No one knows how Prince Andrew has supported himself financially for years

Prince Andrew interview

Emily Maitlis did a good job interviewing Prince Andrew. She was prepared, she called him out in the right moments, and she mostly let Andrew hang himself with a story that made no sense. The only complaint people have about the job Maitlis did was that she didn’t ask Andrew about the money. Jeffrey Epstein “loaned” thousands of dollars to Sarah Ferguson, something which she apologized for but never confirmed that she returned. And beyond that, no one has any f–king clue how Andrew has been supporting himself for years, and by “supporting himself,” of course we mean “living large.” Andrew gets tons of freebies, free private jet travel and free vacations and all of that. But even then, his outsized lifestyle does not match his official income.

Prince Andrew’s long journey from dashing young Falklands War hero to the pasty-faced, 59-year-old Royal pariah who bumbled through Saturday’s extraordinary TV interview hinges on a simple question: what on Earth first attracted him to the billionaire paedophile Jeffrey Epstein? This rackety American financier was, after all, the living embodiment of the sort of chancer someone of the Duke’s pedigree ought to avoid.

A self-made man, whose personal fortune had been amassed in a highly-opaque fashion (rumoured, in certain circles, to have involved blackmail and money-laundering), Epstein lived like a real-life Bond villain, using private jets and helicopters to shuttle between a collection of vulgar mansions that were usually filled with very young girls of dubious provenance. His Florida home, where Andrew stayed on several occasions, presumably with police protection officers, was decorated with photographs of naked teenagers.

Yet within an extraordinarily short time of meeting this dubious character, the Prince welcomed Epstein into the Royal Family’s circle, inviting him to a birthday party at Windsor Castle, entertaining him at Balmoral and taking him shooting at Sandringham.Whatever, as the saying goes, was the Queen’s favourite son thinking? As with many old-fashioned tales of power and patronage, the answer almost certainly revolves around the one thing Epstein had which Andrew desperately coveted: money.

His entire official income, upon his retirement from the Navy, consisted of an allowance from the Queen, said these days to be around £250,000 annually, plus a Navy pension thought to provide around £20,000 per year. While the British taxpayer coughed up for ‘air miles’ Andrew to tour the globe, as the nation’s roving ‘trade ambassador’ (the Duke’s travel expenses were £4 million over his decade in the role, while his security costs were another £10 million), it would still take an awful lot more loot to keep him in the style to which he seemed accustomed.

That, of course, was where Epstein came in. The shady financier notoriously lent his private jet to the Duke — whose love of air travel famously once extended to taking a helicopter from Windsor Castle to Kent to play golf, at a cost to the public of £5,000. Meanwhile Epstein’s various homes and private island were placed at Andrew’s disposal, allowing him to live and holiday like an oligarch, for free.

[From The Daily Mail]

You can read more at the Daily Mail. Don’t get me wrong, I absolutely think Epstein had a hand in financing Andrew’s lifestyle for a time and Epstein absolutely traded private jet rides and free stays at his mansions for access to Andrew’s family and connections. But… that’s not the whole story. Andrew’s up to his neck in shady associations with even shadier oligarchs. Most telling was the sale of Sunninghill Park, the home given to him by the Queen. Andrew sold it over asking price to a Kazakh oligarch as part of some kind of quid pro quo lobbying effort. I hope the Daily Mail and other publications continue to take a deeper forensic dive into Andrew’s finances. They’ll come up with a lot more than just “Epstein loaned him money.”

Embed from Getty Images

Photos courtesy of Getty, WENN/BBC.

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

44 Responses to “No one knows how Prince Andrew has supported himself financially for years”

Comments are Closed

We close comments on older posts to fight comment spam.

  1. Rapunzel says:

    To me, this is why the BRF are protecting Andy: He’s not the only member with shady financials and they don’t want that leaking.

    • Snappyfish says:

      I remember a few years ago that Sarah, Duchess of York was caught on tape selling access to Prince Andrew to the Saudis. These two are a grifting pair extraordinaire.

      • BCity says:

        I believe Sarah was just in Saudi Arabia praising MBS’ “great leadership”. It’s just….wow.

    • Hannah says:

      That would make a lot of sense

    • Snap Happy says:

      I agree Rapunzel. It seems like someone wants to find the “good” Royal, but they all must do some shady stuff. Didn’t it just come out Anne and Zara were getting money for being “consultants?”

      • Ravine says:

        I wonder if we’ll see more of Edward and Sophie this year. They’ve been pretty scandal-free by royal standards.

