Will Prince Charles strip Andrew of all royal duties & luxuries once Charles is king?

The Prince Of Wales Visits Herefordshire

Prince Charles is currently in New Zealand on a royal tour with the Duchess of Cornwall. They were there this past weekend, when Prince Andrew’s trainwreck BBC interview aired. Charles is reportedly furious that the national and international conversation is about Andrew and not his Kiwi tour. But… Charles is usually upset that his travels aren’t reported on with the same kind of consistency as his sons’ travels. That’s nothing new. And Charles has been beefing with Andrew for years now, if not decades. Charles has long known that Andrew is an absolute moron, and the BBC interview debacle has just proven that Charles was right all along. Who comes out of the catastrophe smelling like a rose? Charles, yet again. So obviously, there’s talk that when Charles becomes king, he will shut down his brother’s status and “cancel” him completely. From the Daily Beast:

Charles is mad about Andrew overshadowing him: “Charles’ jealous streak is well known,” one friend of the family told The Daily Beast, “I can’t imagine he’ll be anything less than absolutely bloody furious about this.”

Charles will strip Andrew of his duties: “Charles does not want to inherit a crown that has been tarnished, scratched, and dented by a fresh round of scandals,” said royal writer Christopher Andersen. “Once he is king, he will almost certainly read Andrew the riot act, if he hasn’t already, strip him of many of his duties and responsibilities, and put him under the royal equivalent of might loosely be described as house arrest—a life of unlimited luxury and pomp, of course, but under the reign of Charles III, the Duke of York’s freedom to pursue his personal appetites will be significantly curtailed.”

Penny Junor says Charles will probably avoid stripping Andrew of his HRH status: “That would be pretty unthinkable. However it’s perfectly possible that he might not be given too many royal jobs and engagements. But his family do think that he is innocent of the underlying charge.”

Charles was forward-thinking once again: Undeniably, Charles’s assessment that having Andrew involved in the inner circle of family was of no benefit to The Firm has been proved absolutely spot on. This crisis would be much, much worse for the royals if Andrew still had a senior and highly visible role. The PR and crisis management consultant Mark Borkowski told The Daily Beast: “He hasn’t had a major role in public life since about 2011, but the reason he did this interview was to try and carry on with the little bit of public life he still has.”

Andrew is so useless: Borkowski says the fact that KPMG stopped sponsoring Pitch At The Palace in October gives a clue as to how the walls have been steadily closing in on Andrew’s existence: “He is reliant on his status and royal connections to wander around giving people completely useless advice about business entrepreneurship.” Andersen thinks that the Queen and Charles will be angry with Andrew for once again dragging the royal family into a scandal, “but frankly, I don’t think either of them are particularly appalled by Andrew’s underlying behavior. They are appalled by the fact that he was reckless enough to get caught. With all the other problems going on inside The Firm right now—the rift between William and Harry, Megan Markle’s obvious unhappiness—the revelations concerning Andrew and Epstein are just tossing more gasoline on the fire. Simply put, the monarchy is starting to look a lot shakier than it did just one year ago—and Andrew’s fumbled attempts at explaining away his shocking private life aren’t helping.”

[From The Daily Beast]

I sometimes do a game-theory in my head about whether Charles is the puppet-master, pulling everyone’s strings in the royal family. Does it sort of benefit Charles if his sons are at odds with each other? Does it benefit Charles that William and Kate look lazy, superficial and unprepared? Does it benefit Charles that Harry & Meghan – arguably the two “star power” royals – seem so unhappy, unhappy enough to leave the UK? Does it benefit Charles that Andrew is seen as such a buffoon and a dull, rapist pervert? Does it benefit Charles that he seems like the only steady, hard-working and undramatic person in the family? But how much is Charles actually *doing* to make all of this happen?

As for the crux of the immediate issue – Andrew being stupid, gross and criminal – I sincerely hope that there is a larger conversation IMMEDIATELY about Andrew being stripped of everything royal and royal-adjacent. No more balcony trips with mummy, no more HRH, no more bread-and-butter royal appearances, no more royal patronages. None of it.

Trooping the Colour Ceremony, London, UK - 8 Jun 2019

Trooping the Colour Ceremony, London, UK - 8 Jun 2019

Photos courtesy of WENN.

