The Queen ‘backs’ Prince Andrew and she ‘is said to be supporting him privately’

Gabriella Windsor wedding

It seems like most of the “work” Prince Andrew has done this year has revolved around his Pitch@Palace initiative, which is something like “start-ups pitching their businesses/products to investors.” Andrew had a lot of corporate sponsors for Pitch@Palace. Following his trainwreck BBC interview, those corporate sponsors are leaving. The auditing firm KPMG is “not renewing” their sponsorship. Pharma company AstraZeneca’s partnership is ending this year contractually, but they say the contract is “currently being reviewed.” Insurance company Aon exited their partnership. Still in the mix: the bank Standard Chartered, Barclays, Tencent, Hult International Business School, Inmarsat and Bosch Group.

As for the larger fallout within the palace… according to many sources, the Queen is still standing by her favorite son. I cannot believe this broad. The Daily Beast reported that the Queen signed off on Andrew’s interview and that the Queen’s courtiers are still spinning on Andrew’s behalf. One source said “This is one of the worst spin jobs from the palace we’ve seen.” But, you know, it’s not like Andrew wore jeans to Wimbledon.

The Queen appeared sombre today as it emerged that Her Majesty and other senior royals have told Prince Andrew they ‘back and believe’ him ‘100 per cent’ after his calamitous interview with the BBC. The Duke of York is said to have received support from his mother over the weekend. And he has also been reassured that his duties will not be slashed back after he was urged to ‘take a break’ for the sake of others including his brother Prince Charles, whose trip to New Zealand was overshadowed today.

The Queen will not be commenting on her son’s scandal-hit interview but she is said to be supporting him privately. A senior royal source said: ‘His Royal Highness has the backing of the Queen and his close family, they believe in him totally and think he has shown strength for telling the truth and admitting errors he has made’.

The insider told the Evening Standard: ‘There is no question of him being ordered to reduce his duties. He wants to get on with his job. He has told the truth, in detail’. But a friend told the Mail he ‘regretted’ not expressing sympathy for Jeffrey Epstein’s victims in his disastrous TV interview. A source told The Times that he hoped the interview would end ‘the sniping and the commentary’ – but it has actually started a firestorm.

[From The Daily Mail]

Somehow, I don’t find it surprising that the Queen is still supporting Andrew and that she has decreed that he can still be a “working royal.” It seems on-brand for her and the terrible year she’s had. What’s funny is that people are still bending over backwards to give the Queen a pass for supporting Andrew. As I’ve been saying for months now, it’s pretty clear that she’s not some sweet old lady with a brooch collection. She’s actively covering for her rapist son. And I wonder if Boris Johnson is even in a position to advise the Queen and tell her “actually, you need to stop defending Andrew.” I don’t think anyone in her circle is saying that to her.

(L-R) Princess Anne, Princess Royal, Camilla, Duchess of Cornwall, Prince Andrew, Duke of York, Prince Harry, Duke of Sussex, Meghan, Duchess of Sussex and Prime Minister, Boris Johnson attend the annual Royal British Legion Festival of Remembrance at the

Trooping the Colour 2018: The Queen's Birthday Parade

Photos courtesy of WENN, BBC and Avalon Red.

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

148 Responses to “The Queen ‘backs’ Prince Andrew and she ‘is said to be supporting him privately’”

Comments are Closed

We close comments on older posts to fight comment spam.

  1. Wilma says:

    She must really hate Charles.

    • Eleonor says:

      Charles is no saint, but nothing he has ever done, as far as I know can come close to this.

    • ariel says:

      I’m sure it is complicated between them, Charles, from the moment of his birth, is destined to replace her. That has to make for some weird feelings.

      Of course, going with the fiction of The Crown, the way she shut up and let Philip leave Charles at that awful school where he was miserable for years, makes me really dislike her and Philip.

      • Wilma says:

        Charles has to succeed her, seems to want to succeed her, but she’s going to leave him a monarchy that’s under siege.

      • A says:

        I don’t want to be seen defending the Queen, but honestly, that WAS the way things were done back then, pretty much. I know Charles has spoken about how bad he had it at Gordonstoun, but he was not going to be treated that much better even at a place like Eton or Harrow. Bullying and hazing are commonplace in all public schools, especially boys only public schools, and they sure as heck weren’t going to go out of their way to respect Charles’ intellect there either. No one comes out of those schools unscathed, there’s scads of research done recently about how bad of an effect public boarding schools have on the minds of young people. Boris Johnson went to Eton, don’t forget, and look at how HE turned out.

    • Lisa says:

      Andrew is her favourite

  2. STRIPE says:

    This goes above and beyond him being her son , I think. This family believes they were ordained by God to live a luxurious life and be waited on hand and foot. I mean, people can’t even eat after she’s done eating. The level of privilege boggles the mind. Either she doesn’t believe he did it, and because she’s the Queen she’s always right so why would this be different, or she thinks he did and doesn’t care because they’re better than everyone else.

    • DaisySharp says:


      really good points! People can’t eat after she’s done eating (rolls eyes). I don’t know I’m not British, all I can say is; from where I sit this entire family is a huge waste of money. A joke really.

      • STRIPE says:

        Well worth looking up the etiquette people have to follow around her. She gets out of conversations by moving her purse from one arm to another. Her people see that and move her along. Why would someone who doesn’t even have to endure conversations she doesn’t enjoy be in touch with reality you know? They’re treated Iike demigods. Why would the rules apply to them?

