Prince Charles might try to force the Queen to retire at the age of 95?

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

Prince Charles arrived back in England on Monday after his tour of New Zealand and the Solomon Islands. The UK tabloids have been pushing the “showdown” narrative, as if Charles was going to make a beeline to Windsor to personally scream at Prince Andrew. Which might happen, who knows, but it doesn’t seem to have happened yet. Instead, Charles went directly to Sandringham to visit his father, Prince Philip, who has retired to Wood Farm on the Sandringham estate.

The Prince of Wales arrived at Sandringham yesterday to discuss the continuing fall-out from Prince Andrew’s disastrous television interview with his father. Charles headed straight to the Queen’s Norfolk estate after landing in the UK from an official tour of New Zealand and the Solomon Islands to visit the elderly royal. Philip, 98, spends most of his time at Wood Farm, a small residence on the estate nowadays and it is understood that the heir to the throne will spend several days with the increasingly frail prince.

Many courtiers feel that since the Queen’s husband, who used to rule his family with an iron fist, retired from public life, ‘discipline’ within the royal family has not been what it should be – hence Andrew’s virtually autonomous decision to go ahead with his disastrous Newsnight interview over his controversial friendship with paedophile Jeffrey Epstein. It’s is believed that Charles will seek his father’s counsel over what the family should do next as well as spend a few days together, enjoying each other’s company.

[From The Daily Mail]

I wonder about this. I mean, I believe that Charles is spending a few days with his father and I don’t doubt that they’re discussing Andrew. But it feels like they’re probably discussing some other issues too, like…the Queen and her many failures this year, with the Andrew debacle only being the latest. There’s only so many times that people can claim that the Queen “didn’t know” or “she got hoodwinked” before people start to wonder if Her Maj just lives in a state of naive oblivion to what’s happening around her, and if that’s the case (hint: it is not), then why is she the g–damn unelected head of state? Speaking of, the Sun says Charles may use this Andrew catastrophe to insist that the Queen “retire” at 95.

If it wasn’t Prince Charles who actually pulled the trigger to sack wayward brother Andrew in the wake of the Epstein scandal, he certainly loaded the gun. It was left to the Queen to deliver the ultimate coup de grace last week, banning the Duke of York from royal duties, possibly forever. And the axing of her favourite son signalled what could be her last major act of a reign that is fast coming to a close with typical quiet dignity. Now Charles, as king-in-waiting, is the one effectively pulling the strings to protect the Crown.

His key role in Andrew’s brutal removal is the latest indication of a transition process from mother to son — from Charles as Prince of Wales to king and head of the firm — that has been happening for some time. The Queen is 93, and although sources say, officially, “regime change” and “regency” are banned words, there is a recognition that she cannot go on forever. Her Majesty will be 95 in 18 months — the age at which Prince Philip withdrew from public life — and there is renewed talk behind palace walls she will then as good as “retire”.

Gradually, while still being very hands-on, the Queen has cut down the amount of investitures she does, spending longer weekends at Windsor and reducing her public duties. In 2018 she completed 283 engagements, down from 332 in 2016, while Charles undertook 507. Charles has stepped up, the king in all but name. A well-placed royal source said: “Planning for Charles to become king has been going on for some time. A transition is plainly already underway. Her Majesty is in her nineties and can understandably only do so much…. The scandal surrounding Andrew and Epstein gave Charles an opportunity to step in to show that he can run The Firm. No one is bigger than the institution of the Royal Family. Not even Andrew, the Queen’s favourite son. Charles recognised that and acted decisively — like the king he may well soon be. This was the moment when Charles stepped up as Prince Regent, the Shadow King.”

[From The Sun]

I… agree with this? In the Andrew debacle, Charles was the one who knew what to do. Charles had a better handle on how Andrew’s actions and interview were a massive catastrophe for the royal family. For days before Charles had his mum deliver the “coup de grace,” the Queen was happy enough to order the courtiers and communications team to protect Andrew. That was HER instinct, to circle the wagons, to ride out the storm. She didn’t get it. I don’t think she gets it now.

Princess Eugenie wedding

Gabriella Windsor wedding

Photos courtesy of WENN, Avalon Red.

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

176 Responses to “Prince Charles might try to force the Queen to retire at the age of 95?”

Comments are Closed

We close comments on older posts to fight comment spam.

  1. Becks1 says:

    One RR was saying (think it was Andrews) that Charles went to Sandringham to discuss organic farming with Phillip, it had nothing to do with Andrew. I laughed out loud when I saw that. Sure, Jan. Nothing to do with him. (But it seems clear/supported that he did go to Sandringham.)

    I can buy the shadow king thing. If the Queen doesn’t want to step down, per se, then she’ll just keep stepping back more and more and Charles will be running the show.