    • Noodle says:

      Even some of the lesser, but well-liked royals have been caught in the pay-for-play scandals. Zara has been reported to be accepting payment from a Hong Kong business tycoon for a couple of years. I think it is common in those ranks as a way of maintaining lifestyle without actually having to do much.

    • Harla says:

      I recall reading that Princess Margaret and Princess Michael of Kent received various sorts of “payments” for attending events, such a televisions, jewelry and other such “gifts”.

    • sue denim says:

      good point — I don’t have time to check right now, but weren’t the BRF implicated in the Panama Papers?

      • Jaded says:

        The Queen’s estate invested 5 or 6 million pounds in a Caymen Islands fund – nothing illegal there but the fund then invested it in some dodgy rent-to-own firm that has a bad reputation.

    • grumpy says:

      I’m surprised no one has been caught by the UK Bribery Act which has an extraterritorial application or the US Foreign Corrupt Practices Act. Both cover ‘bribing’ government officials and royalty counts as government. Giving lavish gifts and entertainment is considered bribery if used to influence behaviours and clearly that was going on.

  2. Snap Happy says:

    That’s interesting about the decor at Epstein’s mansions. Andrew claimed he thought the girls were just staff, but what about the photos of young girls? If he was trained to spot abuse that didn’t send up red flags?

    • Mignionette says:

      Hi RPO’s would also have had to scout the property for threats. A lot of people were turning a blind eye it seems….

  3. kerwood says:

    Kickbacks. That’s how.

  4. Mignionette says:

    It feels as if that interview ‘green-lighted’ the press all over to him. Before that and the ABC expose you could tell news outlets were reluctant to come for paedo Prince. It’s now game on and Andy is open season.

    He really must have fukked someone over Royally. Can’t say that I’m not happy about this pile on. Long may it continue and hopefully the camera footage that the survivors speak of soon resurfaces.

    I don’t care who Epstein takes down from the grave, party affiliation is no longer important so long as a few coffins of white male privilege are nailed down…

    • Becks1 says:

      I think it was kind of like – “okay, we were willing to leave you (relatively) alone but if you’re going to conduct this BSC interview and put yourself out there, we’re going all in.”

      I also think the lawsuits from the Sussexes created a vacuum for the royal stories. The RRs are going easy on the Sussexes right now – relatively, Christmas plans aside – and it all contributes to this perfect storm for the press to focus on Andrew.

    • Betty says:

      love your take : )

    • ArtHistorian says:

      Andrew opened the door to closer public scrutiny himself – by doing this interview. He’s very good a sabotaging himself because he’s stupid, arrogant and entitled.

    • Ravine says:

      I think you’re right. I’m also betting most of the universities and companies now deserting him didn’t enjoy working with him in the first place (because he’s an arrogant, useless, racist, entitled idiot), and were thrilled to be handed a reason — by him, no less! — to cut ties forever.

  5. Astrid says:

    I read the Daily Mail article earlier this morning, if it’s true, damning information.

    • Mignionette says:

      They did a similar article before / around the time Epstein died and it gained very little traction. That pretty much proves the interview opened the door to all the comment and speculation.
      Until then I suspect some people still believed he was just hanging with Epstein and his degree of culpability was still in issue.

      The selling his Sunningdale home above market value has long been known about. But there is an unwritten rule with corruption in the UK – i.e. don’t go over the top and show some humility when caught with your pants down. Andy has fallen foul of the rules. I suspect that is why he kept banging on about how honourable he is, bc in reality he is far from it…..

  6. Tiffany says:

    Seriously Kaiser, your photo selection for these stories *chefs kiss*.

  7. Senator Fan says:

    I agree a forensic accounting needs to be done of him and whole family. Follow the money.

  8. Mumbles says:

    When the Daily Mail comes after you and you’re the wealthy establishment, you’re in danger, girl.

    Like, yesterday they reported that Fergie advised him to do the interview. I threw my head back and howled. Of course she would. She’s a grifty idiot who craves attention.

    • Mignionette says:

      I think that is RF PR seeking to distance themselves from the car crash. Fergie has always allowed herself to be used as an beard for Andy. She is the definition of an enabler. The RF will never be able to cut her loose.

      • Tourmaline says:

        You are so right Fergie does allow herself to be the fall guy for Andrew because she knows her reputation is crap and needs him to stay in his position. And also I think by admitting some things she takes the focus off the full scope of their mutual avarice greed and grift.

