If I have to call him Prince, how about Prince Kiddy-Diddler?


Prince Andrew has been stripped of all of his honors and titles by the queen of England, as Mano tells us. Apparently, though, we’re supposed to still call the royal pedophile “Prince”? I just want to call him officially a commoner, for now, and eventually, convict.

Hey! Remember the worst royal scandal in 85 years? Darned uppity black woman daring to accuse royalty of racism…that was big news in the tabloids, while Randy Andy frolicking with a convicted pedophile was something to forgive and forget.

That was what, about 2 years ago? The scandals are accelerating.

Comments

  1. Rich Woods says

    Just address him as Mr Windsor, if ever he should drop round for a spot of tea. That’s been my intent anyway, for about the last forty years.

  2. birgerjohansson says

    Or call him Herr Gotha wossname the German name used before World War One, before they switched to Windsor.

    As for the ex-royal couple leaving, that was a smart move. If the House of Shame collapses in the next decade – not impossible if the Awful Party gets trashed by labour- the American royalty will be outside the splash zone while Charles is reduced to an ordinary ultra-rich bloke.

  3. robro says

    According to a piece I read in Vanity Fair recently, it was a News of the World team that got the shot of Prince Andrew and Jeffrey Epstein walking together in Central Park: “Epstein Had a Precise Plan”: How the Only Known Photo of Prince Andrew and the Pedophile Happened. This was after Epstein’s conviction and pseudo-incarceration. They were gunning for the Prince, and that was a Murdoch tabloid. According to Vanity Fair, the Prince was looking for money that time. The way it went down sounds almost like Epstein was setting up Andrew. Perhaps Epstein was working for someone higher in the feeding chain.

  4. birgerjohansson says

    Technically he is not a kiddy-fiddler, not like that pop star. There is another name for adults who target teenagers but I do not recall it. You know the term för ancient greek men who were into young men, except in this case it is about young women.

  5. Walter Solomon says

    We’re not British subjects therefore we’re not obliged to call any of them by their inherited/acquired titles. To me, Diana Princess of Wales, was just Diana Spencer. I make an exception for the Queen only because it would be more confusing to just call her Elizabeth II.

  6. tacitus says

    As a British expat, a friend of mine recently asked who my favorite royal was. When I told her I didn’t have one, she pressed me to name one I liked and I said I have absolutely no opinion on that question. At all. I really don’t.

  7. unclefrogy says

    regardless of any guilt he may have he is clearly too incompetent and naive to remain an active member of any management team in any other corporation. A privileged fool seduced by appearances thinking not.
    the child of a troubled marriage who was left to rot on his own by the family in their gilded cages

  8. robro says

    tacitus — My expat friend dislikes the lot of them, but especially Bonnie Prince Charlie. But then, he’s a Dutchie man, who I gather have some issues with the Royal Heir.

  9. vucodlak says

    The terms for an adult who targets and sexually abuses minors is “child molester” and/or “child rapist.” No this or that “-phile.” Rapist or molester, depending on precisely what they did.

  10. says

    1+ vucodlak 13
    The language matters. One reason is people who were groomed but don’t molest or rape. It’s not a simple problem. In one study I saw (please correct if I’m getting anything wrong) 1/20 people have an attraction in addition to other attractions, and ~0.5 were more exclusive in their attraction.
    A possible analog many people have violent internal fantasies but don’t act on them.

  11. says

    The whole “pedo joe” thing takes advantage of our ignorance about sexual abuse. Where else can they go? Trump was and is worse with respect to social boundary breaking in general. I’m considering a dichotomy between “the serial sexual harasser” and “the boundary breaking abomination” next political season.

  12. moarscienceplz says

    If I were British, I’d keep quiet until Lizzie kicks off, then I’d try to get everyone to admit that all the sprouts waiting in the wings are bound to be national embarrassments, so let’s just cancel the whole royal mishigas once and forever.