      • BeanieBean says:

        Gotta say, that would really bug me if it happened during the dessert course & they tried to take away an amazing cheesecake or creme brûlée or something.

      • ArtHistorian says:

        People not eating after the Monarch has finished his/her meal is a very old tradition – but it is completely outdated because social mores have changed. Now it just looks rude.

        The Austrian Emperor Franz Josef I was notorious for eating very fast – and his empress had an eating disorder, so it was a insider joke that you’d always leave hungry after a dinner at the palace. People would literally drive directly to restaurants after a palace dinner. It is an antiquated and discourteous custom.

      • windyriver says:

        I believe she always leaves some food on her plate so that other people dining with her don’t feel they have to stop eating when she does.

        Just read Angela Kelly’s new book so that’s probably where I saw it, though can’t find the exact location in the book at the moment.

    • Becklu says:

      These are really good points, it’s disturbing to think they believe that but you’re probably right. I do think she should ask him to retire but won’t. However, you know that Charles and William are working on getting rid of him and probably his entire family. Don’t think that would be bad to be honest. As I think Andrew is behind a lot of what has been going on and so is his family.

      • Amy Too says:

        And the fact that she can’t even end a conversation on her own shows how weak and ineffectual she is. It shows what you said: that she literally has people who help her to end conversations she doesn’t want to be a part of anymore, no questions asked, so she’s catered to by yes people and never has to do anything she doesn’t want to; but it also shows how even though she feels it’s her right to have all this power, she doesn’t even have the balls to execute that power on her own, even if it’s just the power to end a conversation. She has “people” do all her dirty work. This is a woman who has her aides come and “save her” from conversations she doesn’t want to have. And they do it! Living like that for 93 years, avoiding anything even remotely difficult or awkward, must really do a number on one. No wonder she seems so out of touch, off base, delusional, and just plain WRONG all the time.

    • Jen says:

      I really think she is so used to getting whatever she wants whenever she wants that she thinks that should apply to her favored son – even if what he wants is underage girls.

      She’s awful.

    • Blondems says:

      This is what always strikes me with people who love the Royal Family. The Royals are people whom even if they attend your opening or shake hands with you at a gala, honestly believe, and were raised to believe, that THEY ARE BETTER THAN YOU. No matter how friendly or charming they may be, this is what they think. By a murky birthright they have the God-given right to look down on you. I mean, who wants to support that??

      • Fabuleuse says:

        British people seem to have serious self-esteem issues to believe that some people, whether royal or upper class, are better than them by virtue of social class. Even the homeless in America don’t think anyone is better than them.

      • perplexed says:

        I don’t think it’s a self-esteem issue. It’s an old system that’s been there for a long time, and most likely you work around it if that’s what you’re stuck with. Right now, America is stuck with billionaires and big money dictating how a political system functions and people try their best to work around what they’re stuck with.

  3. DaisySharp says:

    I mean, I don’t know, but wouldn’t Charles be saying this to her?

    • Chrissy says:

      The problem is that Charles is out of the country (probably seething that he’s tour is being eclipsed by this shitshow), and so can’t confront his mother and Pedo Andy personally. I’m sure he can’t wait to get back to London to talk some sense into his mother. Her inaction could be the downfall of the BRF and Charles’ legacy. He must be livid.

  4. Ariel says:

    What are a few underage sex slaves between friends? Those girls were poor. This is how the wealthy amuse themselves. The queen probably thinks of poor girls like she thinks of horses and dogs.
    Though she probably thinks better of the dogs and horses, like the aristocrats, they were properly inbred.
    These people are disgusting.
    The queen needs to abdicate. She has outlived her usefulness.

    • Bella DuPont says:

      @ Ariel

      She really has outlived her usefulness, but she is faaaarrrr too power hungry to even contemplate abdication. She’s already decreed that she will die on the throne as she believes it’s a life long calling. 🙄

      Bullshit. More like the idea of having someone else (even her own son) supersede her is unthinkable to her. So even if she became blind, deaf, immobile and senile, you can all f-ck off, she ain’t giving that throne up for nobody.

    • Marjorie says:

      Thank you for pointing out that they were poor, that’s omitted most of the time. It also makes Andrew’s statement “they looked like staff to me” even more disgusting.

      • Giddy says:

        Epstein purposely targeted poor girls, and also girls without a strong father figure. Isn’t that sad?

      • Fabuleuse says:

        Not just poor, but they came from troubled homes. Most of them were in need of a father figure and Epstein used that to manipulate and brainwash them. Epstein targeted desperate and vulnerable children who could easily be brainwashed and turned into slaves.

    • ArtHistorian says:

      I think she actually thinks more of her dogs and horses than she does of poor and abused people, especially those girls whose abuse her son was involved in.

      • notasugarhere says:

        I feel this way about Anne. She does her engagements because it is her job, not because she cares about other people. Horses, dogs, and lovers were more important than her kids. It is only now that the grandkids have come along that she’s softened.

  5. Zapp Brannigan says:

    She is deluded and thinks that people “love” and respect her so much as a monarch that by letting it be known that she supports Randy Andy that will be an end to all this “unpleasantness”. Instead people are fast losing patient and respect for her as she shields him. Reports this morning are saying that new stuff is coming down the pipeline and a decision is being made by a judge whether it is to be made public in January, roll on 2020!

