The Royal Family Discussion Thread

[harvey19 541]

11 hours ago, cgksheff said:

Sworn statements and witnesses are 'evidence'. 

It will be up to the court to decide whose claims are more believable.

In which case why aren’t criminal charges being brought ?

[cgksheff 44]

27 minutes ago, harvey19 said:

In which case why aren’t criminal charges being brought ?

Read my earlier post.

There are many cases where the powers that be decide not to proceed with a criminal case, despite there being evidence.

Sometimes it may be their belief there is not sufficient grounds to achieve a conviction. Sometimes it may be deemed to "not be in the public interest". etc. etc.

 

There are also many cases where a criminal court may find an individual "not guilty" only for them to be found liable in a subsequent civil case. OJ Simpson is a famous example of this.

 

With regard to Andrew, because noone is proceeding with a criminal case, the applicant has brought a civil case because they believe that the evidence will meet the standards of proof required to find the defendant liable.

Edited January 14, 2022 by cgksheff

[Cyclecar 24]

Here lies  Andrew's problem. He has virtually no personal assets, and any income is from the Royal Purse is entirely discretionary. He can't ask for money to raise his family - they've gone....

 

He doesn't draw a salary from Army/Navy although he will be due a modest pension. He lives in lodgings on the Windsor estate, cars are from the pool. His household expenses - butlers and valets- are in theWindsor bundle.  He can't raffle off that nice Turner painting over the mantlepiece , it doesn't belong to him. 

 

If he wasn't a prince of the realm he would never have been sued for compensation in a US civil court. In US litigation, only sue those with the ability to pay, or at least have an insurer who can cough up.  The plaintiff is relying on his family to cover any settlement. But in the palace statement yesterday detailing the defenestration*, it was made clear that he is defending this action as a private citizen. 

 

He will have had a lonely meal last night. 

(*first usage on SF?)

[cgksheff 44]

2 minutes ago, Cyclecar said:

Here lies  Andrew's problem. He has virtually no personal assets, and any income is from the Royal Purse is entirely discretionary. He can't ask for money to raise his family - they've gone....

 

He doesn't draw a salary from Army/Navy although he will be due a modest pension. He lives in lodgings on the Windsor estate, cars are from the pool. His household expenses - butlers and valets- are in theWindsor bundle.  He can't raffle off that nice Turner painting over the mantlepiece , it doesn't belong to him. 

 

If he wasn't a prince of the realm he would never have been sued for compensation in a US civil court. In US litigation, only sue those with the ability to pay, or at least have an insurer who can cough up.  The plaintiff is relying on his family to cover any settlement. But in the palace statement yesterday detailing the defenestration*, it was made clear that he is defending this action as a private citizen. 

 

He will have had a lonely meal last night. 

(*first usage on SF?)

He has a few millions from the recent sale of his ski lodge.

[Cyclecar 24]

DOY (no HRH now...) and spouse paid , sorry,  agreed to pay £18m for the place in 2014. They only paid part and the vendor had to sue for the balance. It has taken 2 years and she only  got the balance of some £7m last month.  We don't know what it made at sale, and there may have been other charges and taxes to settle. As he was the part owner he will only have received a portion. I bet it hasn't covered his own legal bills to date.  And I gather that Fergie is in reduced circumstances as well. 

 

I doubt there has been a much needed credit into his current account. 

[harvey19 541]

59 minutes ago, cgksheff said:

Read my earlier post.

There are many cases where the powers that be decide not to proceed with a criminal case, despite there being evidence.

Sometimes it may be their belief there is not sufficient grounds to achieve a conviction. Sometimes it may be deemed to "not be in the public interest". etc. etc.

 

There are also many cases where a criminal court may find an individual "not guilty" only for them to be found liable in a subsequent civil case. OJ Simpson is a famous example of this.

 

With regard to Andrew, because noone is proceeding with a criminal case, the applicant has brought a civil case because they believe that the evidence will meet the standards of proof required to find the defendant liable.

I understand what you say but WHO has decided no criminal charges are to be brought ?

Has the case been assessed by the CPS ?

If it is because the alleged offences were committed outside UK jurisdiction  can a civil case be proceeded with in the UK. Can  He be forced to attend an hearing abroad ?

If he has been stripped of his Royal privileges does he have a large private bank account now from which a settlement could be paid ?

Are disclosure rules the same in civil cases as in criminal cases ?

[Rockers rule 673]

1 hour ago, cgksheff said:

Read my earlier post.

There are many cases where the powers that be decide not to proceed with a criminal case, despite there being evidence.

Sometimes it may be their belief there is not sufficient grounds to achieve a conviction. Sometimes it may be deemed to "not be in the public interest". etc. etc.

 

There are also many cases where a criminal court may find an individual "not guilty" only for them to be found liable in a subsequent civil case. OJ Simpson is a famous example of this.

 

With regard to Andrew, because noone is proceeding with a criminal case, the applicant has brought a civil case because they believe that the evidence will meet the standards of proof required to find the defendant liable.

That would make an interesting read.

'If I did it - confessions of a disowned prince'. 

[cuttsie 1,091]

33 minutes ago, Cyclecar said:

DOY (no HRH now...) and spouse paid , sorry,  agreed to pay £18m for the place in 2014. They only paid part and the vendor had to sue for the balance. It has taken 2 years and she only  got the balance of some £7m last month.  We don't know what it made at sale, and there may have been other charges and taxes to settle. As he was the part owner he will only have received a portion. I bet it hasn't covered his own legal bills to date.  And I gather that Fergie is in reduced circumstances as well. 

 

I doubt there has been a much needed credit into his current account. 

Fergie is an author , all she has to do is  write another best seller .

[crookesey 635]

This thread is not anti royalty so we must accept it for what it’s title says that it is. Perhaps a dedicated ‘Get Rid Of The Royals’ thread is in order.

[spilldig 188]

2 hours ago, harvey19 said:

In which case why aren’t criminal charges being brought ?

Probably because nothing could happen.  The court's in the USA and he's here. All he has to do is not go. Don't reckon they'd extradite him. 

 

[ECCOnoob 1,043]

13 minutes ago, spilldig said:

Probably because nothing could happen.  The court's in the USA and he's here. All he has to do is not go. Don't reckon they'd extradite him. 

 

It's all a complete mess. Woman who lives in Australia using New York Court for issuing proceedings against an alleged defendant who is British with incidents allegedly occurring in London.

 

Just a big legal game for her and her lawyers. Cherry picking the jurisdiction they feel will give them the most sympathetic outcome and biggest payout.

 

Truth and justice...........hmmmm.

[altus 540]

52 minutes ago, crookesey said:

This thread is not anti royalty so we must accept it for what it’s title says that it is. Perhaps a dedicated ‘Get Rid Of The Royals’ thread is in order.

The tread isn't meant to be exclusively pro royal either - look at the first three posts if you want to see an example of that. The thread's title is "The Royal Family Discussion Thread", that would not seem to exclude discussion of whether we should have a royal family.