.” DeCausa (talk) 09:48, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

Back on 5 April, the trusty Daily Mirror enumerated six worms. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:00, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

Andrew is certainly trying to get back into public life, the question is, 'Will he succeed?' Proxima Centauri (talk) 14:35, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

That’s speculation and WP:CRYSTAL. Keivan.f^Talk 22:34, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Signature of Prince Andrew, Duke of York.png

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 08:36, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 June 2022

Under Depictions for Boris Jonhson the Kunt's song 'Boris Johnson is a cunt' is listed. Can we get 'Prince Andrew is a sweaty nonce' listed under his depictions or repercussions of alleged sex scandal?

It's currently in the top 20 hits

https://www.joe.co.uk/news/prince-andrew-is-a-sweaty-ne-hits-uk-top-20-during-jubilee-celebrations-340006 Tomfowler92 (talk) 14:34, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

Seems rather trivial. Celia Homeford (talk) 13:29, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

Don't see why not. Both of "the Johnson ditties" reached No 5. in the chart. But currently the Prince Andrew single is only "Top 20", so we'll have to see how high it gets. In other news... "Sex Pistols’ ‘God Save The Queen’ Becomes Top-Selling Single in U.K. During Platinum Jubilee". Which has a certain irony. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:40, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

I put it in. Proxima Centauri (talk) 14:10, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

Keivan.f took it out. Can Keivan.f tell us where it's linked? Proxima Centauri (talk) 16:02, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

First of all, you hadn't reached a consensus to add it. Celia Homeford mentioned that it is trivial, and I agree with her. As I said on my talk page in response to your message, it's listed in Template:Jeffrey Epstein sex trafficking scandal, which links it to dozens of articles. Simultaneously, it's also linked to the article on Andrew's interview, Prince Andrew & the Epstein Scandal under a section titled "See also", and is featured in the article "The Grand Old Duke of York" since it's a manipulation on the lyrics of that rhyme. There's no need to create an "in popular culture" section just for one song. There are literally dozens of works released on his family members each year, but we don't list them on their articles. Keivan.f^Talk 17:05, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

Literally dozens of songs are "released on his family members each year"? I must have missed most of those. To be the subject of a charting song is quite notable? Martinevans123 (talk) 17:10, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

I didn't say "dozens of songs", I said "dozens of works". And yes, there are works released each year. Go look at the templates we have on Elizabeth, Philip, Charles, Camilla, Diana, William, Kate, Harry and Meghan to see the huge list of books, films, series, songs and documentaries about the family or with references to them, most of which are not listed on the main articles, as it would be trivial and unnecessary. Keivan.f^Talk 20:30, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

Again, missing the songs, sorry. I'm also not sure why all the other Royals are relevant here. This page is for Prince Andrew. Peak position is now No. 20 for UK Singles and No. 1 for UK Indie. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:36, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

I cannot see how you actually missed them, since the Sex Pistols song is literally on the Queen's template, which I looked at about a minute ago. And to answer the other part, they are relevant because they all have a similar theme and consistency should be taken into consideration when trying to edit an article. And I don't see how this being a song actually makes a difference. The Crown is and has been a hit TV series and one of the most watched TV series on Netflix with tons of awards. So should we just go and add it to the Queen's article? What impact does it have on her life or in what way, shape or form has she contributed to it? Same with the Sex Pistols songs and this song, the latter of which is aimed at Andrew obviously, but has no impact on his life whatsoever, and doesn't form a part of his 'biography'. Keivan.f^Talk 23:44, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

Ok then, we've agreed on one, although I'm not sure that was really "about the Queen". Did that song have "an impact on her life"? Naturally, The Crown appears at Personality and image of Elizabeth II, but there's no similar article for Andrew. The song "Boris Johnson Is a Fucking Cunt" appears at Boris Johnson although you might also argue that it "doesn't form a part of his 'biography'." Perhaps you ought to try and remove that one? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:30, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

That section in Boris's article is a total mess. It's not the specific song that is the problem; it's the overall format and how irrelevant and trivial information have been put together to create a list. I would be more inclined to have that song included in this article under a new section, if we were to discuss portrayals in other works such as The Crown, Spitting Image, etc. in a prose as opposed to a list; basically the same way it has been done for Mary of Teck and Diana, Princess of Wales. That would make the section more balanced, and it would not give then impression that we are granting prominence to a single song. Keivan.f^Talk 15:22, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

No objections. Not just Boris's article that's in a total mess: also his popularity, reputation, and integrity, of course. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:46, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

Illegitimate

Could there be truth that he and Edward are illegitimate? I add, before anyone lashes out on The Crown, that the rumors about these two are very previous and that in any case The Crown at best suggests Philip's infidelity, but always portrays Elizabeth as in love and faithful, simply with a good friend with whom shares a passion for horses and of which Philip is hypocritically jealous.--93.149.231.250 (talk) 18:21, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

This article is about real-life Andrew, not about The Crown The whole notion sounds ridiculous to me. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:28, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

To be fair, Anon wrote that it's about The Crown. On the contrary. Rumors of Andrew and Edward's illegitimacy have been around since they were born, but The Crown doesn't suggest that at all. And only people who think it's the show's fault.

That said, I don't think the Queen, with two children already, would have taken such a risk. Not to mention that, during the time Andrew was supposed to have been conceived, she and Philip were in Canada. Far away from Lord Porchy.Sira Aspera (talk) 09:55, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

Have any of these "rumours" been written down and published in WP:RS sources? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:22, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

Sources yes, reliable is another matter. It's a tabloid rumor, so pretty much all the biographies that feature it are mostly gossip reviews. Now, technically a rumor may even be true at times, but they have to be proven. Currently, none of the rumors of illegitimate children in the Windsor household have any credibility, and neither do the people claiming to be. Sira Aspera (talk) 14:51, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

Can you actually name one single source? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:34, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

The rumor should have been raised in "Queen Elizabeth II: A Woman Who Is Not Amused" by Nicholas Davies, in one or more scandalistic books by Lady Colin Campbell (in particular "The Royal Marriages"), "Elizabeth" by Sarah Bradford, by Nigel Dempster in the "New York Times Megazine" in 1993. Fiammetta Rocco, journalist for "The independent of Sunday", also in 1993, who claims to have addressed the question directly to Prince Philip, also refers to it. So at the moment, this is what I have been able to ascertain. But I don't understand why of so much aggression. I said that personally I DON'T believe in it and I didn't propose to include in the article, so I don't understand so much animosity for making an observation on a gossip. Sira Aspera (talk) 23:18, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

No "aggression" intended, thanks, just a search for some facts. I'm not sure what you mean by "should have been raised". Many thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 07:35, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

That I remember reading references to this gossip in these books. English is not my first language and I sometimes make mistakes, especially when translating idioms. I'm sorry.Sira Aspera (talk) 08:02, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

Many thanks for clarifying. Well you certainly have a good memory for authors and titles! There seem to be at least 5 or 6 different possible sources there, which other editors may be able to access/ verify. No need to apologise; thanks very much for your input. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:05, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

• WP:BLPGOSSIP applies to talk pages as well as articles. This thread seems borderline. DeCausa (talk) 09:15, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

  Are the works of Lady Colin Campbell considered WP:RS? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:20, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

  I wouldn’t think so. But I don’t know her oeuvre so couldn’t say for sure! DeCausa (talk) 09:28, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

I have specified that, like gossip, it is reported in sources that deal with it and that therefore reliability is not guaranteed. I was asked for a source anyway and I did it as best I can. Having said that, I would say that we have digressed and that we can close here.Sira Aspera (talk) 14:06, 13 June 2022 (UTC)