Randy Andy?

[cannuck]

Let me start by pointing out I am no fan of the royals and that IMHO the world is far better off with Jeffrey Eppstein where he is now.

The BBC is having a field day catching Andrew with his long list of lies, deceit and perversions - that he clearly shared with a fair number of very high profile wealthy people.  What I never hear from them is one big question:   if the young lady at the center of the current controversy claims to have been sexually abused on 3 separate occasions by Andrew (and Epstein), why did she come back after the first and again after the second encounter?????

Not saying anything the Andrew, Epstein and the host of their ilk have done, but the credibility of the plaintiff is IMHO highly in question.  Seems more about the money than the morals.

[SpankyMcFarland]

One answer as to why she came back is that she was too young to know the difference. That’s one of the many problems for him and I’d be very surprised if she was the only victim. Charles and Co. must be expecting more revelations which is why they’ve stripped him of some titles but they’ve still let him stay on in extraordinary luxury. The obnoxious brat should be chucked out on his ear and told to support himself. He has been terrible for the monarchy’s reputation all his adult life. 

Imagine if Andrew was the first-born. He could be our king now. This system is not fit for purpose any more. Canada needs to be able to control the position of head of state and not just wanly hope that the former Mother Country does the right thing when faced with scandal. 
 

 

Edited October 22, 2025 by SpankyMcFarland

[eyeball]

On 10/20/2025 at 7:13 AM, cannuck said:

What I never hear from them is one big question:   if the young lady at the center of the current controversy claims to have been sexually abused on 3 separate occasions by Andrew (and Epstein), why did she come back after the first and again after the second encounter?

She was groomed to do so. There's no excuse for this still being a big question.

It reminds me of the endless inability to understand the difference between a child-soldier and a terrorist.

20 hours ago, SpankyMcFarland said:

Imagine if Andrew was the first-born. He could be our king now.

Groomed for it?

[SpankyMcFarland]

The Brits need to IKEA-size their monarchy and bring it down to William and the kids like the Scandinavians and Dutch do. Everyone else should be a civilian. Charles should abdicate so William can take over while he’s still young enough to do the job properly. And visit us at least, like, once every five years. And cut the drama. Enough of the bowing and scraping. They are ordinary people chosen to represent the country. That’s all they are. The celeb culture around them is actually destructive of their true meaning.

Edited October 29, 2025 by SpankyMcFarland

[August1991]

On 10/21/2025 at 11:35 PM, SpankyMcFarland said:

....

Imagine if Andrew was the first-born. He could be our king now. This system is not fit for purpose any more. Canada needs to be able to control the position of head of state and not just wanly hope that the former Mother Country does the right thing when faced with scandal. 
 

Or imagine if Prince Charles had died in a plane crash.

We would have this guy on our money. Opening our parliament.

=====

Strongly agree.

 

[SpankyMcFarland]

11 hours ago, August1991 said:

Or imagine if Prince Charles had died in a plane crash.

We would have this guy on our money. Opening our parliament.

=====

Strongly agree.

 

Yes, before William was born in 1982. 

[herbie]

Don't wprry. Thanks to medical advances and the lack of relevance of the Monarchy Chucky could be kept alive for another 100 years on a respirator.
Could even make a portable bulletproof one with mechanical arms so he could be driven around and wave.

[blackbird]

On 10/21/2025 at 8:35 PM, SpankyMcFarland said:

This system is not fit for purpose any more. Canada needs to be able to control the position of head of state

Kings used to be absolute dictators, but that gradually changed over the centuries.  You can google it and learn.

The monarch today does not have the power that monarchs had 500 years ago.

Today they have very little power, only enough to dissolve Parliament and call an election when a government loses the confidence of the people.  In Canada that isn't even done by the King.  It is done by the Governor General of Canada in Ottawa.  

The King does not rule Canada.  We are an independent and self-governing country.  Practically everything is done by the elected government and Parliament.  The King is no problem to Canada.  He is a figurehead that unites the country.  In the U.S.A. they have no such head of state.  In their Republican system, the elected President is the head of state.   Presently half of the people strongly oppose what he is doing.  It is not a good system because it gives more power to the President that in our system is reserved for the King to protect democracy.

Our system is better because the monarch is supposed to be removed from everyday politics.  He is not permitted to interfere with government.  He does receive advice from the PM and they have a little meeting once a week, but it is more of a ceremonial role.  The power the king has is very limited to those kind of situations when the government should not be making a decision such as I mentioned.  The RCMP and Armed Forces swear allegiance to the King, which is a good thing.  That creates a kind of unity which is necessary for a country to survive. 

But in Canada the King is represented by the GG, although allegiance is still made to the King as head of state.

 

Edited November 2, 2025 by blackbird

[blackbird]

On 10/28/2025 at 6:58 PM, SpankyMcFarland said:

They are ordinary people chosen to represent the country. That’s all they are.