  13. drken says

    #5 birgerjohansson: The term you’re looking for is “ephebophile”. I guess psychologists need to have some term to distinguish between adults attracted to prepubescent children and teenagers because they actually study these things, but it’s generally used by pedants looking to start a phrase with “well actually, …”

    Personally, I remember when the most scandalous thing about “Randy Andy” was his relationship to Koo Stark as she had appeared nude is some films and thus labeled a “soft core porn actress”. She was also in Star Wars, but that wasn’t nearly as salacious to the British tabloids, despite being more interesting to me. But, I guess those were more innocent times.

  14. says

    I’ve found it strange, and rather disturbing, that the mainstream American media outlets devote so much attention to the British royals. After all, we literally fought a revolution to get out from under the thumb of God-appointed royals, substituting instead a bottom-up form of government (although, admittedly, it was bottom-up for only white, male landowners.)

  15. kingoftown says

    He’s still the grand old Duke of York and also still in the line of succession. I’m sure if he weasels his way out of this (he probably will) mummy/UK taxpayers will still provide for him.

  16. birgerjohansson says

    Walter Solomon @ 8
    drken @ 19
    Thanks.
    I don’t think York people are enthusiastic over the noble duke. Falkland Islands?
    Ephebe-wise, I hear things just got worse for that congressman, but that is a different weasel.

  17. birgerjohansson says

    It just occurred to me, incompetent and narcissistic leaders cause as much harm as actual kiddyfiddlers because they so often cut funding for social programs that help vulnerable children, as those are targeted by predators. Austerity politics are ugly.
    .
    OT I am surprised no trolls have shown up. Qanon love to accuse everyone of being pedophile cannibal satanists.

  18. PaulBC says

    One problem with that name is it sounds too much like Squiddly Diddly, an obscure Hanna-Barbera cartoon character. While it’s true that Squiddly is a third tier character from a third tier animator, that’s no reason to associate him with the likes of the former Prince.

    “Do you have Prince Andrew in a can? Good, let him suffocate!”

  19. StevoR says

    @ 5 . birgerjohansson :

    Technically he is not a kiddy-fiddler, not like that pop star. There is another name for adults who target teenagers but I do not recall it. You know the term för ancient greek men who were into young men, except in this case it is about young women.

    & @8. Walter Solomon
    13 January 2022 at 4:38 pm

    birgerjohanson @5

    Hebephile?

    .

    Plus @19 drken :

    #5 birgerjohansson: The term you’re looking for is “ephebophile”. I guess psychologists need to have some term to distinguish between adults attracted to prepubescent children and teenagers because they actually study these things, but it’s generally used by pedants looking to start a phrase with “well actually, …”

    See :

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hebephilia & https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ephebophilia & https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pedophilia

    Technically speaking.

    Hower, I agree with vucodlak here and think its reasonable to use the latter as including the both the former terms and child molester / child rapist depending on actions here a s all involve inappriopriate & criminal relationships with minors and people who are under-aged and thus exploited and not in able to give legal or meaningful informed consent. Noen of thsoe things shoudlbe considered okay and better in my view. All are harmful, unaccpetable and need to be condemned and face consequences for committing.

    I do also see what Brony, Social Justice Cenobite is saying there too FWIW.

  20. Rich Woods says

    @Walter Solomon #6:

    We’re not British subjects therefore we’re not obliged to call any of them by their inherited/acquired titles.

    I am a British subject and I’m not obliged to address any of them by their title. I can be as rude or as respectful as I choose and the poor, dear offended royal would have no recourse in law. The same goes for peers, knights of the realm, princes of the church and holders of any office of state.

    (Apparently there is still a technical obligation for a British subject to bow or curtsey — just a nod of the head or a bob — upon being introduced to the Queen, but it is not enforced.)

  21. unclefrogy says

    is it funny that a lot of the people that get ensnared in these kinds of offenses are not left wing devil worshipers but the idle rich?

