Prince Andrew cut his Balmoral visit short, was seen boarding a private plane

Embed from Getty Images

As we saw a few days ago, Prince Andrew (the Duke of York) was one of the Queen’s first guests at Balmoral. Andrew arrived in Balmoral last week, days before Jeffrey Epstein’s mysterious death. Sarah Ferguson was there too, but Fergie high-tailed it out of there when Prince Philip suddenly arrived days ahead of schedule. The Queen allows Fergie to be around, but Philip still hates Fergie’s guts. Andrew escorted his mother to church on Sunday, the day after Epstein’s body had been found in his jail cell. Andrew and the Queen were both smiling brightly, like they had both escaped some big scandal. But maybe someone told Andrew that the smiley photo-op didn’t do what it was supposed to, because it looks like Andrew has made a swift exit from Scotland now too:

Prince Andrew has been pictured boarding a private jet after allegedly cutting short his trip to Balmoral Castle in Scotland where the Royal Family has gathered. The 59-year-old Duke of York was snapped dressed in a smart suit getting out of a dark green Range Rover and climbing the steps into the aircraft in Aberdeen this morning. He appeared to be holding a hat and what looked like a white dressing gown. Several bags were loaded into the aircraft, while a dog was also seen being carried on board.

The Duke’s departure from Scotland comes days after he was seen grinning as he headed to church with the Queen. The unified outing also came as questions mounted about his friendship with paedophile Jeffrey Epstein, who was found hanged in his jail cell on Saturday. It is understood Andrew was due to spend the whole week at the castle after being invited by his mother.

A spokeswoman for Buckingham Palace told Mirror Online they “do not comment on private movements in holiday time”.

His departure also comes days after his ex-wife Sarah Ferguson was forced to leave Balmoral after Prince Philip, the Duke of Edinburgh, turned up early for his summer holiday, it was claimed. An insider told The Sun: “In previous years the Duchess has left the day before the Queen’s husband arrives. This year he arrived yesterday, several days earlier than expected, which is rather strange, so the Duchess left.”

[From The Daily Mirror]

Did the Duke only intend to stay for a week, or did he really cut his trip short? Honestly, the optics for the royal family would be better if it did look like Andrew cut his trip short. Then we could have the narrative of “the Queen understands how bad this sh-t looks and so she sent him away.” Because right now, none of it looks good for the old-guard people. The Queen looked so out of touch with that church photo-op, and the fact that few of the British papers are really going IN on the Duke of York says a lot. It says that the Queen and her courtiers are doing the most to shut down the worst stories. It says that the Queen and her courtiers will go the extra mile to protect a statutory rapist and sexual assailant but they won’t lift a finger to even be SEEN protecting a young woman of color who has been bullied and harassed for more than a year.

Embed from Getty Images

Embed from Getty Images

Photos courtesy of Getty.

Related stories

You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.

171 Responses to “Prince Andrew cut his Balmoral visit short, was seen boarding a private plane”

Comments are Closed

We close comments on older posts to fight comment spam.

  1. Chef Grace says:

    That young WOC is just being used for distracting from the Royal family bullshit.
    From Wee Baldy prince oh so white to this piece of filth perv, the new duchess is used like a pawn. I am sure the palace owns the media and will drag Meg down when a distraction is needed.

    • BayTampaBay says:

      In my personal opinion, The British media is dragging down Meghan for two reason and two reasons only. Nasty negative stories about Meghan sells newspapers & magazines and generates revenue producing click$ for online publications.

      • BayTampaBay says:

        ETA: With all this mess hovering around Andrew, William is probably breathing a sigh of relief that the Royal Reporters are too busy and too short on column inches to rerun stories on “Rose Who?”.

      • noway says:

        I doubt William or anyone in the monarchy is happy about Andrew and the coverage including Meghan and Harry. It’s way beyond an affair and just gross. I do wonder if Harry or Meghan has an affair what people on here would think. Honestly, it wouldn’t surprise me, as I think rich people seem to live by different rules than the rest of us, and as much as we think we know them, we don’t.

        I don’t think the monarchy is putting out racist stories about Meghan. Sure they are probably putting out happy stories, Ibiza, the polo match, William, Kate and Kids at boat races etc to deflect, but the racist stories don’t really help them. Remember they did release a statement early when Harry and Meghan got together and that just seemed to make it worse. Also, I think we give the monarchy too much credit with squelching stories. They’ve never been great at it. Think of Diana, both pro and con monarchy back when it was just tabloids digging the dirt. I just think some stories seem to have a weird life of their own. Meghan’s racist crap is amplified by the time. Racist feel empowered to speak out, which I don’t think they did for a while. I still can’t believe that lady who wrote we should have more white people on Meghan’s British Vogue cover. I mean that was something they would whisper not long ago, now you publish it.

        As far as Andrew’s stories not getting enough play in the British press, well I think the press aren’t really sure where to go with it. He’s 59 now, boring, and far removed from the thrown, not like his Koo Stark days, and honestly it seems like criminally or even in civil court Andrew won’t get much against him. Actually it seems like none of the rich white men are getting much punishment and definitely not criminally. Granted I’m glad we got Cosby, but what about Weinstein. Seriously we can’t even get him.

      • Sam says:

        Ibiza story was first reported by the spanish press not the British one,they had no idea until the spanish released the news

        What postive story about polo? DM sent a reporter to india where the shawl meghan used to cover Archie is made and made a misleading headline about it or how about she was carrying her baby wrong stories?

      • Nadja Natascha says:

        You really have to ponder this very intensively:

        Epstein and his friends abused dozens of girls over a period of at least 2 decades.
        None of his friends face legal consequences. Not Bill Clinton. Not Ghislaine Maxwell. Not … who else was there?

        And the Queen just tries to protect her favorite darling son who is likely a rapist of an enforced minor prostitute.
        Perhaps she is losing touch due to her age? Surely her pr assistants did tell her what it would look like to be seen with Andrew in that car in this time with Epstein in all newspapers?
        And Andrew is a fool who overestimates the power of the Queen and the fury of the public. Else he wouldn’t have sat in that car grinning ear to ear.