You don't really understand the historic system of Constitutional Monarchy.

God ordains kings and queens.  That is how the world has always been.  The alternative is Communism which never has worked anyway.  Communists claims everyone is as you put it a common person, but in the Communist system we have seen how those in the upper ranks of the party are in privileged positions just like Kings.  Remember Chairman Mao, under whose rule, millions of people died.  Same with Communist Russia under Stalin and others.  But they are actually also dictators because they don't believe in democracy.  Communism cannot be democratic.  The communist system is the opposite of democracy.

You have to compromise and give up the idea that everyone has to be a "commoner".  The world doesn't work that way and never did.   Our system is the best because of all the controls in place to keep things democratic as much as possible.

Edited November 2, 2025 by blackbird

[SpankyMcFarland]

1 hour ago, blackbird said:

You don't really understand the historic system of Constitutional Monarchy.

God ordains kings and queens.  That is how the world has always been.  The alternative is Communism which never has worked anyway.  Communists claims everyone is as you put it a common person, but in the Communist system we have seen how those in the upper ranks of the party are in privileged positions just like Kings.  Remember Chairman Mao, under whose rule, millions of people died.  Same with Communist Russia under Stalin and others.  But they are actually also dictators because they don't believe in democracy.  Communism cannot be democratic.  The communist system is the opposite of democracy.

You have to compromise and give up the idea that everyone has to be a "commoner".  The world doesn't work that way and never did.   Our system is the best because of all the controls in place to keep things democratic as much as possible.

The alternative is leadership chosen by merit not birth. That is a better system for the modern world. 

[SpankyMcFarland]

1 hour ago, blackbird said:

Kings used to be absolute dictators, but that gradually changed over the centuries.  You can google it and learn.

The monarch today does not have the power that monarchs had 500 years ago.

Today they have very little power, only enough to dissolve Parliament and call an election when a government loses the confidence of the people.  In Canada that isn't even done by the King.  It is done by the Governor General of Canada in Ottawa.  

The King does not rule Canada.  We are an independent and self-governing country.  Practically everything is done by the elected government and Parliament.  The King is no problem to Canada.  He is a figurehead that unites the country.  In the U.S.A. they have no such head of state.  In their Republican system, the elected President is the head of state.   Presently half of the people strongly oppose what he is doing.  It is not a good system because it gives more power to the President that in our system is reserved for the King to protect democracy.

Our system is better because the monarch is supposed to be removed from everyday politics.  He is not permitted to interfere with government.  He does receive advice from the PM and they have a little meeting once a week, but it is more of a ceremonial role.  The power the king has is very limited to those kind of situations when the government should not be making a decision such as I mentioned.  The RCMP and Armed Forces swear allegiance to the King, which is a good thing.  That creates a kind of unity which is necessary for a country to survive. 

But in Canada the King is represented by the GG, although allegiance is still made to the King as head of state.

 

So imagine a King Andy. How would he have united the country? It’s just such antiquated hogwash. 

Our de facto head of state, the GG, should be chosen better too. The PM should have no direct hand in it. 

[blackbird]

48 minutes ago, SpankyMcFarland said:

The alternative is leadership chosen by merit not birth. That is a better system for the modern world. 

You're talking about a Republican system.   Who decides who the head of state will be?  The Liberal party?  That's not what Canada has.  That is the American system.

Many countries are republican and many are not democratic.  They often have revolutions of one sort or another that overthrow the leader and another party or leader takes over.  They are unstable and are often very bad for the people.

Haiti is a total disaster.  

Even the U.S. now has a President who seems to think he is like a King.  How is that working?

Our system is stable and works reasonably well;  changing it to something like the American system could be a disaster.

Edited November 2, 2025 by blackbird

[blackbird]

1 hour ago, SpankyMcFarland said:

So imagine a King Andy. How would he have united the country?

How is that even relevant as you're are making up a purely hypothetical situation?

Andrew never was in line to be the king.  Charles was in line and his son William will be next in line.  Plus the fact that Andrew's behavior likely would have excluded him from even being a possibility.  That's the beauty of having a royal family.  The family would not have approved of him becoming the king because of his reputation.

[SpankyMcFarland]

42 minutes ago, blackbird said:

How is that even relevant as you're are making up a purely hypothetical situation?

Andrew never was in line to be the king.  Charles was in line and his son William will be next in line.  Plus the fact that Andrew's behavior likely would have excluded him from even being a possibility.  That's the beauty of having a royal family.  The family would not have approved of him becoming the king because of his reputation.

There’s precious little beauty in this preposterous arrangement for me. Andrew was second in line before William was born. If Charles had died before 1982 he would have been next in line. Of course, I am raising the awful Andrew situation merely as an example. The point is that fitness for this role plays no part in who gets it. If the Brits want to persist with such an antiquated system that’s their business but we shouldn’t blindly follow them any more. And imagine having a head of state of a G7 country who barely ever visits the place! Utterly ridiculous. 

