FeaturedRoyal

Other little-known titles Prince Andrew and Sarah Ferguson lost | Royal | News

Prince Andrew shared a statement on Friday stating that he will relinquish his remaining royal titles and honours, with his ex-wife, Sarah Ferguson, also no longer to be known as the Duchess of York. As well as their York titles, the couple, who officially divorced in 1996, have lost other lesser-known titles amid the latest crisis to hit the family.

The decision over his title came after his association with convicted paedophile sex offender Jeffrey Epstein returned to the headlines, as well as his association with an alleged Chinese spy. Sarah also recently come under fire following new revelations about an email that she had sent to Epstein in 2011 – after his release from jail following child sex offences.

The former couple will also lose their titles as the Earl and Countess of Inverness and Baron and Baroness Killyleagh.

Speaking of the Baron Killyleagh title, Jim Lindsay, who is chairman of Killyleagh Development Association, said that he “probably should have given up the title Baron Killyleagh a long time ago”.

Andrew was previously given the title by his late mother, Queen Elizabeth II, on his wedding day to Sarah in 1986.

Andrew’s statement read: “In discussion with The King, and my immediate and wider family, we have concluded the continued accusations about me distract from the work of His Majesty and the Royal Family.

“I have decided, as I always have, to put my duty to my family and country first. I stand by my decision five years ago to stand back from public life.”

He added: “With His Majesty’s agreement, we feel I must now go a step further. I will therefore no longer use my title or the honours which have been conferred upon me.”

Noting the claims made against his by the late Virginia Giuffre, he added: “As I have said previously, I vigorously deny the accusations against me.”

At present, Prince Andrew and Sarah are still set to remain at Royal Lodge amid the latest scandal and decision regarding their titles.

Source link

Related Posts

On April 12, 2021, a Knoxville police officer shot and killed an African American male student in a bathroom at Austin-East High School. The incident caused social unrest, and community members began demanding transparency about the shooting, including the release of the officer’s body camera video. On the evening of April 19, 2021, the Defendant and a group of protestors entered the Knoxville City-County Building during a Knox County Commission meeting. The Defendant activated the siren on a bullhorn and spoke through the bullhorn to demand release of the video. Uniformed police officers quickly escorted her and six other individuals out of the building and arrested them for disrupting the meeting. The court upheld defendants’ conviction for “disrupting a lawful meeting,” defined as “with the intent to prevent [a] gathering, … substantially obstruct[ing] or interfere[ing] with the meeting, procession, or gathering by physical action or verbal utterance.” Taken in the light most favorable to the State, the evidence shows that the Defendant posted on Facebook the day before the meeting and the day of the meeting that the protestors were going to “shut down” the meeting. During the meeting, the Defendant used a bullhorn to activate a siren for approximately twenty seconds. Witnesses at trial described the siren as “loud,” “high-pitched,” and “alarming.” Commissioner Jay called for “Officers,” and the Defendant stated through the bullhorn, “Knox County Commission, your meeting is over.” Commissioner Jay tried to bring the meeting back into order by banging his gavel, but the Defendant continued speaking through the bullhorn. Even when officers grabbed her and began escorting her out of the Large Assembly Room, she continued to disrupt the meeting by yelling for the officers to take their hands off her and by repeatedly calling them “murderers.” Commissioner Jay called a ten-minute recess during the incident, telling the jury that it was “virtually impossible” to continue the meeting during the Defendant’s disruption. The Defendant herself testified that the purpose of attending the meeting was to disrupt the Commission’s agenda and to force the Commission to prioritize its discussion on the school shooting. Although the duration of the disruption was about ninety seconds, the jury was able to view multiple videos of the incident and concluded that the Defendant substantially obstructed or interfered with the meeting. The evidence is sufficient to support the Defendant’s conviction. Defendant also claimed the statute was “unconstitutionally vague as applied to her because the statute does not state that it includes government meetings,” but the appellate court concluded that she had waived the argument by not raising it adequately below. Sean F. McDermott, Molly T. Martin, and Franklin Ammons, Assistant District Attorneys General, represent the state.

From State v. Every, decided by the Tennessee Court of Criminal Appeals…

1 of 82