    • AnnaKist says:

      It’s strange. I’m in Australia and we have a very active group working to convince Australians to ditch the Monarchy and opt to become a Republic. The monarchists, usually very vocal in their support and love for QEII, have been completely silent as we all watch this train wreck. I’ll bet Charles is spitting chips right now. Andrew has always been a sleazy oik, and the Queen, well… she has some nice hats.

      Zapp, I heard on tonight’s news that prosecutors are ready to charge several members of Epstein’s gang of rapists. I guess Andy won’t be making any trips to the US anytime soon…

      • Scotchy says:

        I wish there was a group like you in Canada. I would love for Canada to become a republic. siigghh unfortunately due the genuine lack of care it would take a lot to mobilize.. oh well. One can dream 😊

    • Cindy says:

      Honestly? This is what I think too. It just boggles my mind, do people not understand the level of privileges these people have are literally medieval? Hell, not even, because medieval monarchs at least had the job of managing the country.

      Monarchy and nobility are literally sustained by the idea of superiority – that being born in a certain family makes you better and more valuable than the rest. So much better, actually, that you get to live a life full of luxuries paid for by people far poorer than you. Because that’s your right, and that’s their obligation.

      If you’ve seen what privilege does to an American rich white guy, can you imagine how it is when you’re not just white, you’re not just rich, but you’re a blue-blooded noble? There’s plenty of rich whites in the world, but nobility is special.

      Of course they think they are doing everything great and people will just go along with them. The whole point of nobility is that you’re superior to commoners. Why would they NOT think that?

      • OriginalLala says:

        You’ve put it so well Cindy! It’s time for the monarchy and the royal family to disappear. All of them.

      • perplexed says:

        People understand the level of privilege they have. People aren’t stupid. But I don’t really think it’s contingent on regular people who have their own daily struggles to figure out how to solve this constitutional puzzle. The politicians would have to figure this out, and who even knows if they can if they can’t even figure out how to solve everything else.

      • Spicecake38 says:

        Well put indeed!I sit here thinking that perv Andrew thinks he did with those young girls what he was allowed or supposed to do,and they should just shut up.

  6. morrigan01 says:

    Okay, this may be a weird comparison, but go with me here: this is kinda reminding me of the parents of Scott Peterson who, *to this day* still believe that their son didn’t kill his wife Laci. Despite ALL the evidence to the contrary.

    He’s her son, her favorite son, and she is clearly NEVER going to believe he’s guilty of anything. Meaning I guess that The Crown always wins *except* when it comes to Andrew. You couldn’t write a better end to the monarchy and Liz’s reign than this I guess. Because I think unless Charles can wrestle away some power and counter keeping Andrew around in a public role, or the British people are just willing to wait for her to die and power to pass to Charles so HE can get rid of Andrew, this very well might really be the end I think.

    And again, the Sussexs’ look like geniuses for dipping out of Christmas at Sandringham this year. With this news it’s clear he is for SURE going to be there with the family, walk to church and all I think.

    • perplexed says:

      I don’t think any mother wants to admit that their son is a bad person. So I figure that’s why she’s standing by him despite the fact it’s clearly wrong. O don’t get why he’s the favourite though. Anne should probably be her favourite, I think.

      • Chelle says:

        Shallow but he is the only one of her children who looks like her. Plus, she probably had him at a time in her life where she felt less pressured, free to openly love him, more personally confident and more like a mom. He looks like he was a jolly baby too.

      • TIFFANY says:

        @Perplexed. Andrew was conceived at a time where Philip decided to stop fooling around. Liz thinks Andrew’s conception kept Philip from leaving her for good.

      • tcbc says:

        It says a lot about her that the child she actually mothered turned out like this.

      • Giddy says:

        If she considers it at all, I imagine that she thinks that those girls threw themselves at her son. And those girls didn’t count anyway…at least not to her or her son.

      • GirlMonday says:


        Nail on the head!!!

      • WendyWoo says:

        @Chelle …What? Charles looks EXACTLY like her!

      • NessaBee says:

        I think Anne’s Phillip’s favorite and Andrew is Liz’s and Charles and Edward are “the other two.”

      • manda says:

        @ NessaBee–wow, I am literally learning about Prince Edward right now! I had no idea there was a fourth

      • Korra says:

        Both Anne and Edward (favorite son) are the favorites of Philip, so that leaves Charles with being the one child who really didn’t get the support of either parents.

    • Jazney says:

      In my experience, predators of that level are usually not shy about their actions.
      For example, if you have staff that coordiante your travel and schedules, spending time with strange “friends” would not have happened secretly. You don’t think anyone at the palace ever had a google of this guy? You don’t think Andrew ever made “strange” comments around teenage girls, or showed odd behavior of any sort?
      People might have had trouble identifying that behavior in the moment, but in hindsight, i bet there are TONS of instances that should’ve prompted action.
      The family has been covering for Andrew for years, and admitting now that he’s likely a criminal rapist would implicate them as well. Because the next question would be: who knew what when, and why did you keep covering for him?
      Honestly, I just hope Virginia Giuffre and the other victims know what monumental feat they’ve achieved. All credit to them. Their strenght and resilience is absolutely phenomenal.