        Dear Queen:
        it is time to retire. In the old days people would die before they reached your age. But you have reached an age in which you can’t deal with the troubles and pressures of it all any more. Take a leaf out of your husband’s play book and do retire. Spend your last years with your husband: he won’t have that much more time. Retiring now would allow you to ease Prince Charles into kingship and to support him and correct his mistakes gently.

        Also, as one of your last acts could you please make it clear that you don’t tolerate monsters like Epstein? And do punish Andrew. He has been a morally and financially corrupt … for years.

  2. Becks1 says:

    the Philip thing is interesting to me, because it sounds like he arrived early with no notice. Like that he just showed up and Fergie had to hightail it out of there.

    I wonder if Philip’s arrival had anything to do with Andrew. Like if he got there and told Andrew he had to leave. But I’m not sure how PR savvy is Phillip is at this point or whether he would care about Andrew.

    • Enn says:

      Becks, this is what I’m focused on too. Why did Philip just show up? We know he’s problematic af but maybe he’s like “Lilibet, are you out of your mind?”

      Also wondering if pressure from other quarters (Charles, Harry) contributed.

      • BayTampaBay says:

        If anyone could ask QEII, “Lilibet, are you out of your mind?”, and get an answer it would be Prince Philip.

      • Maria says:

        Well his wife is going to ignore her son being a pedophile until she can’t anymore, so maybe despite how horridly problematic he is the Duke of Edinburgh has more ethics than she–surprising, given his past. But at least his dalliances were all with adults.

      • IlsaLund says:

        I wonder if Meghan has discussed this Epstein mess with Harry? Wonder if Harry understands the “optics” of all this.

      • Mika says:

        I don’t think Prince Phillip is, was, or every will be the sensible, socially responsible one. He’s almost literally 100 and he has never been smart.

      • Himmiefan says:

        Ilsalund, it’s got to have come up between the two. I’m sure that was an interesting conversation.

      • Ertia says:

        I’m finding myself somewhat baffled by these conversation about Philip as some voice of reason here.

      • Maria says:

        Well we have a low bar here Ertia, but between Rose Who?, the Sussexes taking more private jets (OPTICSSS!!!1), and the Queen sticking her head in the sand about her rapist son, seems like Philip’s coming out smelling like a rose in the past month, if he indeed asked the Queen what the hell she was thinking.

      • Becks1 says:

        @Ertia lol! He’s probably not. But I can also see him being ticked at Andrew. Not because he has such a great moral compass, but I can see there being an anger that the Queen is being drawn into his mess like this. And that Fergie is getting brought up so much again. Stuff like that.

      • Christina says:

        Phillip chasing Fergie from Balmoral as the reason Andrew left felt more plausible to the courtiers than him just leaving. Especially now that there is a photo showing him standing beside a teenager who is now a grown woman who has credibly accused him of using her for sex. And they are standing next to Ghislaine Maxwell in a pic likely taken by Epstein.

        These people have always known that Andrew lives a wild life, and they have dreaded this happening, but trust that they know exactly what he did. And they are hoping that it isn’t as bad as WWII when one of their own married an American divorcee while supporting the Nazi’s. I’d say that this is worse, but it can only feel worse if you have empathy for women and girls. Women and girls without power are things to be used in that world as laborers, and that includes for sex. He used younger women because he had access, but most powerful men who have access amuse themselves with sex while women are forced to desexualize themselves to get respect, and that doesn’t always work.

        Sorry to rant. I am angry about this. Very, very angry.

      • notasugarhere says:

        Philip has written a dozen books and speaks three languages. He made both Sandringham and Balmoral self-supporting estates, introducing sustainability practices that are the bedrock of the work Charles has done for years. He isn’t a complete idiot. And he’s the only person who speaks to HM like she’s a regular human. He may be the only voice of reason re. optics she’ll listen to at this point. She’d dismiss anything Charles says as sibling rivalry.

    • Digital Unicorn says:

      Phillip is the head of the family, they all pretty much do what he says even TQ. If Phillip’s arrival was earlier than planned which then caused Fergie to flee then that does indicate to me that maybe Andrew wanted Fergie to be part of the pap stroll with TQ to the church. She is part of this scandal as well and Andrew has always protected her and I would not put it past him to bully TQ into including her in the RF family ‘circle the wagons’ PR stunting. And yeah I can see Chuck advising his mother that Andrew hiding out in Scotland is making this look worse for them.

      If Andrew has cut his trip short its either because more sh!t is about to drop and he needs to be in London for it (with the lawyers) or Philip let him have it and he’s slinking back to London with his tail between his legs. Most accounts say that Philip rules the family with a iron fist (or he used to).

      • Enn says:

        DU there’s no love lost between the brothers (as we all know) but I think Charles also has an eye to the future of the monarchy and sees the broader view that this could sink the whole ship. So I can see him taking a hard line here.

      • BayTampaBay says:

        @DU, Excellent summary of a great theory. I think it is both: Philip let him have it with both barrels at close range and more sh!t is about to drop.

      • Becks1 says:

        DU interesting point about Fergie and Andrew trying to protect her. Maybe Phillip was concerned that Fergie was going to be protected by Andrew and the Queen in this mess, and arrived to stop that.

        I wonder if Charles or Edward said something to Phillip. I don’t know where Edward stands with Andrew, but I could see one of them saying to Phillip “omg the church arrival was a horrible idea, you need to get Andrew away from Mum” and Phillip went to Balmoral ASAP. Or maybe Phillip just saw the pictures himself and thought NOPE.

        Like I said what makes me think Phillip’s arrival is tied to Andrew/Epstein is because it sounds like there was no notice, he just showed up, which may be the norm for him? But maybe not. And then Andrew cuts his visit short.

        I think the part about him needing to meet with lawyers is also a good point DU.

      • Mika says:

        WHY would Fergie need to be protected? Did she also have sex with children?

      • Becks1 says:

        @mika – no, but she did take money from Epstein and I’m sure there are other connections there. Also her defense for taking money puts the blame directly on Andrew, which I’m not sure helps their cause at all. I think it just goes to how involved Andrew was with Epstein.

      • Maria says:

        Mika- not only did Fergie take money from Epstein, it was done through Andrew’s office.

      • Irisha says:

        Mika, many people may not have known what their partners were doing with children, but Fergie knew Epstein and Maxwell very well, possibly well enough to know what was going on. It would be hard to believe Epstein’s cash to her didn’t come with a few strings.