  22. gijoel says

    The gossip mags in Oz are adamant that Charles will step aside for Will’s. Probably cause they’re desperate for ‘our Kate’ to become queen, and it’ll be like Diana has been reincarnated… and whatever.

    I can’t see Charles standing aside, and public opinion is really against him.

  23. kingoftown says

    @31 gijoel
    Charles has made the mistake of expressing opinions. It’s not his love of hunting, government interference or homeopathy the press have an issue with though. It’s the environmentalism, religious tolerance and a vague notion of wokery that the tabloids hate. Also something about Diana.

  24. davidc1 says

    Don’t have a lot of time for the Windsor firm,but I felt sorry for the dear old Queen.She was obeying the
    govt’s advice when she sat in the church by herself for phil the Greek’s funeral,while johnson and the Downing St rat park
    had had a piss up in the garden of No 10 the night before.

  25. mond says

    @Rich @Walter
    Speaking as another Brit I have absolutely no interest in the Royal family,
    The realistic practical upshot is that they have no real direct influence on my life.
    I will almost certainly never come into direct comment with one of them and if it looked a likely prospect I would not attend. Someone not showing ‘proper’ deference is not a good look for the establishment, so even if a Royal was to show up on a random basis their people would judge the situation and decide whether they wanted to expose their royalness to a potential ‘hostile’.
    In reality the bowing and scraping cannot be enforced other than by the complicity of the ‘Subjects’

  26. Rich Woods says

    @mond #34:

    If I were to say I’d got within twenty yards of two of them over the last fifty years then it’d sound like Special Branch should be kicking my door down.

    In my defence, in neither instance was I carrying any rotten tomatoes and in both cases I was actively trying to head away from them. I bloody hate crowds. I just wanted to see the helicopters!

  27. birgerjohansson says

    The odious Pierce Morgan is mocking Andrew. He is right, but I wish to see them both in a caged deathmatch.
    Followed by BoJo vs Dominick Cummings.

  28. submoron says

    ‘Paedophile’ is the term preferred by child-rapists and ,I believe, was adopted by them in the nineteen-eighties. ‘Pederast’ was the term previously used. I’d suggest that Fowler’s principles should be followed and ‘Child-rapist’ be used.

  29. birgerjohansson says

    OT: covid
    I heard that New South Wales – where omricon has been established longest- has a death rate of 0,1%.
    Ordinary influenza has 0,01% so this bug is an order of magnitude more deadly than flu. Useful to know if knuckle-draggers show up and do their “just like the flu” line.
    And now back to the ordinary program.

  30. davidc1 says

    @36 Aren’t there some photos of morgan and epstein together,not like morgans an organ to miss out on a free bean feast..

  31. birgerjohansson says

    Kingoftown @ 32
    Trust the gutter press owners to hate Charles for all the wrong reasons.
    When Rupert kicks the bucket, I will celebrate with a non-diet cola. Not more than that, it would give him too much dignity.

  32. richardh says

    Rich Woods @28
    I am a British subject
    Actually you are probably not [*], you’re a British Citizen.
    De jure, not since the British Nationality Act 1981.
    De facto, one could argue not since 1649.

    [*] unless you were born before 1949 in certain former colonies and for some reason didn’t acquire citizenship on independence.

  33. says

    The royals aren’t going away anytime soon. Perhaps there’s slightly more chance when Charles passes away, as an increasingly ancient king many people don’t like much isn’t likely to help the brand. But given how long his parents have lived that will probably be 20 years from mow. How William will be perceived by then remains to be seen. And unless he suddenly drops dead next week Charles will be king, and he’s unlikely to abdicate.

    @Ray Smith the US media pays attention to them because they’re celebs. Foreign celebs, but still celebs. They’d probably pay less attention if Charles had married Camilla in the first place instead of Diana.