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

93 Responses to “Will Prince Charles strip Andrew of all royal duties & luxuries once Charles is king?”

Comments are Closed

We close comments on older posts to fight comment spam.

  1. Eliza says:

    Pre- scandal that was always the plan. Retire the Queens cousins. And retire his siblings. Leaving just him and his children as the “working” royals doing the day to day.

    • BayTampaBay says:

      I think Chucky always planned on keeping Anne around in the streamlined working Royal Family as Anne is just too respected by John Q. Public.

      • Lauren says:

        She’s also a work horse.

        I could also see him keeping Edward and Sophie. Those two work a lot, too, and hadn’t done anything controversial in a long, long time (at least as far as I have heard).

        The cousins will be dropped for money reasons (and they’re all old now, so they aren’t going to see it as a big deal) and Andrew, because he’s Andrew.

      • BayTampaBay says:

        “She’s also a work horse.”

        Yes! Also, Anne prefers the “bread-and-butter” engagements as a way to interact with the public and make a lasting positive impression.

        I have a friend who has three family members that each have a picture of themselves with Anne presenting them some local award. My friend says these picture (which are housed in expensive silver frames) have a “place of pride” on the piano in the drawing room of the families homes.

      • notasugarhere says:

        The Queen’s former private secretary lobbied to keep Edward and Sophie as transition royals. He was retired soon after, not necessarily willingly. Keeping E&S isn’t part of Charles’s plan.

        Charles cannot control Anne, but he can try to control Andrew, Edward, and Sophie. The Gloucesters can do a handful of engagements and keep their new, smaller place at KP paid by taxpayers. Alexandra has the lease on Thatched House, so she can afford to lose her free London place at SJP. But she was one of the two who lobbied the Queen to keep precendent for born royals (Anne was the other one). I’m not sure she’ll go quietly. Duke of Kent loses his free lease at KP if he stops working and he has no outside home.

      • Eliza says:

        I think he’ll get rid of Anne as an “official” working royal but I think her charities will still work with her. She’ll just not be paid via the crown.

      • Algernon says:

        @ notsugarhere

        Isn’t Alexandra halfway to retired already?

      • notasugarhere says:

        Eliza, if Anne stops being an official working royal, she has to pay all of her security, all Household costs, and all security for her estate herself. And she loses her townhouse at SJP. She’s not going anywhere.

        In January of this year, Buckingham Palace denied Alexandra was retiring. She is patron to 100+ organizations. Engagement totals:
        2014 – 86
        2015 – 88
        2016 – 88
        2017 – 65
        2018 – 67

        She was diagnosed with polymyalgia rheumatica in 2013, broke her wrist in a bad fall in 2017, and had another extended medical issue starting September 2018.

        She has her outside home where she lives most of the time, so it isn’t a problem if she loses a small overnight apartment at SJP. Her cost to taxpayers is pretty low. She may be doing engagements out of duty and enjoyment, because it is what she’s done for decades.

        The ones who have outside homes might retire, but I don’t see Charles throwing the elders (Gloucesters, Duke of Kent) out of their taxpayer-funded homes. If they aren’t doing engagements, he has to pay their expenses out of his private pocket.

      • BayTampaBay says:

        @nota, I agree with you, The Princess Royal is not going anywhere except to more “bread and butter” engagements.

        With regards to Princess Alexandria of Kent, she has been a working Royal all her life so let her keep her SJP apartment. I am not a British tax payer so I really have no business saying this but why would you throw someone out of their home upon retirement when they have done nothing but what QEII ask and did it rather well.

      • notasugarhere says:

        Alexandra does have her own home, her late husband bought the Crown Estate lease for Thatched House for decades. She has a small place at SJP for central London overnights, dressing for London evening engagements, etc.

        Duke of Kent is the one who has no outside home, so he’d lose Wren Cottage at Kensington Palace. Next door to Eugenie and Jack.

      • BayTampaBay says:

        nota, Does not the Duke of Gloucester have his country house rented/leased out long term to some antique dealer? I think I read somewhere that he did.