      • Montréalaise says:

        I didn’t know that Fergie took money from Epstein, but I’m not surprised. She’s always had financial problems because of her out-of-control spending and even when she was married to Andrew, she was notorious for accepting gifts from not-quite-savory characters – the media dubbed her ”Fergie the Freeloader” among other things.

      • Wadsworth the Butler says:

        I’m not sure that Andrew is the one doing the “protecting” in that relationship. Fergie’s always publicly taken the fall for their scandals. When she got caught up in the “Fake Sheikh” sting, many suspected that Andrew knew exactly what she was doing. She’s a convenient scapegoat for their mutual misdeeds, and it might be for that reason that the Queen allows her to remain at the periphery of Royal life.

      • Megan says:

        I’m sure HM will leave Andrew a tidy fortune, but I hope Charles turns off the financial pipeline when he takes the throne.

        I want to know what year Fergie accepted a loan from Epstein – before or after his 2005 arrest (he wasn’t convicted until 2008)? If she took the money afterwards she is more disgusting than I thought.

      • notasugarhere says:

        I agree Andrew and Fergie have been in on plenty of scams together. There is no way either of them earned the money for the £13 million chalet. Part of why Charles needs him removed from his “trade ambassador” position. Who knows what he’s been doing behind the scenes lining his own pockets.

      • Maria says:

        Not to mention Andrew was at Epstein’s party to celebrate him getting out of jail.

      • BayTampaBay says:

        “There is no way either of them earned the money for the £13 million chalet.”

        I thought the money to purchase the chalet came from the proceeds of the sale of Andrews home at Sunninghill Park. The sale of his home at Sunninghill was also very very fishy IIRC.

      • Tourmaline says:

        It has been reported that among the evidence that Palm Beach Police collected in their initial investigation was a written phone message for Epstein from Fergie, basically saying that HRH the Duchess of York called and is awaiting a call back. This message was dated January 2005. Notepads such as the one with her message were a major piece of evidence from the initial investigation because there were multiple written messages with names, dates, and times corroborating the accounts of the victims that police interviewed.

        Her sketchy loan from Epstein was years later–2011–after Epstein was convicted/did his time, such as it was. The link above describes it as a 15 thousand pound loan to help clear a debt to her former personal assistant, one Johnny O’Sullivan. Why Andrew had to arrange with Epstein for this relatively paltry amount is very strange. Suspicious even.

        There are photos of Andrew with Ghislaine going back many years including far enough back when his hair was not gray. They have known each other for decades. Photos of Fergie with Ghislaine too.

        The term ‘thick as thieves’ comes to mind.

    • noway says:

      Mr. I can still drive and hit people with my car at a gazillion years old lost his PR savvy a while ago.

      • Maria says:

        Lol! to be fair he did voluntarily give up his license after that.
        But then the Queen drives all the time and has none, so not sure what that’s worth.

    • Mego says:

      It is interesting that Philip “showed up” early and that both Andrew and Sarah got out of Dodge. Philip has always been the head of the family, was very unhappy with And drew and especially Sarah’s actions in the past. Looks to me like he is protecting the Queen. I don’t underestimate him because of his age – I think he is still sharp as a tack mentally.

      • Megan says:

        Philip may or may not have thoughts on the accusations against Andrew, but I do think he has a lot of thoughts on HM getting bad press.

    • Eliza says:

      Royals don’t just “show up”. Everything is carefully coordinated months in advance, even their private time. I’m glad at least one of the senior royals is sending the garbage away. The Queen has been leaning on Andrew as her proxy Phil since his retirement as her only unmarried son. Philip is problematic in his own way, but he’s a tough-parent. He’s not going to coddle Andrew. Fergie is famously hated by him, so her schedule is always around his (or rather always to be away from his). I hope the DOE talks some sense into QEII to not hold hands while grinning with a pedophile. Just like he lost his diplomatic immunity (why he wasn’t charged the 1st time) after the case “closed” a decade ago, he needs to be retired away from royal life. He will ruin the queens legacy because it’s the type of scandal that isn’t gossip columns, it’s criminal.

      • BeanieBean says:

        That’s what I thought. There’s nothing spontaneous about the British Royal Family, everything’s timed to a T. I don’t believe no one knew Phillip was going to show up when he did.

    • PrincessK says:

      Royals never just show up, even at their own properties, everything is preplanned and prearranged, only something of the utmost importance makes them change plan, and even then it would be announced. The Queens own children have to make appointments to see her, through her Private Secretary. If the Queen or Philip want to communicate something to their children, they often do it by letter.

      This kind of formality drove Diana mad.

  3. Seraphina says:

    I think the deeper truth and sad part is that, IF she did send him away due to MAYBE understanding how bad it LOOKS (which I doubt or he wouldn’t have been in that car all smiles with mummy), it’s a bit late since they were all smiles and that image is seared into my mind. Sad that she is so tone deaf.

    • Marjiscott says:

      But she has been this tone deaf before.
      Remember the uproar about not lowering s to the Royal Standard for Diana?
      She was just going to carry on like nothing had happened!
      She’s doing it again here.
      Thanks to HRH Phillip for possibly reading her the riot act!

      • notasugarhere says:

        It was a protocol issue. Diana was technically no longer a royal, so lowering the Royal Standard for her was against protocol. She also kept William and Harry safely at Balmoral in the face of criticism, when the public were baying for access to two grieving children.

      • Trashaddict says:

        If I were the Queen I’d be hitting Andrew with my handbag!
        Oooo, I’d give him such a walloping!

  4. Darla says:

    That picture will live on in people’s minds no matter what. It’s seared into mine.

    • Ader says:

      Agree with you here. That smile. That rare, huge, beaming grin. It’s laser etched onto my memory. It’s deeply disturbing, and my opinion of queenie has plummeted.

    • Coz' says:

      As it should!

    • Maria says:

      Mine too. Not sure if I can watch the Crown Season 3 after all this.

      • BayTampaBay says:

        @Maria, do not let Andrew disrupt your television viewing patterns. Andy is not worth it!

      • Megan says:

        @Maria – I feel the same way. I am not in the mood to see a sympathetic portrayal of HM.

