this post was submitted on 02 Nov 2025

61 points (100.0% liked)

United Kingdom

5540 readers

131 users here now

General community for news/discussion in the UK.

Less serious posts should go in !casualuk@feddit.uk or !andfinally@feddit.uk
More serious politics should go in !uk_politics@feddit.uk.

Try not to spam the same link to multiple feddit.uk communities.
Pick the most appropriate, and put it there.

Posts should be related to UK-centric news, and should be either a link to a reputable source, or a text post on this community.

Opinion pieces are also allowed, provided they are not misleading/misrepresented/drivel, and have proper sources.

If you think "reputable news source" needs some definition, by all means start a meta thread.

Posts should be manually submitted, not by bot. Link titles should not be editorialised.

Disappointing comments will generally be left to fester in ratio, outright horrible comments will be removed.
Message the mods if you feel something really should be removed, or if a user seems to have a pattern of awful comments.

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

tom@feddit.uk

GreatAlbatross@feddit.uk

frankPodmore@slrpnk.net

Andrew will be banished from royal premises to King Charles' private and remote Sandringham estate (apnews.com)

submitted 3 weeks ago by BrikoX@lemmy.zip to c/unitedkingdom@feddit.uk

25 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Andrew Mountbatten Windsor, King Charles III's younger brother, is facing banishment from royal premises.

top 25 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] Jhex@lemmy.world 28 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago)

oh no how horrible, the pedophile is punished by living in a different luxury castle

I hate so much about this

the British monarch’s younger brother disgraced over his friendship with the deceased sex offender Jeffrey Epstein.

Sure, it' not like Andrew himself is a child predator… he is being punished because he was a "friend" of one

Charles will be funding Andrew’s relocation and provide his brother an annual stipend from his own private resources — basically, the former prince will not live out his vintage years at the expense of the British taxpayer.

Of course because Charles has money from his succesful plumbing career

[–] 48954246@lemmy.world 23 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

Weird, still not a prison

[+] Flax_vert@feddit.uk -10 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) (2 children)

Did we even know if he knowingly committed a crime?

What he did was disgusting and sleazy, but we would need evidence that he knew Virginia Giuffre was being trafficked, we don't even have enough evidence for that to speculate on.

[–] Seleni@lemmy.world 5 points 3 weeks ago (3 children)

He had sex with underage girls. Wtf is wrong with you, defending a pedo?

[–] FishFace@piefed.social 9 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

Can you prove it in court? If not, he shouldn't go to prison. It's an easy formula.

I'm perfectly happy calling him a nonce, but I'm also one of those old-fashioned types who values the rule of law and all...

[–] Flax_vert@feddit.uk 1 points 3 weeks ago

Not even an accusation against him. He'd have to know she was being trafficked in order to be legally guilty. I wouldn't be surprised if they chose a stupid idiot depraved prince to be their scapegoat.

[–] ohulancutash@feddit.uk 5 points 3 weeks ago

He has not been accused of doing that, in or out of court.

[–] Flax_vert@feddit.uk 4 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago)

Virginia Giuffre was 17. That's not underage according to the laws of New York, USA and England, United Kingdom.

And I'm not defending him. I'm only stating fact. As much as I'd like to see him locked up, you can only do so within the law.

[–] dumbass@aussie.zone 3 points 3 weeks ago

Nice try Andrew, but you can't trick us.

[–] jlow@discuss.tchncs.de 18 points 3 weeks ago (2 children)

How about we ban all the "royalty" from all these estates (and confiscate their wealth while we're on it) and use them for housing poor and homeless (and their wealth to finance this)? That seems less prone to scandals.

[–] danielquinn@lemmy.ca 12 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

"Oh no! Not Sandringham!" - Andrew, probably.

[–] FishFace@piefed.social 2 points 3 weeks ago

By all accounts Andrew will be fuming because he's up himself.

[–] ohulancutash@feddit.uk 8 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

Remote apart from the hourly train to King’s Cross and being a straight drive up the A10, and being ten minutes away from King’s Lynn… Siberia would have been kinder.

[–] MrsDoyle@sh.itjust.works 2 points 3 weeks ago

https://sandringhamestate.co.uk/

You can have afternoon tea in the restaurant after your visit. And there's a gift shop of course.

So remote though.

[–] ruuster13@lemmy.zip 3 points 3 weeks ago

Private and remote enough that you need your own Lolita Express to get there.

[–] Philharmonic3@lemmy.world 0 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

Y'all Brits need to get some Yankee in ya and uproot these weeds.

[–] Lumisal@lemmy.world 8 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

*French.

Y'all are busy installing your own king after all.

[–] Philharmonic3@lemmy.world 1 points 3 weeks ago

That's a fair point.