      • notasugarhere says:

        I think he does, but at least he owns it while Duke of Kent owns no private home. Gloucesters have plenty of money and 6-7 gorgeous tiaras that left the BRF when Queen Mary gave them personally to that line. Duke of Kent doesn’t have money and lives off what he gets from the Sovereign Grant. When he and the Duchess were still together, they used to live at Anmer Hall grace-and-favour years ago. That house has cycled through plenty of people. Kents. Van Cutsems. Kitchen designers. W&K.

      • Rachael says:

        “I think Chucky always planned on keeping Anne around in the streamlined working Royal Family as Anne is just too respected by John Q. Public.”

        That, and he’s probably a bit scared of her.

      • A says:

        @Bay, is Anne respected by the public though? I think most people would struggle to say one bad thing about her. But I don’t think the public actually cares very much about Anne at all. She’s basically a nonentity for a lot of people at this point, so they’re ambivalent more often than not. She commands respect, certainly, in some quarters, but she’s not exactly in the spotlight, and I don’t think she’d care to be, if she were offered the choice.

        I think it’d be very difficult for Charles to justify keeping Anne and Edward in the official payroll while cutting Andrew out without a good enough reason. Hence why I think he came up with the whole “get rid of all the siblings wholesale” idea in the first place. It’s cleaner, it’s easier to explain, it looks better to the public, etc. Otherwise, just getting rid of Andrew would mean having to answer uncomfortable questions about why, which Charles would likely want to avoid entirely.

      • Jane'sWastedTalent says:

        … until now.

  2. Becklu says:

    I think Charles is behind a lot of the media reports, I finished season 3 of the Crown and while I know it is a tv show I do think somewhere along the way Charles was warned to beware and told to fight. I also think the Camilla thing has caused endless resentment and he’s going to fight back. I also think since he has really never been a “star” publicly or within the family there is a lot of work to make him the star.

    Personally I think he will strip Andrew of his HRH title, I think he will do it to the york daughters too- and I think Andrew knows this and is stockpiling money to prepare.

    I will say this Pitch thing sounds like a great cause and it is to bad it’s stopping because of Andrew and you couldn’t give it to anyone now because Andrew tainted it.

    • Eliza says:

      If he’s purposely keeping stories alive of his brother engaging in acts with pedos and forced sex slaves then good on him. I hope they don’t die out until he is behind bars. But I highly doubt it, because it damages the entire family and makes people question why there are royals at all especially when they act above the law.

      • Becklu says:

        Oh the Andrew stuff- no I don’t think Charles is doing that because like you said it endangers the royal family. But I believe that 99% of the stuff about The Cambridge and Sussex couples come from Andrew, the York family and Charles. I know that isn’t popular here but I really think it is.

      • Bella DuPont says:

        @ Becklu

        It would help if you gave some solid arguments as to *why or how* you’ve come to that conclusion…..

      • Becklu says:

        @bella

        I honestly don’t have to as no one has solid arguments to why they believe William and Kate are the root of all evil. So there is no reason to be rude since I am stating my opinion just like everyone else and none of us know what is happening.

        But sure Harry and Meghan are quite chummy and warm with Kate- that can’t be said for Charles, William or Andrew.

        Charles is notoriously jealous and doesn’t like being overshadowed. He benefits if people are mad at his children because he looks like a stable force and the stability is an asset.

        Also Andrew has form destroying behavior he needs to hide and Diana’s sons and their wives are great fodder.

      • Becks1 says:

        William and Kate have benefited significantly more from the smear campaign against Meghan than any other royal. And in some ways it looks like Charles is an uninvolved father who doesn’t care if his sons are feuding and cant stand each other, so I just don’t buy that he’s behind this anti-Meghan campaign 100%.

        My guess is that it started with a few leaks from various camps – Yorks, KP, Charles – and then it started to gather steam and just.didnt.stop and I think that was because W&K kept feeding/encouraging it.

      • notasugarhere says:

        I agree, Becks1. The ‘fragile’ comment out of William’s office, the Shipman(?) article, the radio silence about Rose Hanbury. W&K are benefiting too much from all of this to be innocent.

      • Monicack says:

        I have always believed Charles to be responsible for the palace oriented attacks on the Sussexes to the credit of his heir. I think if Harry ever gets proof of this it will break his heart.
        Charles always wins in the end. Strong women aren’t his thing. Streamlining the monarchy is. Concentrating power, influence and focus on the heir is a tradition he will uphold with his dying breath.