      • Prairiegirl says:

        Maria, you can probably skip it. Philip putting the boots to Andrew for suggesting he could marry Koo Stark is probably Season 4. ;)

    • Mika says:

      I am done with QE II. I can’t look at my money anymore. Her face makes me think of a poor kid, sitting on Andrew’s lap while he touches her breasts with a puppet.

    • MellyMel says:

      Yep, mine too!

    • Maria says:

      I’m sure the Queen in that one photo alone lots a huge amount of respect from her subjects.

      • Feeshalori says:

        Bad mistake to be riding together and worst to be grinning ear from ear. Of all the times to be wearing her Miss Piggy face, it would have been now. What a fiasco!
        And I’d like to think that Andrew had a dressing gown over his arm because he got ousted so fast from Balmoral that he had to do a quick change in the car!

  5. OriginalLala says:

    Willing to bet he did not actually cut his visit short, but this is the message being circulated to appease us peasants who were kicking up a fuss at that disgusting smug show between Pedo Andy and the Queen….

  6. Gail says:

    Even HM isn’t invulnerable to the bad press, in these circumstances. Philip’s early arrival might have been to urge her to stop surrounding herself with these disgusting leeches, send them all packing. Sarah Ferguson would literally do anything to stay in the Queen’s good graces, her constant references to pedo Andy as her “handsome prince” make me ill.

    • A random commenter says:

      I always thought Philip was the only barrier to Fergie and Andrew remarrying. The Queen obviously gives no Fs what Andrew does, she’s going to let him hang out with trash and cover his messes. Philip seems like he’s hip to Andrew and Sarah’s BS and won’t tolerate it, and that makes me like him more.

      • BayTampaBay says:

        @ARC, even with all the rumors over all these years regarding the Duke of Edinburgh, I have always liked him for some reason I cannot explain.

        It is interesting to me that the two children he paid most of his attention to per the Royal insiders, Anne & Edward, have really turned out the best of the lot.

      • Maria says:

        He is interesting. He had more difficult experiences in his youth than Elizabeth did and was by no means catered to the way she was. He’s tougher and more resilient and I would say more in touch with the outside world despite his horrible comments from time to time.

      • Himmiefan says:

        Yeah, even though Philip grew up royal, his family was poor and had to live on handouts from extended family, plus he had a distant father and a mother with mental health issues.

      • Lady D says:

        I read his mother killed herself on the same kitchen table she gave birth to him on, eight years later.

      • (TheOG)@Jan90067 says:

        Interesting, BayTampaBay… did you know that Anne mingled with Epstein, too? Andy brought Epstein to her birthday parties as his guest. Wouldn’t surprise me to know Maxwell was there as well. Andy also brought Epstein to Margaret’s parties. Epstein parties at WINDSOR CASTLE. It’s a TOTAL optic shitshow.

      • noway says:

        Maxwell is definitely the connection for all of Epstein’s contacts royal and rich, with the exception of probably Trump. Since Trump was a New Yorker and into that weird so called upper class party scene Epstein favored in the 80′s and 90′s, not all pedophilia or sex parties but still pretty wild from what I heard.

      • Becks1 says:

        @TheOG – I was reading somewhere that Maxwell and Epstein attended a birthday party at Windsor Castle – called the decades birthdays or something? It was for several members of the royal family, including William’s 18th birthday. But according to what I was reading, it was both of them.

      • Digital Unicorn says:

        @LadyD. Prince Philip’s mother did NOT commit suicide, she died aged 84 in Buckingham Palace. Princess Alice was an extraordinary woman, she was deaf (from birth) and sheltered Jewish refugee’s from the Nazi’s while living in Athens.

      • Lady D says:

        Thank you for the info Digital U. I actually read that piece of news on this site.

      • (TheOG)@Jan90067 says:

        Becks, it was BOTH Epstein AND Maxwell… and more than once. (And yes, William’s, too!). They were well entrenched by Pedo Andy.

      • Digital Unicorn says:

        @LadyD: NP. I think there is a royal somewhere that that story relates to but I can’t think of who it is/was. I don’t think its the BRF but one of the European royal families.

    • Digital Unicorn says:

      Fergie has always been desperate to get back into the RF fold, rumours were that they never wanted to get divorced but was forced into it by the toe sucking photos. Andrew would marry her again in a heart beat and yeah Philip is the only reason he hasn’t yet.

      As individuals Andrew and Fergie are car crashes, as a couple they were a train wreck. They are very very similar personalities and she plays to his ego at every opportunity.

      If any married in is desperate for access to the RF money its Fergie, she is always broke and Andrew and her daughters are constantly having to financially bail her out. We know Epstein gave her money, who else has?

      • IlsaLund says:

        @DU. Serious question here. Has Fergie ever worked or had a career/profession?

      • BayTampaBay says:

        @IlsaLund, Fergie has done many things and one of the reasons Sarah gave for the divorce was to allow her to engage in commercial activity to pay off her debts.

        I believe she was an Executive Producer on the “Victoria” miniseries starring Emily Blunt which originally aired 20 years ago on PBS. She was also a spokesperson for Weight Watchers. She worked for a publisher before her marriage which published her “Budgie” books after her marriage.

      • Digital Unicorn says:

        @IlsaLund: She worked in PR and publishing for a while, doing what am not sure but she had no ‘career’ as such and after divorce she has flitted around various ‘careers’.

      • Montréalaise says:

        @IslaLund Fergie did have a job before her marriage but according to accounts at the time, she saw the job as something to do in between social engagements. When she and Andrew divorced, she was reportedly $4 million in debt and took on various spokesperson roles, notably for Weight Watchers and Royal Doulton, to pay off her debts. However, she is an incurable spendaholic with a taste for the (very, very) good life and she has always had money problems.

      • Tourmaline says:

        I’ve said this before but anyone wanting a juicy read about the Andrew/Fergie marriage, check out the book Fergie Confidential, by Chris Hutchins and Peter Thompson. It was written back in the 90s and is available as ebook.

        From that book their marriage was actually rather crappy and they did not know each other well enough when they got married. Kind of similar to Charles and Diana – their relationship started one summer, was a whirlwind engaged a few months later and they were married the next summer. Andrew turned out to be boring and kind of mean and Fergie was spending her heart out from the jump, and always susceptible to the charms of other men and always trying to recreate the jet-set party lifestyle she lived in Switzerland when she was the girlfriend of Paddy McNally.

