Now properly just called Andrew, not “Prince” anything. (It was interesting to see most British news outlets make that change immediately while the US ones lagged).
Now properly just called Andrew, not “Prince” anything. (It was interesting to see most British news outlets make that change immediately while the US ones lagged).
I've actually been enjoying the phrase "The Andrew formerly known as Prince"
Because most people in the US don’t know who “Andrew Windsor” is but have heard of “Prince Andrew.”
It was weird to see coverage refer to him as just "Windsor". Ok, it's common to refer to a contextually-determined person by only their last name, but in this case it obviously shouldn't be done.
Did his titles grant him any powers or privileges that he doesn't retain? What's different for him now?
Being a peer of the realm historically confers some immunity from civil arrest in the UK.[1] Andrew Windsor just lost that.
[1] https://erskinemay.parliament.uk/section/4571/lords-privileg...
The guy is extremely vain and absolutely loved using his titles and demanding deference from others so this will be a massive blow to his fragile ego. Not real powers but there's still that.
In this country there's still loads of people who buy into the whole majestic nonsense of the royals. I was talking to my mother the other day who was saying how my grandmother was having a big rant about how they couldn't strip him of his titles as they're his birthright and how hard his mother, who protected him, worked etc.
It is really shameful how much his mother protected him for doing such despicable things.
[dead]
At the very least he lost his free lodging/staff (though it sounds like the royal family will pay for his new lodging somewhere else).
A large amount he's lost is also ceremonial, it sounds like he won't be removed from the line of succession cause that would require approval from all the separate countries the monarchy reigns over to do so (and he's like eighth in line so extremely unlikely given his age).
He's been excluded from a lot of official events already so a lot of it is just making it official.
He's still not being criminally charged with anything from the government.
> Ok, it's common to refer to a contextually-determined person by only their last name, but in this case it obviously shouldn't be done.
Why?
Presumably GP meant readers would be unlikely to understand 'Windsor' referred specifically to AMW.
I'm not sure I understand the royal system that well, but I think a journalists that refrains from acting on the change in demarcation or invents a new demarcation to go with his effective notability remaining would be acting out a bit of heresy against the royal monopoly on titles.
I meant general audiences would not understand a one-word reference to 'Windsor' (single word) as meaning 'The person FKA Prince Andrew'. Whereas 'AMW'/'Andrew Mountbatten Windsor' might. 'Windsor' until now referred to the entire UK Royal Family, various towns, the castle in Berkshire, the tie knot, etc.
I believe general audiences would understand a reference to Windsor to mean the person called Andrew Mountbatten Windsor in the previous sentence. The royal family are called the royal family most commonly. Various towns, the castle, and the tie knot were not in context.
Andrew Mountbatten Windsor I believe.
It's also a form a deference: the king had said that Andrew was no longer to be called prince, so the British outlets immediately complied.
A lot of the live talking heads discussing it, e.g. on the bbc, were still referring to him as Prince Andrew, naturally since that's how he's been referrred to all his life, but in the headlines and write-ups they were more careful to avoid it