 

Edited November 2, 2025 by SpankyMcFarland

[SpankyMcFarland]

2 hours ago, blackbird said:

You're talking about a Republican system.   Who decides who the head of state will be?  The Liberal party?  That's not what Canada has.  That is the American system.

Many countries are republican and many are not democratic.  They often have revolutions of one sort or another that overthrow the leader and another party or leader takes over.  They are unstable and are often very bad for the people.

Haiti is a total disaster.  

Even the U.S. now has a President who seems to think he is like a King.  How is that working?

Our system is stable and works reasonably well;  changing it to something like the American system could be a disaster.

I am most assuredly not talking about the American example where head of state and head of government are combined which is a terrible idea. By contrast, many republics have a head of government and a separate ceremonial head of state, elected either directly or indirectly, and it works for them. 

Edited November 2, 2025 by SpankyMcFarland

[blackbird]

30 minutes ago, SpankyMcFarland said:

And imagine having a head of state of a G7 country who barely ever visits the place! Utterly ridiculous. 

The Governor General is the person who acts as head of state in Canada.   That's how it works.

We don't need the King to be visiting us regularly although it would be good.  Canada is such a large country it is not possible for a lot of people to see him.   There are other countries he is king of too such as Australia and New Zealand.  

I think it benefits Canada to belong to the Commonwealth which has a number of countries that still have the King as their monarch.  Without that, we would be much weaker and less influence in the world.

[herbie]

At least the Brits take it seriously. Across the ocean Clinton's consensual blowjob is taken more seriously than a known and lengthy association with a pedophile and 34 criminal convictions.

Bang! Consequences!

Edited November 2, 2025 by herbie

[SpankyMcFarland]

1 hour ago, blackbird said:

The Governor General is the person who acts as head of state in Canada.   That's how it works.

We don't need the King to be visiting us regularly although it would be good.  Canada is such a large country it is not possible for a lot of people to see him.   There are other countries he is king of too such as Australia and New Zealand.  

I think it benefits Canada to belong to the Commonwealth which has a number of countries that still have the King as their monarch.  Without that, we would be much weaker and less influence in the world.

We are a big enough country to deserve a head of state here, on site, meeting Canadians daily. The GG merely represents the head of state and is an appointee with no popular legitimacy under the current system unlike elected ceremonial presidents in other countries. One compromise would be to have parliament choose, or at least suggest, the GG after a series of secret ballots. It is important to be able to distinguish between the chief executive and the person who represents the nation - otherwise criticizing the government can be portrayed as disloyalty. 

We could belong to the Commonwealth without the king as head of state. Most commonwealth members are republics these days. 
 

Edited November 2, 2025 by SpankyMcFarland

[blackbird]

29 minutes ago, SpankyMcFarland said:

We could belong to the Commonwealth without the king as head of state.

That would be a huge loss for Canada.

quote

The history of the monarchy of the United Kingdom and its evolution into a constitutional and ceremonial monarchy is a major theme in the historical development of the British constitution.^[1] The British monarchy traces its origins to the petty kingdoms of Anglo-Saxon England and early medieval Scotland, which consolidated into the kingdoms of England and Scotland by the 10th century. The Norman and Plantagenet dynasties expanded their authority throughout the British Isles, creating the Lordship of Ireland in 1177 and conquering Wales in 1283. In 1215, King John agreed to limit his own powers over his subjects according to the terms of Magna Carta. To gain the consent of the political community, English kings began summoning Parliaments to approve taxation and to enact statutes. Gradually, Parliament's authority expanded at the expense of royal power.

History of the monarchy of the United Kingdom - Wikipedia

Our monarchy goes back a thousand years.  King Charles III comes from a royal line of monarchs.  Why would anyone in their right mind want to abolish such an interesting and marvelous history and replace with some politically appointed person, maybe some DEI person such as an Inuit appointee?  Do we really need to have a liberal-appointed progressive (woke) DEI person as head of state?    No, it would be senseless and destroy the wonderful historical significance of having a King or Queen with a real royal bloodline.  That is what makes the monarchy fascinating.  It has history behind it.  Nobody wants just some joe blo appointed to such a position.   

Canada originated from British North America and we speak English.  British North America rejected being a part of the 1765-1783 American revolution which chose to dump the monarchy in favour of a Republican system long ago.  Canada rejected that.

Why do we have to trash our European and British historical symbols and history to appease the anarchists who want to make Canada into a multicultural third world dump?   No thanks.

Edited November 2, 2025 by blackbird

[herbie]

What would we put on the obverse of coins if we got rid of the Monerchy? Seems to be the most important function of the establishment these days.