        That is why I am cynical of the idea that Fergie and Andrew are soulmates kept apart by cruel old Prince Phillip. I think part of what binds them together is of course their daughters but I think there are a lot of secrets, financial grasping, and sinister connections that keep them close.

      • notasugarhere says:

        As others have written, Fergie was Paddy McNally’s “chalet girl” for years. He eventually purchased a house for her and the girls to live in in Switzerland, until a scandal at the nearby boarding school put an end to the idea of them moving there full-time. Diana moved her into Andrew’s path because she wanted a friend at her side. That was in June, they were engaged by February, married in July. They were 26/7 and immature for their ages to boot.

        She did okay with things like Budgie and her books about Queen Victoria. If she had been guided better, she could have been a second family historian in the mold of Prince Michael of Kent.

        Andrew was deployed most of the first two years, spend little time with Fergie, and she was in BP bored and lonely. She acted out, just like Diana did, and has never stopped. I agree Tourmaline, there are secretive, negative things holding them together.

      • ravynrobyn says:

        @ Tourmaline-many thanks for the recommendation!

  7. A says:

    The Royal Family are forever grubby and have always been so.

  8. Melissa says:

    I think he left to be with Fergie. She’s the only one left in his orbit who’s anywhere near as sick and twisted as he is and he probably needs that support right now. I think it’s likely that Phillip turned up and gave him a dressing-down about the whole thing and he stormed off to be with the only one who “understands” him, just like the petulant 14 year-old he perpetually behaves like.

    • Samantha says:

      Though behaving like a 14-year-old doesn’t make it ok for him to exploit 14-year-old girls. He should stick to Fergie if he likes her that much, old pig. They should quit any form of public life and go retreat into the countryside in shame. That’s if nothing comes of the Epstein case regarding him, which is probably how it’s going to play out. He’s a disgrace to the royal family, and the royal family is a disgrace to the UK at this point. Their ‘conscious bias’ shows in everything.

      • Melissa says:

        Completely agreed. He keeps Fergie around for the same reason Epstein kept Maxwell around. She knows his past, keeps his secrets, and will do pretty much anything for him, probably up to and including illegal things.

  9. Kittycat says:

    I wonder what will happen to andrew once Charles is king.

    • BayTampaBay says:

      Persona non grata for starters?

      • Sofia says:

        He’s person non grata with Charles, now! Andrew is going to be screwed (as he should be), when Charles becomes king. Also, where is Charles?

      • Lady D says:

        Yeah, where is Charles?

      • (TheOG)@Jan90067 says:

        Charles was shown driving to Balmoral with Cam for Sunday services. There was a pic in the papers. He’s there, probably siding with his father for the first time ever lol

      • Digital Unicorn says:

        Charles and Cams were there at the church service but they arrived separately and were not photography with Randy Andy. Chuck was careful not to be seen with his brother. It will be interesting to see how their relationship pans out when Charles becomes King – Andrew should not and can not rely on his brother protecting him like Mummy has.

        A victim in California has just come out with a civil suit against Epstein’s estate, Maxwell and 3 other Epstein staff – there is more dirt to come and this could be why Andrew has suddenly flown back to London.

    • Mego says:

      I don’t think Charles will protect him like Mummy did, that’s for sure.

      • notasugarhere says:

        He cannot banish him out of the country. Andrew remains a Counsellor of State, even if Charles tries to stop him from being a working royal. Unless legislation is passed, Andrew is required to live in the UK and be a Counsellor to Charles (and likely William) during their reigns.

        COS = First four people in the line of succession over the age of 21.

        QEII – Charles, William, Harry, Andrew

        Charles – William, Harry, Andrew, Beatrice until George is 21

        William – Harry, Andrew, Beatrice, Eugenie until George and Charlotte are 21

      • Enn says:

        Nota, is there any precedence for removing someone from the line of succession? Could it happen?

      • notasugarhere says:

        In recent memory? Duke of Windsor was removed mostly willingly. During the planning, some were advocating skipping the Duke of York and his two daughters. They were going to hand the throne to the next brother, Henry Duke of Gloucester. His open affair with a married woman, and Bertie’s image of happy family man, made the politicians eventually choose Bertie instead.

        Before the law was changed a few years ago, if he converted to Catholicism he would have been removed.

        If Andrew were ever charged with crimes, they’d have to do something legally to remove him as a Counsellor. Otherwise, he’d be convicted of those crimes and still legally required to be an advisor to the monarch.

        This is why talk of Harry and Meghan leaving is fantasy. Harry’s not going to leave his nephews and niece at the possible mercy of Andrew. If Harry left the succession, that puts Andrew as Regent to George if anything happened to William before George was 21.

  10. Mia4s says:

    I feel like we would be giving them too much credit to think he was told to take a hike. The timing is certainly convenient though, because that’s what it looks like.

    Hey remember the good old days when all they were trying to hide was Prince William’s extramarital affairs with consenting adults? Good times.

  11. Act Up says:

    It’s so amazing clear how biased/bigoted the British media is. Those racist bitches write and blow up any gossip stories about the Sussexes without any hard proof, but then you ask them about Andrew, they claim they need proof. The royal family can control the media and what is put out there, that’s why I believe they choose not to protect Meghan, because they’re hiding shit behind the smear campaign. F that unintelligent, inbred, banana aging, family.

    • A random commenter says:

      I’m not defending British press (the duchess does get waaaaay too many negative stories) but there’s a difference in saying a person had a tantrum or blocked off seating from “regulars” at Wimbledon and outright saying one is a pedophile or sexual assailant. The first is mean-spirited and likely garbage but the second will get you sued. I think the press is reporting on Andrew’s and Sarah’s ties to Epstein but not taking it so far they end up in court or having to issue a retraction.

      • Becks1 says:

        What I’ve been seeing a lot of – even in the Washington Post – is re-hashing of the old Andrew scandal – his old connections to Epstein, Epstein partying at Windsor Castle in 2000 (WTF), that picture of him and Epstein in 2011 in Central Park, etc. The papers are being VERY careful here but it is being discussed. They’re not coming out and saying “he committed a crime,” they’re just kind of pointing out all the dots and letting the readers connect them.