      • Betsy says:

        I don’t wonder how much the family actually knew. These people don’t seem like they spend much time together, and I can well believe that they only heard rumors about partying and promiscuity, not rape.

  7. adastraperaspera says:

    He’s a risk to national security. She has a responsibility to the country (and other western democracies) to cut him off. GCHQ must have informed her. What are their next moves on this?

  8. meme says:

    The Queen is an elderly insulated woman and he is her favorite son, so I wouldn’t expect her to publicly denounce him. A lot of mothers would do the same. No one wants to believe the worst about their child. As this scandal unfolds, I doubt Andrew will be resuming his duties, whatever they are.

    • My3cents says:

      Let’s not forget she’s 95. She is probably being shielded from most of this shitstorm, but I do think her true nature is showing through. The older you get the more you tend to double down on your core values and characteristics, so now I guess we just learn who she was all along.

    • Chelle says:

      This is my take on it too. First of all, what’s being suggested is just horrible. Then, she’d have to square that with the Andrew she knows or thinks she knows. To do that, she’d be pushing up against 58 – 60 years (not sure of his age) of knowing this person, a person she’s given birth to and has favored. That’s hard. No, not him, her mind is probably saying. Then, as a mother and despite his age, if she entertains it, she has to contend with the ever present yet dormant mother guilt complex of what did I do wrong, I thought I got this one right, were people right when they said I overindulged him, etc..

      Her world is not just small and insular but it’s anachronistic too.

      I don’t so much as have sympathy for her as I do understand that mothers protect and lie for their kids, especially their sons,

      He, even if didn’t have sex or have a sex act performed on him by Virginia Guiffre, ain’t sh*t. Epstein couldn’t have hid all of his lifestyle from Andrew. Especially not with the frequency of visits and contacts they had. However, once again, I’m not shocked by this this. A lot of private wealth and monied influencers hung around him too and knew what he was up to. Even on the most mundane levels, people will turn a blind eye to abuse especially if it benefits them not to see it or if they too are indulging in it.

      Finally, I don’t know if this is annus horribillis for the Queen. She said she experienced that when parts of Windsor burned to the ground. And guess who was there beside her in the photos as she walked through the charred remains? Yep, you all know.


    • xo says:

      There are reports this morning that he has been summoned for “crisis talks.” The Queen may have a blind spot when it comes to Andrew, but she must understand the damage he is doing to the institution she SERVES.

  9. aquarius64 says:

    The British press is having a field day. Andrews’s mess has been a rolling disclosure nightmare since that stupid interview. Fergie’s ride or die interviews don’t help. The Fail is now running a story that more court documents may be released and Andrew may be named along with others. I hope Piers Morgan is named; on Twitter someone posted a picture of him and Ghislaine Maxwell looking chummy. The Sussexes were smart to ditch Sandringhan Christmas this year.

    • Bella DuPont says:

      Piers Morgan and Ghislaine are quite chummy? Huh. Very interesting indeed. This little bit of info definitely opens up a lot of opportunities for some juicy conspiracy theories.

      Like, can his irrational and relentless attacks on M+H be explained by a good/close relationship with (another close friend of Ghislaine’s), Prince Andrew?

      Has he been working so hard to smear the Sussexes because he believed it distracted from the royal/paedophilia fiasco to which he is also connected?

      So many conspiracies, so little time…..

    • Chelle says:

      Fergie as his ride or die. The other day as I left my comment about Andrew living out his days in exile like his uncle, I had pictures in my head of him and Sarah having crack-head squabbles over their last few dollars and looking like meth-heads and living in the Swiss Alps as reported in the Daily Mail.😂🤣😂

    • betsyh says:

      I am not a fan of Piers Morgan, but I was curious to read what he wrote about Prince Andrew’s interview. He brought up the very good point that Andrew’s security detail would always be with him and would keep a record of where he was when. And that Andrew was probably lying and was in big trouble.

  10. Sofia says:

    She won’t do or say anything against Andrew until people are beating down her door ready to riot and throw her out like they did with Diana

  11. Adrien says:

    She backs him but she knows he is not innocent.

  12. T.Fanty says:

    Hahahahaha! To the idea of Boris Johnson telling her to have a little consideration for the people beneath her.

  13. Digital Unicorn says:

    This is her usual ostrich impression, she won’t deal with it until it become a crisis that she can’t avoid. If its true more it coming out in the new year then they are screwed, they can’t stop a judge from releasing court documents esp if a precedent has already been set with previous sealed documents being released. That interview was a ham fisted attempted to get ahead of more damaging information coming out.

    Her and the RF’s rep eventually recovered from Diana’s death but it will never recover from this – that she willingly protected him not just from having sex with a trafficked girl but from dodgy financial dealings.

    • ArtHistorian says:

      This is so much worse than the infidelity scandals of the 90s – this is criminal behaviour on a par with the Duke of Windsors Nazi sympathies and possibly treasonous activities during the 30s and 40s. However, unlike the Duke of Windsor, there’s no way of supressing all the damaging information on Andrew. Not only because the media landscape is very different now but also because Andrew is working against himself in his stupidity and arrogance.