      • VS says:

        Isn’t it amazing how W&K gets so much benefit of the doubt? I guess the FlyBe fiasco was them being cute……..I wonder what they’d do if they could be nasty!!!
        I also wonder, what @Becklu would say had H&M done a stunt like the FlyBe nonsense……

      • Nic919 says:

        Until the Flybe stunt, a lot of the stories leaking could have been attributed to Charles, Andrew or elsewhere. The Flybe stunt can’t be ignored and then add the dumb fragile comments about Harry and Tim Shipman reporting that William and his courtiers have been involved all along and it is undeniable that William is taking advantage of the media’s anti Sussex penchant.

    • noway says:

      The Crown season 3 is so good, and I agree with you but only partially. I think he won’t strip Andrew of his title, I think he will do pretty much what they did to King Edward, but this time for a just reason. Plus, I think he will be able to reside in the UK. Although, I think he might leave for a while somewhere just out of site.

      On another note, I think Anne and Edward will sort of retire from royal duties. I think they will appear at big family things whereas I believe Andrew probably won’t after the Queen is deceased. They might be paid something by the monarchy, but it will be greatly reduced. Plus, I think they will keep their housing and servants which is a big deal.

      • Arpeggi says:

        Euh… King Edward was kicked out of the family/UK because he was collaborating with the Nazi government in Germany and was a Nazi sympathizer: it was an excellent reason! Using Wallis’ divorcee status was an excuse, but it’s quite understood now that the British government worked really hard to find a reason to get him to abdicate as intelligence reports throughout the 30s were quite alarming . And then during the war they had to send him as far away as possible because he was sending information to the Nazi and was trying to deal with Hitler to overthrow his brother and take back the crown. I think we can fairly say he was a despicable human

      • Arpeggi, thank you! My jaw dropped to the floor from that comment about having a “just reason” this time… Lol

    • Mignionette says:

      I am guessing that William will become the next Pitch@ThePalace Ambassador. It’s a position with high visibility which would improve Bill’s popularity with the “right set” of people.

      Something he desperately needs in the absence of his own initiatives. Notice that Bill’s engagements have increasingly being pushed towards the A-Political statesman.

      • Becklu says:

        I hope someone that can rehabilitate the image does get it because it sounds valuable. So I would hate to see it die because Andrew is horrifying.

      • Mignionette says:

        @Becklu – I am guessing it will go to Bill unfortunately. Which is sad bc he is a lazy MOFO and there is really no one else who would be able to make head or tail of it. If the RF really wanted to show progress, they’d hand it off to a female Royal but again Kate is a lazy MOFO also. Again that is sad as it would dovetail well with her women in business patronage.

      • Becklu says:

        Oh I like that idea of it going to a woman! They won’t do that you’re probably right but it would be amazing and maybe help encourage more women to compete for that (although fully admit I have no idea if lack of women in entrepreneurial roles is an issue in the UK).

        But I hope you are right and someone is given it. I also hope Charles just rids is of the york family

      • notasugarhere says:

        Kate doesn’t have a women in business patronage, Sophie does.

    • insertpunhere says:

      Two disclaimers before chiming in: I’m from the US, and I’ve never really considered this before/don’t have a Strongly Held Opinion.

      Having said that, I think Becklu has a point here. My mother has some pretty significant…issues, and one of the things she does is pit people against each other. As long as she’s got everyone else at each other’s throats, she’s the favorite. If my sister and I aren’t getting along, she knows that we’ll both focus more on her. It seems like this is just my mother’s behavior on a much grander scale because of the money and attention they all get. As long as Charles has everyone focused on Andrew’s uselessness, Harry’s lack of commitment to the UK (willing to jump ship just because his divorcee wife is unhappy? GASP), and Will and Kate’s apparent attempts to make Harry and Meghan look bad, Charles looks great by comparison. He doesn’t actually have to do better, just appear to do better.

      Royals: they’re dysfunctional just like us.

      • Kristina says:

        @insertpun I agree. Didn’t some of the first identified leaks come from the author of Charles’ biography? I really think it’s him at the center, with some made-up tabloid bs and disgruntled random courtiers thrown in.