      • Irisha says:

        Exactly, there’s a pretty clear and simple distinction to draw here. Act Up, you can be assured all the publications have their legal teams carefully going over every word here to ensure they don’t print anything they’ll get sued over. Very different than posting about Meghan’s clothes or Kate’s hair.

      • noway says:

        @Becks1 & @Irisha 100% yes!!!! The stories about Meghan are silly stupid, also probably part of the reason they are harder to squash. Sure they are put out cause of racism, but the stories are still silly and petty. You write a story about Andrew being a pedophile without proof it’s a bit more serious than saying Meghan doesn’t want to sit next to anyone but her husband at a dinner party. Which may have been true at ONE party. I did it once cause I was uncomfortable, and I asked maybe she did. One story if untrue has ruined someone’s life, one story if untrue is rude. Plus, if the press is waiting for solid proof isn’t that a good thing not a bad thing? People forget it could swing the other way and maybe an innocent person could be accused of something, wouldn’t you want the press to have pretty good proof it’s true. Just cause they give Meghan a bad story about petty things doesn’t mean you want them to give someone else a bad story about something serious.

      • notasugarhere says:

        The papers are being very careful in what they say *and* not allowing comments on many Andrew stories.

      • A random commenter says:

        Andrew isn’t innocent. He spent time with Epstein after his conviction so painting an innocent man as guilty is not my concern here.

        I think it would be an investigative journalist’s wet dream to crack a story like this. Prominent royal, sex trafficking, sheltered from prosecution and negative press by a beloved, long-serving monarch. They just can’t come right out with it until he’s a documented subject of investigation and/or charges have been filed. In a way, I think what the press is doing is almost better. They’re taking it far enough that people definitely get the picture, but not so far they have to apologize. The Royal Family would point to a press apology so quick and cry “fake news!” to any other allegations, so I would rather the press not give them that opportunity.

      • Megan says:

        @ARC I have absolutely no faith that Andrew will ever face justice in an actual court or the court of public opinion.

  12. Coz' says:

    Unrelated to Andrew’s departure from Balmoral, but did you notice that last week when Eugenie posted about her sister’s birthday she did not post any pictures of Andrew.

  13. jennifer says:

    This is the jolliest I’ve seen them…ever?

  14. Mignionette says:

    London bound to convene with the lawyers after getting some ‘bitty’ from Mummy….

  15. Burdzeye View says:

    Good fecking riddance prince pedo…Scotland is glad to see the back of you. i would like to think Phillip went up to kick him and his leeching wife’s fat arses out of there…

  16. adastraperaspera says:

    I might bet some money at this point on the chance we see an “oh-so-tasteful, romantic” remarriage between Andrew and Fergie, to provide cover for him. Remember she hinted about that in an interview last year?

    • Irisha says:

      Legal spousal privilege may be something that could come in handy to them.

      • Maria says:

        And a big royal wedding for Bea.

      • BayTampaBay says:

        No way a big royal wedding will happen for Beatrice as long as the storm clouds are hovering over her father. The commentariat of The Daily Fail would incite a nationwide riot throughout the UK if she had a big royal taxpayer funded wedding.

    • Mignionette says:

      I agree. Getting married not only benefits Andrew but also grants her some protection if she negotiates with the RF well enough. Don’t forget that they can use her to get to Andrew and in doing so make her life difficult.

      Regardless of the power brokers we know were involved with Epstein, the public still want to see accountability and I would not be surprised if the RF spun the whole mess to throw Fergie under a bus to distract from Andy…

      • Ertia says:

        I don’t see how that would work. You can’t exactly throw Fergie to the wolves here and somehow have people ignore what Andy obviously did.

      • Lady D says:

        Ritual sacrifice of the women, queen aside of course. The more things change…

      • Ertia says:

        … are they going to say she dressed up as Andrew and did the deed herself?

        It’s not like Fergie has a great reputation with the British public they can threaten to tarnish. Any attempt to tie her to this comes with photographic (and possibly video) evidence of Andrew’s links to the same situation.

      • Mignionette says:

        @Erita I agree with you but sadly they will find a way to spin it so that ‘poor Andy only got involved with Epstein after his feckless ex-wife who is always getting into trouble loaned money from Epstein’.

        In fact I think the Fail are building the foundations as we speak. If you look on their front page today, they have a hit piece on Fergie accepting dirty money and have written extensively about her ‘donations’ from Singapore and the ‘Fake Sheikh’ sting.

        If I was a tin foil hatter I would say that Fergie is like a lamb being fattened for slaughter as we speak. After Meg she is scapegaot number 2….

      • Ertia says:

        No one is going to think taking money from shady people is worse than raping children. The only person who thinks that is The Queen.

        It’s impossible to spin like that. Even if people can’t figure out the dates, “She was broke so Epstein lent her money and then… made… Andrew rape children?” doesn’t work as a story. Even the Queen can’t be dumb enough to think this can be blamed on Fergie.

      • Mignionette says:

        @Erita I agree with you, but currently there are idiots out there who think that editing a magazine and only having 5 white women on the cover is far more heinous than being in cahoots with an international sex trafficker…

      • Erita says:

        But Mignionette, you know that no one actually thinks that. There are no people who really think who went on a cover of Vogue is worse than being involved with Epstein. That’s just not something anyone thinks.

        One gets written about more because there is no fear of legal reprisal when a gossip columnist expresses their opinion about something silly and useless. The other one, the criminal one, is written about less, and more carefully, to avoid a large and expensive lawsuit.

        I don’t see anyone pushing for laws criminalizing not putting a certain about of white women on a magazine, while there are indeed laws about abusing children. It’s worse. Everyone knows it’s worse.

      • Mignionette says:

        @Erita I completely agree with you as I said above. And yes like you I believe the threat of legal action prevents journos even wanting to touch the Prince Andrew / Epstein saga.

        And yes of course the whole thing is absurd, but look how it’s playing out before our eyes.

        Do I think Andy will get caught ? NO (reassounding)

        Why? bc Barr is in charge of the investigation and he is taking orders from his bud Dotard. Dotard is good friends with Andy who loves Any’s mother despite slandering Meg’s at any given opportunity. So do you really see them throwing Andy under a bus….?