  14. heygingersnaps says:

    No surprise there! the queen is showing who she really is with this one, rotten to the core.
    boris johnson won’t say anything of that sort because he probably thinks the same as pedo andy.
    For what it’s worth, some charities/organisations have started distancing themselves from him, NSPCC issued a statement on August that they haven’t worked with him since 2009 or something. KPMG says it’s ending their sponsorship, University of Huddersfield student union have voted to demand his removal from an honorary post, hopefully the University will act on that.

  15. Feedmechips says:

    Of course, because they’re all assholes.

  16. Mignionette says:

    The one thing that seems apparent is that the Queen and Courtiers are focused on Andrew’s culpability as a participant and seem intent on rebutting that presumption. whilst the general public are also disgusted by Andy’s association (especially post conviction) at all.

    That is what I believe is now driving the disconnect. Andy’s office are in fight flight mode to keep him out of prison, whilst in the eyes of the public he is already there for this horrible association. Until the Courtiers understand that, Andy is toast.

  17. Deanne says:

    What purpose do any of these people serve? What exactly do they do for the British taxpayers? I don’t care how old the woman is, she’s protecting a predator.

  18. aang says:

    England has one super old lady that looks the other way when her favorite son is outed as a predator. Meanwhile over here we’ve got 50% of an entire nation that will actively support a predator and all his predator minions. The media doesn’t even report on Epstein. It is old news here.

  19. Chisey says:

    I think it’s expecting too much to want the queen to publicly denounce her son. I mean, if god forbid I ever did something comparably awful I think my mom would still love and support me because, you know, she’s my mom. But of course no one (aside from me) would care what my mom thought because she’s not the queen of anything. For me, it sort of emphasizes that monarchy is good for gossip but not much else, and people’s moms should not be making calls like this. There’s no way the queen can be unbiased and reasonable about her son, and I think the idea that these people are supposed to put some nebulous concept of their country ahead of loving their family is just toxic and dumb. In my mind, the royals are basically upscale Kardashians- I don’t expect more of them. I enjoy the heck out of the gossip but don’t revere any of them, even Meghan. I think it works better that way.

    • JC says:

      I completely agree.

    • Betsy says:

      I agree, too.

      So long as she gets out of the way when the law comes for him.

    • A says:

      She doesn’t need to denounce what he did publicly. But she is not in the same position as your mom or my mom. She’s a public figure. Her son is a public figure, who enjoys the privileges afforded to him as a result of his birth (and very little else). They live on public money. They are answerable to the people in ways that others are simply not. Demanding accountability in this situation is quite a different kettle of fish.

  20. Beach Dreams says:

    This is going to destroy her precious legacy and I’m here for it. When you don’t even have the presence of mind to at least curtail his public duties, then you are truly cosseted from the opinions of normal, decent people.

    • BayTampaBay says:

      Just because QEII says she will not curtail Andrews duties does not mean that she will not do exactly this.

      I believe QEII will curtail Andrew’s “duties & engagements” but it will be done very quietly and will just fade and vanish from the stage. There will be no fanfare and no official public announcement.

      • notasugarhere says:

        IDK if she’ll ever see the light about Andrew.

        Tomorrow is HM & Philip’s 72nd anniversary. Honestly, I keep thinking her bacon would be temporarily saved if Philip passed away of apoplexy over this whole mess.

  21. AnnaKist says:

    Oh, well, Queenie, that’s it, then. You are too deluded for me, so you’re blocked, deleted and off my Christmas card list.

  22. Sarah says:

    That family is trash. The British people deserve so much better than that. Hugs from Paris.

  23. Seri says:

    It is so delusional for the Queen to believe that the narrative can be changed by showing her support to Andrew. For sake of beloved monarchy, she at least could have pretended….

  24. HK9 says:

    For her not to know after all these years that he needs to be pulled back from public life means that yet again she’s failed to ‘read the room’. Sorry to say it but this will be her undoing because this case isn’t going away.

  25. Enn says:

    Is Charles clenching his jaw so hard that he’s grinding his teeth to nubs in NZ?

  26. Belli says:

    Well, it was always going to take something cataclysmic for people to stop respecting the Queen. She’s been around for so long that for the vast majority of the country she just “is”. She’s been a steady figurehead if you don’t look too closely and even most republicans were saying “abolish the monarchy once the Queen passes.”

    I have to say though, I didn’t actually expect it to happen, but openly supporting her predator son might just do it.

  27. Rapunzel says:

    Standard Chartered has withdrawn their sponsorship.

  28. Jan says:

    I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again royalty is bs it’s a farce. A very expensive taxpayer funded farce. These people should not be above the law.

  29. My3cents says:


  30. Rapunzel says:

    Headline at the Fail: “’The Queen will be asking questions, but getting no answers’: Former Royal press secretary Dickie Arbiter says her Majesty is ‘putting on a brave face’ in public but quizzing Duke in private over worsening Epstein scandal”

    Someone realized she was coming off tone deaf and is trying to fix it. And the attempt to garner sympathy for the Queen is obvious. Not a good look. “Poor little Queenie” isn’t gonna fly. She’s the boss.

  31. Iamcait says:

    Interesting how the royal sources, courtiers, pals – whatever you want to call them- provide all their inside info & tasty tidbits to the tabloids and not the “real” newspapers like the times, guardian,etc. Hmmmm🧐

    • BayTampaBay says:

      The Guardian and The Observer (The Sunday Paper) really is not interested in printing stories about the British Royal Family. As a rule, The Guardian and The Observer (The Sunday Paper) just ignore the Windsors. I think at the most there has been 3 (possibly 4) stories about Meghan or Meghan & Harry excepting the lawsuit against The Daily Mail stories which was more of a dig at The Fail than support of the Sussexes.