      • Jane'sWastedTalent says:

        I don’t, because Charles was riding a new wave of public (and international) approval, for appearing as Meghan’s protector walking her down the aisle.

  3. Digital Unicorn says:

    Chuck will totally force Andrew out of the picture when he becomes King, he has no choice as his mother refuses to do anything about what Andrew has done. Charles will have to take action to preserve the Monarchy, no doubt about that but the damage that he has to repair all depends on what additional evidence is released in the New Year.

    Andrew is being ditched by everyone who has previously been associated with him, Outward Bound are voting on whether to ditch him and the students of Uni of Huddersfield are campaigning to get rid of him as Chancellor of the Uni. The Queen HAS TO DO SOMETHING. I hope she doesn’t do any more pap strolls with him, esp coming out of church on boxing day.

    • Chelle says:

      Agree. He has to protect their flank. It’s what a leader does. He won’t sacrifice the whole for one of its parts.

    • noway says:

      In fairness, the Queen did reduce Andrew’s roles previously especially his trade position, and probably due to Charles’ egging on. Still, the Queen does take a while to do things, so I wouldn’t give up hope on this. It would be easier if the Queen starts the process than leaving it to Charles or William depending on how it goes. Wouldn’t it be interesting if William was the one to be King, and yes I realize that means Charles also dies, but what would he do with his Uncle. I have never got a real good feel on how either William or Harry feel about Andrew. I don’t think anyone will strip HRH title to be honest. No precedent for that really with a higher royal. Keep in mind King Edward abdicated, but kept HRH status and that was in the day a huge deal.

      • Ainsley7 says:

        The Queen didn’t reduce his role. Parliament made him step down. It wasn’t just because of Epstein either. He’s also never met a shady dictator or arms dealer that he didn’t like.

      • Tourmaline says:

        @Ainsley7 definitely the shady buddies go way beyond Jeffrey Epstein. Why look at Fergie just this week kissing up to MBS in Saudi Arabia. It’s the family hobby and the family grift.

  4. Myriam says:

    Correct me if I’m wrong but weren’t there rumors years ago, pre-Epstein scandal, that he would strip Andrew and Beatrice and Eugenie of their royal duties, anyway?

    • Coz' says:

      Yes. But stripping him of the HRH title is quite something else entirely.

      • Becklu says:

        Sorry this is probably a stupid question but what is the difference? Didn’t Sweden or somewhere just do it?

      • bucketbot says:

        @Becklu

        I’ll try.
        Actively participating in royal duties allows royal members to live in the taxpayer funded homes as well as allows some income from the royal purse+ special treatment abroad,etc.

        Having a royal HRH in itself means nothing to the the average person, but they do have connections with the British aristocratic set who have money. Any foreigner moneybags who wants to set up anything in the UK can become friends with royal adjacents (those with some or the other minor titles) who will help them with the same for some payment, for course.

      • morrigan01 says:

        @Becklu

        I think having an HRH is a status thing. Wallis Simpson was never given an HRH even though the was the Duchess of Windsor. Apparently Edward, her husband, lobbied all the time for her to get an HRH to no avail.

        Also, it was seen as a big deal when Diana was stipped of her HRH too. Again, it seemed to be more of a status thing more than anything else.

    • notasugarhere says:

      Beatrice and Eugenie have no royal duties and have never been official working royals. They receive no taxpayer funding for their housing or for security. Any charity work they do, they are doing volunteer. That is one of Andrew’s big complaints, that his daughters aren’t working royals supported by the taxpayers. He might use it as a bargaining chip to go quietly.

      • Tourmaline says:

        I don’t think they have to make any bargains with Andrew, he is not in any position to drive a bargain. No way is Charles going to go along with having Beatrice and Eugenie supported as working royals for the next 60 or so years.

      • Golly Gee says:

        He’s looking at going quietly in the rearview mirror. That ship has sailed. With everything coming out about him from all sides, I don’t think he has any bargaining chips — unless he’s got blackmail info on other Royals.

      • BayTampaBay says:

        @Tourmaline, But Andrew is in a position to cause much trouble as he knows many secrets and the real truth about many things we here at Celebitchy only guess at.