      • Anne Call says:

        Wouldn’t be surprised if this all gets worse (which I hope it does) and that Elizabeth thinks of retiring and handing over to Charles. It might save the monarchy after her hideous grinning picture taken with Andrew on Sunday.

      • notasugarhere says:

        That endangers the private wealth and estates of Balmoral and Sandringham. Now they are inherited without taxes. Elizabeth (monarch) inherited from her father George VI (monarch), so no taxes were paid. She cannot retire officially and no longer be monarch, otherwise Charles would have to pay inheritance tax on all of that wealth when she does pass.

        We’ve gotten stories for a couple of years about her stepping down her engagements, handing more things to Charles. But officially retiring and no longer being monarch isn’t going to happen IMO because it endangers the family fortune. We won’t see Charles III until his mother passes away.

      • PrincessK says:

        Fergie is the one who holds all the cards. She knows all Andrews secrets, and the rest of the Royal Family. If Fergie decides to ‘talk’ there could be serious trouble.

        Philip’s disproportionate dislike of Fergie, in my opinion may have something to do with the rumoured affair with Fergie’s own mother. Philip is a real piece of work, and Fergie is a constant reminder and thorn in his flesh.

  17. Sue Denim says:

    I’ve done a lot of research on the African slave trade and the BRF were key in that. The trade had existed before but it was the Brits who took it to a whole new level, w leadership from the BRF. I can’t look at them without seeing the underlying cruelty behind their wealth. Actually, I’ve never understood why people (anywhere) see things like tiaras and castles and jets or whatever and think, wow, instead of hmmmm… where did all of that wealth come from. I mean, some people get wealthy through good work to be sure, but not this BRF crowd… And yes, some in the BRF do really good work for society, which should be lauded, but Andrew is also not a total outlier either.

    • OriginalLala says:

      some of us here have been saying this for a long time but alot of people don’t know the bloody, racist and disgusting history of the BRF and their “colonies”, or they don’t want to learn it.

      • Sue Denim says:

        thanks OriginalLala, it’s also why we have the orange menace in the US, people see even fake wealth, literally fool’s gold, and think somehow it’s worth looking up to… it’s sort of biblical too in the worshipping of false idols…

    • Dee Kay says:

      Every time I tour a city and see that a lot of buildings were built in a particular era, I think about what forms of extraction funded that building boom. In the UK and the US, the extractions were often of human labor (slavery or wage suppression of immigrant and minority workers) or fossil fuels (coal or oil). Or both. Most fortunes made in this world were not made on the back of ethical, honest, fair practices but through appropriation and exploitation and oppression.

    • PrincessK says:

      You can hardly single out the Royal Family. The wealth and gains from the trans Atlantic slave trade underpin the rise and mighty power of Britain throughout the 18th and 19th century and beyond, and of course the aristocracy amongst others were the drivers

  18. phlyfiremama says:

    Ooh the plot thickens!! Of COURSE she sent him home, this could finally be THE scandal that dismantles the royal family and their shenanigans at taxpayer expense. Big OOPPSY going on right here!! “Let the peasants eat cake”

    • Mignionette says:

      Sadly I think Brexit will likely do that first by trashing the union bc of in-party fighting, The Scots and Irish are not happy we put them in this position, and rightly so !

  19. Charfromdarock says:

    Does anyone know how law/international law works with respect to the BRF?

    Could Prince Andrew actually have to face a trial and jail time? Or would it just be public “shaming” that eventually sends him out of the public eye.

    I highly doubt PP is the voice of reason, unless PC got through to him.

    Interesting though how no one is upset about the environmental impacts of Andrew using a private plane.

    • Becks1 says:

      Well, at some point in the timeline, Andrew was a trade ambassador or something. i.e. he had diplomatic immunity. I think that was around the time of the picture with him and Virginia Roberts.

      • Eliza says:

        He had immunity up until after Epstein home of a trial ended the first time. Then his role was revoked. I would love to know if now that it’s revoked he can be charged with crimes committed in those years, or if the immunity still covers the years he had it.

      • Giddy says:

        So he does not have diplomatic status because he is a prince?

    • OriginalLala says:

      I mean, he is a huge *ass for using a private plane, but I’m more upset that he is a child rapist?

    • T1000 says:

      Former lawyer here. There are several ways the US could claim personal jurisdiction over a foreign national. The most obvious and widely used mechanism is the territoriality principal: If the crime is committed in a US territory (including Epstein’s island), the US has jurisdiction. There’s also the passive personality principle: The US can also claim jurisdiction when a citizen is a victim, regardless of the location of the crime. And the principle of universal jurisdiction establishes that any state can claim jurisdiction when the crime is universally considered a “crime against humanity,” which includes slave-trading and torture. There are probably other possibilities as well, but that’s just off the top of my head.

      However… it seems that Epstein negotiated a deal in 2008, stipulating that any co-conspirators would be immune from US prosecution regarding any future criminal charges. That sounds bizarre to me and I want to see the exact language of that deal. But even if he squirms out of facing US prosecution, he could be tried elsewhere. I’m busy with work, but I’ll look into this more when I can. This human garbage needs to pay for committing crimes against humanity.

      • BayTampaBay says:

        @T1000, there had been massive news coverage of this wonky plea deal he worked out. I think, but am not sure, this wonky deal was worked out in Florida which is why there was non-stop NPR radio coverage here in Florida before Epstein’s arrest by SDNY and his death.

      • Gail says:

        I’m curious as to why on earth any prosecutors would have signed off on such a deal, surely all the co-conspirators must thus be named, right?
        The can of worms is open, the question remains whether or not the cover up will continue to be viable. I still think HM has her top courtiers doing full time damage control.
        Pregnancy announcement from Eugenie in 3….2….I.

  20. Christin says:

    DM now claims that Andy’s buddy, madam Maxwell, is holed up in a Massachusetts mansion belonging to a rich tech guy.

    Here’s hoping everyone in this mess faces the music

  21. Tia says:

    My guess is the reason they are pushing ‘didn’t have sex with underage girls’ is because Virginia Roberts was 17 when she says she had sex with Prince Andrew. That means that in the U.K., the sex was legal unless it can be shown Andrew knew about the prostitution / sex trafficking.