      • ADS says:

        But ALL the papers – including the broadsheets have been reporting on the Epstein scandal and Prince Andrew’s connection. And the Guardian also has been writing about the Sussexes but more in the form of comment pieces re the tabloid obsession and racist/sexist undertones.

  32. L84Tea says:

    The Queen NEVER learns. Never. It astonishes me. I literally just watched the Aberfan episode of season 3 of The Crown last night, and it served as the perfect reminder that QEII makes the absolute worst and dumbest decisions at times when she needs to make the better decision the most–Aberfan, Diana’s death, Pedo Andy. I used to admire her and she absolutely sickens me now.

    • Mae says:

      I also just finished watching the Aberfan ep. And what struck me was the conversation with the PM where he asked her to comfort the people and she said “you want me to put on a show? Royals don’t do that (put on a show)”. That really says it all doesn’t it? Sympathizing and comforting victims of tragedy is considered “putting on a show”. And also what the heck does she think all those stupid pomp and ceremonies are if not a “show”!!!

    • A says:

      This third season of the Crown with the Aberfan episode came out at a really bad time for her huh. If it causes people to connect the dots between that, her response to Diana, and this sh-t, then it’s not looking good for anyone.

  33. perplexed says:

    If she admits he’s a bad person, she’d probably have to admit she did a bad job raising him (partly because she had to assume the role of Queen. Maybe not being Queen might have changed how she chose to raise him.). Who wants to admit at 95 that you did a crappy job trying to turn him into a decent human being?

    One thing I am a little puzzled by is that the other kids are fairly normal comparison. Charles had an affair but that’s not criminal. And I’ve never heard truly bad things about Anne or Edward — the worst I might hear is that they can be a bit arrogant, but again, that’s not criminal.

    Despite their privilege, I do think Andrew is some kind of anomaly among the kids. The other ones are more “normal” — the worst you can say is that they feel superior but by and large they’re not going around doing criminal activity. You can say the same about the grandkids. Harry and William might be spoiled but they’re not doing this kind of weird stuff. I wonder why Andrew turned out to be such a weirdo, especially if his mother spent more time with him than the other kids. it almost seems like you’re more likely to have not turned out to be a criminal if the Queen were more emotionally distant from you.

    • Guest2.0 says:

      I wonder how Charles, Ann and Edward feel having it blasted all over the media and elsewhere that “Andrew is the favorite child.” That has to sting a little, I think.

      • Korra says:

        Slightly tangential, but my understanding is that Edward and Anne are Philip’s favorite children, so really this is probably most painful for Charles who never really had the support of either parent.

    • BayTampaBay says:

      Andrew is not that bright. Andrew just got caught up in Epstein’s life because he enjoys the lifestyle Epstein’s wealth purchased, wants all the freebies he can get and constantly has his hand out for “his share”. IMHO, it never occurred to Andrew if a female was 17 or 27 or 37 years of age before engaging in illegal activity.

      ETA: Let me be perfectly clear; I believe Andrew is guilty of ALL he is accused of and probably more that he is not yet accused of.

      • ADS says:

        I disagree. I reckon his friendship with Epstein – and his refusal to turn his back on him even after the conviction – indicates that Andrew was very strongly drawn to the particular ‘lifestyle’ that Epstein specialised in. I.e. underage girls. I believe this is also true of Clinton, Trump, Allen (Woody) and all of the other famous powerful men who associated with him regularly, travelled on the Lolita Express’and spent time on his private island.

    • windyriver says:

      Especially if he perceived himself as being favored, it likely fueled resentment that HE wasn’t the one next in line for the throne. Wouldn’t be surprised if he thinks he’s smarter than Charles. From what I’ve read about Margaret, it sounds like they had arrogance and other qualities in common, and of course, she was in a similar position with respect to Elizabeth as Andrew is with Charles.

      I’m not sure Andrew perceives what he does is criminal – in fact, based what I’ve read of the interview (can’t watch it), it’s clear he doesn’t – so likely he’s so blinded by what he expects is his due as a royal and person of privilege that he doesn’t perceive there are questionable areas in what he gets involved in.

      And of course, the world he lives in (not talking about the royals) is full of people who don’t believe the rules apply to them. The college admissions scandal is just one example of how other wealthy, privileged people think it’s ok to do what they want just because they want to do it.

    • A says:

      The thing is though, Andrew might be the Queen’s favourite, but I don’t think that means she raised him. None of the upperclass aristocratic women of her generation ever did something so pedestrian as “raising” children. I think people often confuse the Queen’s fondness for Andrew and her renewed attitude towards motherhood with this idea that she was out here cooking his meals and cutting up his food and taking him to school and sitting down with him and going over their ABCs together. She felt softer and better towards Andrew because of what he symbolized, and she expressed that by making concessions for his disgusting behaviour when no other proper parent would have. The Dursleys loved Dudley from the bottom of their heart, but they sure as hell didn’t raise him properly. Loving your child and being a good parent are two vastly different things.

  34. Guest2.0 says:

    Question for British CBers. Do you think this Andrew fiasco will have any effect in the upcoming elections?