  5. Rapunzel says:

    This may not be Charles’ decision to make. If Andrew becomes so toxic that nobody wants to be involved with him, Chuck may have no choice but to cut and run. Charles may have to do it to save himself.

  6. Guest says:

    Lol when is that? It could be yrs from now. No the royal family deserves andrew and whatever bs comes with him.

  7. S808 says:

    He’s always planned on downsizing the monarchy and this is the perfect excuse to do so (not that he needed one). The Queen should be the one to strip Andrew of his title but since she won’t, I’m sure Charles will. Hopefully Andrew doesn’t try and blackmail since he doesn’t have anything to lose at this point.

    • BayTampaBay says:

      I agree with a previous poster that Andrew will not be stripped of his HRH and neither will his daughters. Andrew will basically be put out to pasture via house arrest with home confinement. He will not be able to do anything but schitt & sneeze without proper permission.

      • Mignionette says:

        schitt and sneeze – I love it….

      • Becks1 says:

        @Bay – that’s exactly what I think is going to happen. They’ll maintain their titles (he’s def not taking away B&E’s titles) but Andrew will ride off into the royal sunset and I doubt we will see him at major events again. (once Charles becomes king, OR if Charles gets through to his mother, which I find doubtful.)

      • Mignionette says:

        Let’s assume they pack him off to some grace and favour mansion with a comfortable income, what happens at events like TOTC , will he be on the balcony? Will be be allowed to maintain his social media and a office?

      • BayTampaBay says:

        @Mignionette, Andrew has I believe a 99 year lease on Royal Lodge so he does not need to be packed off anywhere. Chucky hates Buckingham Palace so I am sure Charles III will allow Andrew to keep his apartment there.

        No, Andrew will not be on the Balcony for TOTC, much like Prince Philip is no longer there.

    • Tourmaline says:

      If Andrew loses Pitch at the Palace then it is pretty much curtains for him, as far as I can tell that is the main thing he has going. This quote from the Daily Beast was so on point: “He is reliant on his status and royal connections to wander around giving people completely useless advice about business entrepreneurship.”

      I doubt that Charles is “jealous” of Andrew as the article claims, for heavens sakes why would he be? Also the wording that Charles disinherited Andrew by light of not having him on the 2012 Jubilee balcony seems quite the exaggeration, Anne and Edward were not there either, did Charles disinherit them?

  8. Valiantly Varnished says:

    One can only hope. And that would be the smart thing to do.

  9. My3cents says:

    Yup. Charles is the three eyed raven.

  10. Ann says:

    I don’t pay much attention to the BRF but this family is pretty trashy, no? All these various reactions are related to the PR hit and nothing about the shame and disappointment they should all feel towards Prince Andrew. Like it’d have been perfectly fine for him to be a pedophile as long as he’s not caught? It’s disgusting. I can’t think about this much more because it really pisses me off. The level of depravity that wealth on this scale can buy is soul crushing.

  11. TheOriginalMia says:

    Andrew won’t lose his privileges, but he probably will be exiled during Charles’ reign. He can’t do anything now because of the Queen, but Andrew has to know his days on the balcony are numbered.

    • Golly Gee says:

      Your comment makes me think: Survivor: Royal Family Edition. Who will be voted off next? (A Royal is voted off via the balcony where they are all gathered waiting for the verdict.) Who will make it to the end and be crowned?

      • notasugarhere says:

        I’m imagining this done in their tacky outfits from It’s A Royal Knockout, the silly tv event they did for charity. All of their tattered velvet robes and feathered hats torn apart to be used to catch fish, filter water, make tents.

  12. emmy says:

    IF this is all an ugly family fight, I don’t see any potential winners. Really. None of them look great right now and the only ones who cannot be blamed are Harry and Meghan. Except they work too much I guess? That was a funny attempt yesterday, I have to say.

    Nobody has ever clamored for Chaz to be King and this isn’t helping at all. The entire family looks useless.

    If anyone needs a laugh, look at Pedo Andy’s Twitter pic. The header. And pay attention to who looks ridiculous in it. Tin foil hat says that’s not an accident.

    • Lady D says:

      William and Kate? They both have their mouths wide open. Or Charles, because of his squint? Who do you think looks ridiculous in this pic? Andrew certainly looks front and centre in this picture.