    I don’t think Virginia Roberts has said anything that would prove (legally) that he did and with Epstein dead, who else can give evidence on that point? He might have good cause for the grinning.

  22. Nicegirl says:

    He’s off to meet up with the real Epstein, obvs. 🤦‍♀️

  23. JRenee says:

    As much as people know how much planning goes into royal activity, PP probably did show up unexpectedly. This is not dying down like perhaps they thought.
    And for the record, Fergie took the $ b4 Epstein was convicted but I don’t believe she paid it back..

  24. Green Is Good says:

    I wonder where the Prince is? Probably in a country without an extradition treaty.

  25. Mego says:

    When I said that Charles won’t protect Andrew, I was thinking in a let him fall on his own sword kind of way like not running interference with the press and protect his reputation.

    Of all the scandals that have befallen the royal family this is the worst. Andrew is a craven, degenerate, disgraceful sex offender who has benefited from his mother’s blindly loyal support and the sexist and racist media who ignore him to rip apart a woc. Or fawn over the white woman who will be queen who never put a foot wrong. Not many people would seriously believe that Andrew didn’t do exactly what the women claimed he did but will they care?

    Andrew’s low character, epic poor judgment and actions will hurt his mother’s legacy very badly I fear and leave a mess for Charles. At least that’s how it should play out but in the current age of Trump who knows. Privileged white men get away with a lot even in the metoo era.

    In the meantime the Queen had better find another person to escort her to engagements or go it alone. Very very disappointed by the picture of them in the car. 😔

    • Gail says:

      I wonder if Andrew offered any help when Charles was going through “Camillagate?” Charles’and Camilla’s tampon talk was nothing compared to the York’s sewage.
      Agree completely with the poster who said Philip got there early to take out the trash.

  26. AJ says:

    Honestly they are just all so gross to me at this point. I think its smart of Harry and Meghan to separate themselves from this group. Andrew and Fergie have been so shady all of their adult life. I get that the Queen wants to believe her son and also protect the monarchy, but they need Andrew to just go away. That picture of them smiling in the car on the way to the church on Sunday was so tone deaf.

    • Some chick says:

      At least he didn’t do anything really shocking, like ask to change seats at a dinner party!

  27. Dorothy says:

    Seeing how they are treating him makes the racism sexism full blown and reminds us that QE2 was fine with letting Philip use women for sex only. Absolutely disgusting. Might be the end of my love of the royal family and what a disappointment after thinking they were becoming more progressive. Understanding Diana more everyday

    • Dee Kay says:

      I know Diana suffered from mental illnesses (at the least, body dysmorphia and bulimia, depression, and suicidal ideation), and I think that her ill health was exacerbated from being in that family. The BRF seems absolutely crazy-making. Diana was very young and not worldly when she married into it, and she was not prepared for the “norms” of that family. I saw a documentary on Netflix that took the position that Diana was an outrageous crazy person who did not understand the BRF and crossed far too many lines in terms of what the Palace expected of her, but I just kept thinking throughout the whole documentary, when a person is in the thick of an irrational, nonsensical, hurtful system, it makes sense for them to rebel against the entire system.

  28. Myra says:

    British Media could careless about Andrew they care more about Harry and Meghan taking a vacation. Apparently a Princes having sex with an underage girl isn’t as important as a Princes taking his family on vacation to the Brits.

  29. Deeana says:

    Just for clarification: Edward VIII (later the Duke of Windsor) abdicated in December, 1936. He had only been king since January of that same year. He married Wallis Simpson in June 1937. In October 1937 they traveled to Germany and met with Adolf Hitler – against the advice of the British government. The Duke was observed giving the full Nazi salute during this visit.

    World War II began in September of 1939 when Germany invaded Poland. The Duke was assigned as a military liaison to the British Military Mission in France. By February 1940 it was claimed that the Duke had leaked the Allied war plans for the defense of Belgium to the Germans.

    Prime Minister Winston Churchill perceived The Duke of Windsor as a weak, sniveling man and a threat to the British due to his Nazi sympathies. In order to keep him out of the way and in the dark as to military matters, in May of 1940 Churchill had him assigned to be Governor of the Bahamas. There he and his Duchess sat out the War until 1945.

    • notasugarhere says:

      Yes and the politicians felt free to play fast and loose with the line of succession during the process of that abdication. Bertie was seen as a week option, paled in comparison to Henry of Gloucester. Henry’s own indiscretions vs. Bertie’s happy family life PR meant the politicians chose Bertie. But it was a choice they felt free to make. To them, the line of succession was a guide but not set in stone.

  30. aquarius64 says:

    Here’s another reason the British media is going hard on Meghan. On Twitter someone posted pictures of Piers Morgan and the editor of the Fail in the company of Madam Ghislaine. No telling how many other media type where in Esptein’s orbit. I hope their names are in the black book.

  31. phlyfiremama says:

    Interesting that the Huffington Post, normally ALL OVER stuff like this, is totally mum about randy andy.

  32. Ally says:

    With the circles he was running around in as a young married man with children, Prince Philip’s critiques of Andrew probably have to do with discretion rather than substance. The Profumo affair also involved a shady character providing young women to powerful people and then his suspicious suicide. The full report is still classified because it refers to members of the royal family in some way.

  33. blunt talker says:

    They are trying so hard to distract about Andy. Talking about bullshit on Harry/Meg to throw everyone off. I have seen this playbook before. The wax figure, trip to Ibizia, and what they will be doing at Balmoral. Very respected publications are on the hunt with Andy’s story. I just read where Andy had Epstein at Windsor Castle, Sandingham, and Balmoral for visits. Nobody in the tabs have said a peep about this info. If people would read more respected articles about this story they would realize the super shady British press. I don’t know how all this will play out but the journalism in Britain reeks of stupidity and junk mail. Epstein’s lady friend who helped him was seen in a photo with Piers Morgan. Maybe Piers needs to talk about this to his viewers. He has suddenly left his vacation to come home I heard. There are more creditable sources to get info than just gossip vultures.

    • aquarius64 says:

      Piers is probably talking to his lawyers and his bosses at GMB out of fear his job could be on the line if this connection is revealed widely. His downfall would be justice for the victims and big karma because of his treatment of Meghan.