  35. Katie says:

    I increasingly think the William-Harry treatment in the press has been pushed in the last few weeks by the Queen and Charles’ staff. I know Andrew is an idiot – but not everyone who works for the Firm is. They had to know the Epstein scandal would not go away. So a two-part strategy: deflect press coverage by shi**ing on (or letting the media s*** on) poor Harry and Meghan, and stabilize the monarchy by emphasizing the succession is in great and capable hands – Will and Kate.

  36. Shirleygailgal says:

    for the first time in my 65 years, I struggled to sing God Save the Queen on Remembrance Day. Couldn’t do it. I choked up. My emotion surprised me, hadn’t realized I was just that angry and frustrated

  37. Becks1 says:

    Well, on the one hand, I’m not surprised that she’s not publicly denouncing her son. Did anyone expect her to?

    I am surprised that there is this strong push to keep him in the public spotlight though. It would seem to me that a statement could be released about how Andrew needs to take a break to contemplate his past actions or to focus on family during this holiday season or SOMETHING. People don’t want to see him. Stop making people look at him!.

    I think an interesting consequence of the interview is that it emphasized how out of touch and “better than you” the royal family is. Andrew came off exactly like he must be as a person – a spoiled, arrogant ass who has never been told “no” in his entire life. Reminding people of that in the midst of Brexit was a really bad idea, IMO.

    • perplexed says:

      I’ve kind of wondered why he doesn’t simply try to fade away or drop out of sight. Why call more attention to all the criminal things you’ve done. Maybe he was dropped on his head as a child. There are times when it’s preferable not to be super famous – I would think this is one of those times…. He can’t convince the world he’s correct about how he has conducted himself.

      • BayTampaBay says:

        “I’ve kind of wondered why he doesn’t simply try to fade away or drop out of sight.”

        @perplexed, This is exactly what I think will happen after Beatrice’s wedding as to not call more attention to all the criminal things he has been accused of and more than likely done.

      • ArtHistorian says:

        Andrew refuses to fade out of public sight because he is pompous and self-important.

      • Tourmaline says:

        @ArtHistorian true, he thinks he has fabulous insights to contribute to entrepreneurs in the UK.
        He really really thinks this. This is the guy who said that his relationship with Epstein had “some seriously beneficial outcomes.”

        Also by staying in his public role he has the chance to rub shoulders with rich corporate and oligarch types who can help him feather his nest, and the nests of his ex-wife and daughters and their husbands/fiances.

      • notasugarhere says:

        Yes, AH, he has no plans to fade away. He thinks he’s done nothing wrong, this is his life and his entitlement, and he’s not going anywhere. The sale of Sunninghill, the purchase of the Swiss chalet, with what money? All kinds of shady dealings he got away with for years.

      • A says:

        He doesn’t fade out of the public eyesight because he genuinely doesn’t believe that he has actually done anything wrong, whatsoever. So what if he had sex with underage girls who were trafficked? That is simply his right, he can do whatever he wants, he is a Prince of the United Kingdom, the second son of the Queen, is quite legitimately his thought process. He might issue a denial here or there because it’s illegal and it doesn’t look good, but if you don’t accept those denials, that’s your fault, not his, he didn’t do anything wrong at all, ever. As far as he’s concerned, it’s his right, as a prince of the UK, to be in the public eye and claim all of the requisite privileges afforded to him because of an accident of birth.

    • ADS says:

      I think there is a strong chance he is a sociopath.

  38. Miriam says:

    #AbolishTheMonarchy, I only follow for Meghan+Harry+Archie! I really really cant wait for them to leave this trashy “family”

  39. Arya says:

    Let’s be real, the Queen doesn’t believe Victoria Guiffre was trafficked. She thinks Victoria was a teenage floozy who was looking to live the high life and is now taking advantage of this MeToo moment to victimize poor baby Andrew.

    • Green Desert says:

      Oh man Arya, I think this is it exactly. It’s not that she doesn’t think her precious Andrew did anything; she’s too savvy for that. I’m sure she thinks that he was tempted by loose women. UGH.

      Her…time has passed. There are some positions that need fresh ideas and modernity and someone who is on the right side of history (progressive). That is definitely not Liz.

    • Becks1 says:

      Yes, thank you, this is a great point. A disturbing point, but I think its probably pretty much the case.

    • Nic919 says:

      Andrew viewed those girls as disposable so he didn’t bother to consider their ages or if they were there by choice. And his arrogance comes from how he was raised. When you grow up thinking you are superior by virtue of your birth, then by extension there are others who don’t have as much value as you think you have.

    • ariel says:

      I think the Queen has not given a single thought to Ms. Guiffre or any of Epstein’s sex slaves. She does not think of it, and does not care. Those girls were poor, they were playthings. The do not matter at all.

      • Tourmaline says:

        I agree. If she bothers to think of them at all she probably thinks, too bad they had parents that didn’t care about them and give them a proper upbringing, but how was my dear Andrew to know any of this.

  40. kerwood says:

    She’s probably clinging to her sex-offender son even more tightly now that Phillip is basically out of the picture. That’s why Fergie is back on the scene. I have no doubt that if Phillip was well, PedoAndy would be gone. Phillip is no fool.