        I think that’s what happened with the original explanation for the photos of Andrew in Central Park with Epstein post jail. Fergie jumped in and said —Oh my honourable Prince Charming was just helping me with debts. Now on BBC Andrew says the reason he met with Epstein was something different. The fifteen thousand pound debt story never made any sense.

      • Mignionette says:

        The 15k was peanuts. I cannot imagine Andy has been compromising himself all these years for a measly 15k. That 15k was likely peanuts pocket money to get reporters off the real money train.

        ETA – I am guessing that Epstein used money as an inducement to get to Andy and all his other high powered Paedo chums. Why else would so many rich and powerful people clamour around him. In turn the rich and famous were Epstein’s Insurance Policies as we saw in his original sweetheart deal prison sentence in 2008.

    • Marjiscott says:

      That explains why she is the ONLY one defending his ( and her) Royal ass!

  9. MaryContrary says:

    So maybe they can’t “prove” he raped underage girls-but clearly there’s a paper trail of corruption here. Please explain again how Meghan and Harry using Elton John’s private jet is the equivalent of this level of shadiness?

  10. JanetFerber says:

    I assume Andrew has been bilking the government, as other well-known “official” grifters like Trump and Putin have been doing and may even be a billionaire (as I assume Putin is) with bank accounts in Switzerland, etc. Shiftless, worthless narcissists all.

  11. Charfromdarock says:

    I hope allllllll the dirt comes out.

  12. HK9 says:

    As this goes on, it’s getting shadier and shadier to the point I can barely see.

  13. Ponytail says:

    “what on Earth first attracted him to the billionaire paedophile Jeffrey Epstein?”

    Doesn’t this remind anyone of Mrs Merton’s question to Jackie McGee – “what first attracted you to the millionaire Paul Daniels?”. The answer is certainly just as obvious!

  14. RoyalBlue says:

    Ahhh now we are getting down to the brass tacks. That’s how you catch them. Follow the money and you will see he is possibly one of the most corrupt members of the firm.

    • Noodle says:

      I have a sneaking suspicion one of the reasons why the RF is “circling the wagons” is because they are ALL complicit in these pay-for-play schemes. If he goes down, the net will cast much wider…

      • RoyalBlue says:

        Indeed. It’s not what they are saying that’s the problem; it’s what they are not saying. I have always felt this living the royal life is not all it appears to be. The men in grey who control the purse strings are really really stingy and will see to it that the Firm thrives. There is no Free for all with the crown’s money. None of them gets to dip willy nilly into the coffers. so the crux of the matter is they are only rich in appearance only but poor in access to use the to cumulate wealth beyond inheritance, they need to work (which none of them want to do) or accept corrupt gifts. For this Andy should be charged with criminal misconduct

    • Mo says:

      One of the things that has been completely ignored in the Brexit mess is that there is a new EU law that goes into effect Jan. 1, 2020 which says that all EU companies/residents must report any off shore bank accounts and other assets.

      And you wonder why all these rich fools want to drive the country into the ditch. They have all their assets overseas and think they’ll come out of it OK.

  15. Elle says:

    “Epstein lived like a real-life Bond villain, using private jets and helicopters to shuttle between a collection of vulgar mansions that were usually filled with very young girls of dubious provenance.”

    “Dubious provenance” – talking about “very young girls” extremely inappropriately here. They get worse shade than “the villain,” who is compared to Bond.


    • lisa says:

      “dubious provenance” simply means they were woo’ed there illegally (they were coerced).

    • Jane'sWastedTalent says:

      And they’re not comparing him to Bond, but to ‘a Bond villain.’ So in broad strokes, a psychopath. And they call him vulgar (his houses, but same difference).

  16. Andrea says:

    I don’t understand why you would break up a friendship in person UNLESS they had dirt on you. I think he did on Andrew and thus, there had to be an in person discussion. I also believe Epstein was funding Andrew for some reason. Any ideas?

  17. celialarson12 says:

    Personally I believe the only regret the BRF has about the Andrew -Epstein issue is that he has been shamed into facing some consequences. Watch this space, you will soon see the Queen riding , doing events with Andrew in private and semi private events….. message being given- your peasant outcry may have forced him to step down from royal duties but as a monarch Andrew has her full support.

  18. Golly Gee says:

    “pasty-faced pariah” LOLOL!! Stan Lee couldn’t have said it better. I find the Daily Mail loathsome, but they sure know how to add color to a story.