  34. jenorafeuer says

    @robro:
    Epstein doesn’t need to have been ‘working for someone higher in the feeding chain’ necessarily. People have been saying for years (especially since the sweetheart deal that mostly got him out of consequences for his first convictions) that Epstein almost certainly collected blackmail material on people so he would have some help in tight legal spots, even above and beyond the usual ‘if I’m going down I’m taking you with me’ that he would obviously have had with most of his more direct clients.

  35. birgerjohansson says

    Citizenship?
    The wankers in government are i introducing draconic laws, allowing the minister (Priti Patel) to arbitrarily rescind British citizenship for any resident with a dual citizenship.
    This is a repressive move intended to frighten whistle-blowers and journalists.
    They are utter scum who are gerrymandering voting districts and blatantly break laws without consequences.

  36. birgerjohansson says

    The Scandinavian royal families are blissfully boring and “mostly harmless” to quote Douglas Adams. In mostly egalitarian societies there is a limit for what people wearing tons of medals on their chests can get away with and they are aware of that.
    The new Swedish royal practice of marrying “commoners” helps a bit in preserving the popularity of the institution. Myself I do not care much. My kind of “aristocracy” would be Nobel laureates and very skilled artists. Let’s appoint honorary monarchs for a period of maybe four years. Queen Emmanuelle Charpentier I sounds good.

  37. birgerjohansson says

    Newsthump headline:
    “Kanye West to replace Prince Andrew as 9nth in line to the throne”.

  38. wzrd1 says

    I do believe that the proper royal styling is, “His Highness, Royal Teeny Bopper Extraordinaire”.
    On entry, the royal music to announce him is, “Thank heaven for little girls”.

  39. Rich Woods says

    @Walter Solomon #30:

    <bTHE MORE YOU KNOW

    That seemed vaguely familiar but I had to look it up!

  40. Rich Woods says

    @richardh #41:

    Actually you are probably not [*], you’re a British Citizen.

    I’ve never been sure, having seen various reasoned claims over the years, but I was happy to stick with Walter’s usage if only for the sake of fluency of response.

  41. Rich Woods says

    @richardh #41:

    Actually you are probably not [*], you’re a British Citizen.

    I’ve never been sure, having seen various reasoned claims over the years, but I was happy to stick with Walter’s usage if only for the sake of fluency of response.

  42. Rich Woods says

    Damn this stupid double-clicking mechanical failure of a mouse! Time to buy a new one.

  43. KG says

    The wankers in government are introducing draconic laws, allowing the minister (Priti Patel) to arbitrarily rescind British citizenship for any resident with a dual citizenship. – birgirjohansson@46

    It’s actually even worse than that. She can already do that – and not only to those who have dual citizenship, but to those who supposedly have a right to citizenship elsewhere*, but has to tell them in advance. The new law would mean that’s not necessary:

    if it is not “reasonably practicable” to do so, or in the interests of national security, diplomatic relations or otherwise in the public interest.

    It’s possible this amendment, and some others just as fascisticthat were introduced after the bills “committee stage” – so they were not subject to the normal Parliamentary examination – will be blocked in the House of Lords, as Labour has now decided to oppose them. The government could then reintroduce them I think, but might decide to wait for a more opportune moment.

    The power to remove British citizenship was introduced under Blair, and has been extended several times since. In effect, it means that a large proportion of BAME British citizens have been relegated to “citizenship – second class”. Although one could argue that it’s third class, since only sufficiently wealthy citizens can bring a spouse to live with them in the UK – anyone wishing to do so has to show they have a certain level of income.

    *This was the case with Shamima Begum, who went to Syria to join Daesh as a teenager. She supposedly has the right to citizenship of Bangladesh, but the government there denies this.

  44. davidc1 says

    According to those bastards at the guardian,randy andy is going to have to pay for his own security,and fergie is said to be
    sticking by him,sometimes you have to feel just a little sorry for him.

Leave a Reply