  41. Amelie says:

    I dunno why people are surprised by how the Queen is handling this. Even when I was little, I remember how badly Queen Elizabeth handled Diana’s death. And ever since I have not exactly been a fan. I don’t hate her, but I never understood why people would go on and on about how great a Queen she is. She’s lived a very fascinating life and by all accounts she is a fascinating person. But when I was young I never understood why people worshipped her because she never really impressed me personally with her character.

    I often kept my feelings to myself because people couldn’t understand how I wasn’t a fan. This is why.

    • ArtHistorian says:

      That’s the thing about longevity on the throne. It tends to make people forget. When Queen Victoria died she was celebrated and lauded as a great monarch. The fact was that she was a terrible monarch. In her youth she caused political problems by refusing to have aldies associated with a particular political party among her ladies-in-waiting, even though it was custom for the monarch to be seen not to favour one political side openly. After Albert’s death just went into seclusion, which almost looked like a dereliction of duty.

  42. Harla says:

    Leaks of support for Andrew all over the place but not one drop of support leaked for Harry and Meghan during that past year. I think I’m done with this family except H&M.

    • This is exactly what’s been made even more glaringly obvious to me over the past couple days. You couldn’t put a finer point on how this family have NOT supported Meghan if you tried.

  43. I’d like to know exactly who the ‘other senior royals’ are that support Andrew. Why don’t these ‘sources’ put a name to them as they do the Queen? How do we know Charles and William don’t support him and are not just ‘shy’ of Andrew’s current bad press. I find both of them to be cowards in the choices they make about others in their lives. All we have about their opinion is gossip. Not one of them have given any real indication of their true opinion on the record one way or the other. They all attend events with him and allow themselves to be photographed next to him. The lot of them live such privileged and protected lives and have indicated over the years that they matter in a way that none of the little people do. I choose to believe Meghan does not support or believe Andrew, but my opinion is only based on her publicly expressed words and actions concerning the rights of women. I believe Harry sees the world — because of his own personal growth and time with Meghan — in a more normal way then most ‘born to it’ royals. Monarchy exists because all that support it have drunk the kool-aid that royalty is an exalted birth that is ordained by God to be more important than anyone else’s. From birth they are raised to believe that their lives and what they want counts in a way that none of ours does.

  44. Mads says:

    Who all thinks Camilla ditched Eugenie’s wedding to avoid that pervert Andrew? She does work on sex trafficking, right? Because the people I see avoiding Andrew aggrandizement (when they can) are Camilla, Harry, and Meghan.

    • morrigan01 says:

      Thank you for pointing this out. Because I kinda wonder if Camilla is going to show up to Sandringham for Christmas this year. IIRC she DID skip out last year. I think Charles would skip out too if he could, at least this year.

      Also, I find it interesting that both Charles & Camilla and Harry & Meghan are either out of the country on official business or are now on vacation there whereabouts unknown. It was said the interview has been going through negotiations for six months before it happened. I think both couples have been quite aware for some time what was coming wrt all of this.

    • RoyalBlue says:

      Interesting take on her absence. I agree it’s a possibility that both she and Meghan want nothing to do with Andrew and his shenanigans.

    • A says:

      Camilla didn’t turn up for Remembrance Day either, did she? And who was there on Remembrance Day? Andrew. Didn’t she give a similar excuse to duck out of Eugenie’s wedding too? Something about a head cold? She should really get those sinuses checked out, *WINK*

  45. Molly says:

    Mommy Monster

  46. Catting says:

    Good — only in the sense that if she’s blatantly showing her true colors, it’s a chance for people to react.

  47. Laura-j says:

    Maybe Olivia Colman could replace her next season?

  48. Sparky says:

    The Daily Mail (!) is now running an article in essence laying the blame for Andy doing the interview squarely on Fergie’s shoulders. “Insiders” have told the reporters blah, blah, blah. Still whether he was encouraged by the aide or Fergie it was a bad idea HE endorsed. Further it went badly (ha!) not only because he’s guilty as hell but he’s also a hubris filled idiot who can’t even create plausible lies.

  49. Liz version 700 says:

    Oh Daily Mail it isn’t Fergie’s fault or his secretary’s fault. It is prince pedo’s fault. He should not be doing the activities that led to the interview.

  50. Lowrider says:

    Rot starts at the top!

    Andrew is where he is because his Lizard mother enables him. She is just as rotten to the core.

  51. A says:

    Everything that is coming from the RF is just bad, bad and worse. They need to stop and recalibrate their response, because thus far, it’s been awful. The fact that none of them give a f-ck about Andrew’s actual crimes, only the fact that he got caught being “indiscreet” is bad, and it only goes downhill from there. The Queen continues to support Andrew? Charles is angry because Andrew is making the rest of them look bad, is overshadowing his New Zealand trip, and is “tarnishing the crown” he is set to inherit, rather than the fact that his feckless, disgusting brother committed a crime? Bad, bad, WORSE. So crime is okay for these people, but you shouldn’t get caught, and even if you get caught, everyone else should turn a blind eye to your crimes because you’re royalty, you can’t do anything wrong, it’s everyone else who’s wrong, not you, it’s never you, it’s just those annoying peasants who don’t have the temerity to shut the f-ck up and let you shoot them in the streets without recourse like they used to in the old days.

  52. Molly says:

    I remember when he was young, fresh faced and handsome. I think it was Orwell who said that as we age we get the face we deserve. Boy that picture at the top suggests as much.