      • emmy says:

        Yes, them. Of course Andrew looks great. The Queen looks good. I just laughed so hard at Chuck and Will/Kate.

  13. Sojaschnitzel says:

    “the Duke of York’s freedom to pursue his personal appetites will be significantly curtailed”
    So… a quota? Only one minor per month? Or age limits? Only 14+? Or maybe even 16+?
    Sorry but that’s just such a bad phrasing. You don’t freaking curtail raping minors, you make it the f*** stop. Also.. “personal appetites”.. it doesn’t get more disgusting than that.
    *shakes head in disbelief*

  14. sorry too much coffee duplicates again

  15. Murphy says:

    I think he should strip him of the Dukedom but he can’t take his Princely title-it’s a birth right.

  16. Mignionette says:

    I agree emmy. Standing back this whole mess appears to have been well orchestrated by Chuck as he is the only one who has not been smeared or affected.

    Objectively looking at the facts this is what has transpired over the last two years;
    1. Prince Philip looks like a doddering old fool who had to surrender his licence to his own wife. So aside from retirement he is now effectively invisible in the order of things.
    2. Lizzy looks like an incompetent old Bat who will even abandon her principles of the Crown first for her own husband.
    3. Andrew has now been outed publicly to the world as a Paedo. He is also un-repentant about his actions and has hemorrhaged any industry support he may have had in all quarters. Even his chummy RR friends whom he fed smears to are publicly denouncing him.
    4. Billy is running scared about his affairs and Rose bushes. 5. Katie Keen is experiencing a resurgence in fortunes at the expense of Meghan, but we all know she is a stepford wife who tolerates her lying cheating toe rag of a husband,
    6. Meghan and Harry have been dragged to hell and back and are now taking a well earned rest for daring to be hardworking and popular for non establishment right wing nuts and paedophile enablers.

    The only person who has escaped unscathed is CHUCK (and Camilla). Chuck has been mysteriously under the radar and away doing things when sh*t blows up with other members of the family.

    This is all Chuck. He is preparing the way for his Regency and eventual accession.

    • Golly Gee says:

      Don’t underestimate how much the courtiers may be involved. Their prime objective is to protect and promote the next king, who they see as the upholder and continuation of the monarchy. Whether at his direction or not, who knows. At best he turns a blind eye, and at worst he is directing them. The problem with this approach is that while he may look all shiny; exposing the underbelly of the royals’ could hasten the monarchy’s demise rather than protect it.

    • A says:

      Except Charles doesn’t look good in this at all. He looks pretty fcking bad actually. If the truth is that he only cares about this insofar as it affects HIS image and HIS position and HIS future in the RF, which is pretty much what that Daily Beast article has stated, then he comes out looking like a total d-ck who’s only concerned about his own appearances and the reputation of the royal family, which is remarkably selfish and particularly disgusting and mercenary given that quite a bit of the public sympathy is actually with the victims of Jeffrey Epstein/Prince Andrew.

      Why the f-ck would he risk putting all of this out there when it could blow up spectacularly in his face? Especially at a time when he is not even at home to co-ordinate an appropriate response? And let’s not forget, Andrew is the one who gave that interview. He is not the type of person who sits around taking orders from Charles. If Charles is behind this, I’d be REALLY curious to know just how he planted the idea for this interview into Andrew’s head. Also, this partnership with the BBC had been something that was in the works for over a year, well before Epstein was arrested again and all of this stuff spilled back out into the open. Unless Charles was the mastermind behind Epstein getting arrested again, all because he wanted to get his idiot younger brother out of the picture, the chances are that he’s not the one responsible for any of this stuff. His strengths are not in engineering situations, only in how to take advantage of them for his own benefit, and that’s honestly something that we’ll only see in the weeks coming up.

      Also, just wanted to add, Andrew gave this dipsh-t interview at a time when Charles was specifically out of the country. I think that was entirely on purpose, and it was because he knew that Charles would put the kibosh on it somehow if he were actually around.

  17. Sarah says:

    Meh. I don’t trust any member of this god-awful family. They all have skeletons and they are all shady – although not to the extend of No Sweaty Andy.
    Plus, nobody wants to give the impression that members of the Firm are actually accountable to the public. What’s next? Expecting them to work real jobs and pay rent?