[TreeBeard]

On 10/20/2025 at 7:13 AM, cannuck said:

if the young lady at the center of the current controversy claims to have been sexually abused on 3 separate occasions by Andrew (and Epstein), why did she come back after the first and again after the second encounter?????

Blaming the victim of a pedophile.  You’re amazing. 

[cannuck]

2 hours ago, TreeBeard said:

Blaming the victim of a pedophile.  You’re amazing. 

For Andrew to have participated in any way was a criminal act, for which I wish he would spend the rest of his miserable and worthless life behind bars.  But, to be fair you/we have no idea if she was a willing participant.  Any normal 17 year old girl is fully able to know who, when, where and how someone is getting into her pants.  Just wondering what led to this not only happening to her and one or more times, but to several girls over a very long time.  Haven't been following this nor have much information related.

[SpankyMcFarland]

On 11/2/2025 at 8:00 PM, blackbird said:

Canada originated from British North America and we speak English.  British North America rejected being a part of the 1765-1783 American revolution which chose to dump the monarchy in favour of a Republican system long ago.  Canada rejected that.

Why do we have to trash our European and British historical symbols and history to appease the anarchists who want to make Canada into a multicultural third world dump?   No thanks.

You’re quoting from hundreds of years ago. Some of the precedents you cite are from a time when the king could kill anybody they didn’t like the look of. There’s such a thing as progress in human affairs. And these British monarchs of yours have shown precious little enthusiasm in visiting us in recent decades. Let’s be honest here, they’re not that into us, these absentee landlords par excellence. We deserve better. 

Edited November 5, 2025 by SpankyMcFarland

[blackbird]

4 hours ago, SpankyMcFarland said:

You’re quoting from hundreds of years ago.

Just a side point but related issue.

quote

James VI and I (James Charles Stuart; 19 June 1566 – 27 March 1625) was King of Scotland as James VI from 24 July 1567 and King of England and Ireland as James I from the union of the Scottish and English crowns on 24 March 1603 until his death in 1625. Though he long attempted to get both countries to adopt a closer political union, the kingdoms of Scotland and England remained sovereign states, with their own parliaments, judiciaries, and laws, ruled by James in personal union.

James was the son of Mary, Queen of Scots, and a great-great-grandson of Henry VII, King of England and Lord of Ireland, and thus a potential successor to all three thrones. He acceded to the Scottish throne at the age of thirteen months, after his mother was forced to abdicate. Although his mother was a Catholic, James was raised as a Protestant. Four regents governed during his minority, which ended officially in 1578, though he did not gain full control of his government until 1583. In 1589, he married Anne of Denmark. Three of their children survived to adulthood: Henry Frederick, Elizabeth, and Charles. In 1603, James succeeded his cousin Elizabeth I, the last Tudor monarch of England and Ireland, who died childless. He reigned in all three kingdoms for 22 years, a period known as the Jacobean era, until his death in 1625. After the Union of the Crowns, he based himself in England from 1603, returning to Scotland only once, in 1617, and styled himself "King of Great Britain and Ireland". He advocated for a single parliament for England and Scotland. In his reign, the Plantation of Ulster and English colonisation of the Americas began.  unquote

James VI and I - Wikipedia

King James authorized the making of a new translation of the Bible called the King James Version or Authorized Version of 1611.  This Bible is believed by many, including myself, to be God's inerrant, preserved word of God.  It is based on the Received Text or Textus Receptus which is a Greek New Testament produced by Erasmus earlier in the 1500s.  This is the Holy Scriptures handed down from the Apostolic age and is the true New Testament given by God through the apostles 1,900 years ago.  This King James Bible has been a blessing to millions of people throughout the western world and other places for the past 400 years.  It was a major instrument that brought the gospel of Jesus Christ to the United Kingdom, British North America, the U.S. of America, Australia, New Zealand, the colonies, and many other places in the world. 

This history is an important part of our connection to Europe and the United Kingdom.  It is also a major part of the Reformation which brought freedoms and democracy to Europe and the west in the 16th to 20th century.  That is an important historical change that occurred over hundreds of years.  Without that we would not be where we are today, living in democratic and free countries in the west.   

Beware there are many forces and powers in the world that want to take away our freedom.  One of their ways they work toward taking away our freedom is to disconnect us from our glorious history and symbols.

Below is the Coat of Arms of Canada, which shows our historical ties.

God save the King!

 

 

Edited November 5, 2025 by blackbird

[eyeball]

On 11/4/2025 at 7:53 AM, cannuck said:

Any normal 17 year old girl is fully able to know who, when, where and how someone is getting into her pants. 

It sounds like you have a lot in common with Andy - he probably had much the same calculus going thru his mind.

On 11/4/2025 at 7:53 AM, cannuck said:

Haven't been following this nor have much information related.

Yeah, it shows.