  18. crogirl says:

    ” I don’t think either of them are particularly appalled by Andrew’s underlying behavior. They are appalled by the fact that he was reckless enough to get caught”

    This 100%, neither queen, Charles or any family member is apalled by Andrew’s actions. They are all the same.

  19. Mumbles says:

    Charles is notoriously prickly but I don’t think he’s fomenting discontent between his sons or leaking to the press. They’re his sons and by all accounts he loves them tremendously. A person’s realationship to their child is of a different nature than with their sibling. Now, could it be someone on Charles’ “team”, a senior aide? Sure, I guess. But he doesn’t need to start trouble between William and Harry, when William seems happy to do it himself.

    • Betsy says:

      I agree. Disagreement between his sons doesn’t make him look any better, and so far I haven’t seen him look like a hero since the wedding.

  20. Coco says:

    I’ve been thinking how much older Charles looks compared to Andrew, and chalked it up to the pressures of the heir versus the privileges of the favorite. I didn’t realize there’s more than a decade between them! Due to that, and the circumstances of Charles’s childhood training to be king, I doubt they spent much time together growing up. It doesn’t seem like they can have much of a brotherly bond. I don’t think Charles would have any qualms about cutting off Andrew.. (Charles, in my opinion, looks very old and unhealthy for 70, considering he has access to the best of everything.)

  21. Jaded says:

    This gong show has got to the point where it won’t simply fade away. I think Charles, as much as he likes to stick his head in the sand about family scandals (he learned his lesson early on with Diana), is probably having some quiet come-to-Jesus meetings with mummy on how to discreetly remove Prince Pervert from most of his public duties. One by one logos of brands including KPMG, AstraZeneca, Barclays, Cisco, Standard Chartered and Bosch have been removed from his website, and Pitch@Palace is backing off as well. This is serious stuff. I think Andrew’s exile should be done as quickly as possible, no more public appearances or interviews, just make it surgical and permanent. He has become a pariah to the BRF.

    • A says:

      It could very well just be that even if the Queen or Charles don’t pull the plug on Andrew’s public life, everyone else in his orbit will. The press is really bad this time around. It’s basically poisonous for any brand or charity to be associated with Andrew and soon enough, no one will bother partnering with him or requesting his presence for charity gigs and stuff like that. He could be forced into an early retirement whether he or the Queen likes it or not.

  22. notasugarhere says:

    I don’t see Charles behind this. He needs his line beloved, seen as the only working royals. He needs them to look like a united team. He has failed at raising his heir to care about the world around him. He has failed to step up and protect his new DIL, when he got such good PR around the wedding. Now he looks like an inept CEO of a failing company, who cannot control the vice presidents and their departments.

  23. Hanahk says:

    Charles’ skin looks so sore, I’m wincing looking at it.

  24. A says:

    “I don’t think either of them are particularly appalled by Andrew’s underlying behavior. They are appalled by the fact that he was reckless enough to get caught.”

    This is the thing that, in my eyes, makes the RF entirely nonredeemable at this point. Honestly, if this is the attitude that they sincerely have, then they’re in for a rude, depressing awakening. The fact that they honestly only care about the fact that he got caught, and not the fact that he was abusing teenaged sex-trafficking victims is appalling. Not only are they not reading the room at ALL, their attitude is just entirely despicable. They would have been fine with Andrew having sex with underage sex-trafficked girls as long as he was quiet about it. This is the family that the British people pay to keep around. This group of people with this attitude.

  25. celes says:

    This is what the Queen did when problems first arose over Andrew’s friendship with Epstein – as well as other things. She gave him a medal:
    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/theroyalfamily/8414608/Queens-award-for-Duke-of-York-sends-message-to-critics.html

  26. faithovercomes13 says:

    In all of the discussions I have read, one question keeps coming to my mind. If Charles were to downsize the royal family, how would that affect Harry eventually? At some point, he would be in the same place as Anne & Edward, a sibling moving further down the line of succession. Also, as has been done in other royal houses, does anyone think Charles might pare down the HRH statuses and only allow them to his siblings who have them now & his children but not any future generations that are not in direct line to the throne? I get muddied in my thinking on how it would work for Charlotte & Louis in years to come. Silly speculation that facsinates me nonetheless.