    I think Charles definitely had a better idea of how bad the Andrew interview was, and how bad his relationship with Epstein is for the monarchy. Part of me wonders if Camilla helped him get there – she is so involved with charities/organizations for victims of DV, rape survivors, etc, that I wonder if she was like “he cant go on as a royal.”

    At any rate – I have said to others that I’ve had this feeling for a while now that something big is coming down the pipeline with the royals. A divorce (from any of the younger royals, not just looking at W&K), the Queen stepping down, something. The next few months will be interesting, I think.

    • Rapunzel says:

      Becks– a young royal divorce? Interesting that you say not looking at W&K. Who else? H&M are unlikely as they just had a baby…Jack and Eugenie are the most recent married…

      Zara and Mike?

      • Becks1 says:

        Oh I have no idea really. I just didn’t want people to jump on me for assuming the Cambridges were getting divorced, lol. The Phillips and Tindalls seem happy enough, but you never know. I’m not saying that I WANT someone to get divorced, I just feel like there has been some funny stuff and weird PR going on and I think something is going to “happen” – like I wonder if there is a push behind the scenes for the queen to step down, and its not just because of Andrew?

        You all know I like my tinfoil tiaras though.

      • Rapunzel says:

        Becks- gotcha. I feel the same way. I wonder if the big thing coming is proof of the Rose Hanbury thing? Lol…. I’ve become BayTampaBay.

      • 10KTurtle says:

        It doesn’t have to be a divorce or an affair- it could just be undeniable proof about Andrew!

      • minx says:

        10KTurtle—Bingo, I think that’s what it is. Divorces/affairs would pale next to the stench of what Andrew has done.

      • Soupie says:

        @minx– I agree. And it really makes me wonder what will happen with the Monarchy if/when that happens, which I’m feeling it surely will at some point.

    • Sofia says:

      @Becks

      I do think change is coming within the BRF. This incident probably has Charles now taking over the show, Cambridges preparing to be PPoW and the Sussexes becoming more independent through their foundation and projects

      • Harla says:

        @Sofia. I really don’t think that Charles will want/allow the Sussex’s to be more independent, especially not in the beginning of his reign. I think he’ll want to keep tight control over the family so no one overshadows him and his new crown.

      • Heather says:

        @Sofia – I agree with you.
        I think that the changes were already planned for the Queen to retire and serve as ‘Queen Mother’ to Charles, but with all of the Andrew stuff going on, I believe those plans are escalating in urgency.

        If I were to guess why Charles went to see Phillip, first, it’s because Phillip has such influence over the Queen. There is likely no one else on earth who persuade her to do something more than him.

      • PrincessK says:

        Charles will need the Sussexes to help him. He gets on much better with Harry and Meghan than the other two.

    • OriginalRose says:

      I reckon the Duke of E will pop his clogs

      • Marjorie says:

        Pop his clogs! Had to look that up and thanks! I agree, it looks like Philip is on his way out. Big state funeral and mourning period coming up.

    • xo says:

      “I’ve had this feeling. . . . ”

      I’ve heard a number of friends say this. . .
      Hmm.

      • Becks1 says:

        Hey now, my feelings matter and are important!!!! lol. I know it sounds kind of ridiculous to be all “I just feel something is going to happen” but I cant help it haha.

      • Christina says:

        @Becks1, I totally trust your tinfoil tiara!!!

    • Ainsley7 says:

      It’s interesting that he went straight to Philip because Philip has been trying to cut Andrew off for ages. He doesn’t just hate Fergie. Philip isn’t stupid and can see just how horrible Andrew is. He doesn’t like public scandal and that’s all Andrew has ever been since his divorce from Fergie. The only time the papers pay any real attention to him is to talk about his shady friendships with sex traffickers, arms dealers, and dictators. He’s a major reason why the Queen wasn’t able to stop parliament from forcing Andrew to step down as trade ambassador. So, it makes sense that Charles would go see his strongest ally who is probably equally as pissed off.

      • Becks1 says:

        @Ainsley – yeah, and I can see Phillip being even more ticked if he thinks Andrew is manipulating the Queen.

      • PrincessK says:

        He may have gone straight to Philip because Philip may be getting weak, especially if he is staying for a few days. I really don’t know what Philip can add to the Andrew situation. The royals don’t really discuss things with each other, they are very stiff, they communicate with each other through their courtiers. This was what Diana hated but it seems as though William is not like his mother. The only thing William is trying to do is have a closer relationship with his children, he complained he hardly saw his father because he was always working in his study.

    • Tourmaline says:

      I think this Andrew thing is THE biggest thing to come along the pipeline in a long time, as far as unprecedented. Not sure if much could top it for awhile although certain quarters are salivating at the idea that something dramatic will happen in the new year with the Sussexes quitting or being pushed out (as if)

    • I have read reports that Phillip has gone through some bad health patches recently, so I think Kaiser has it right. Charles went to see his father as his son and to seek advice before he speaks to the Queen or Andrew. Say what you will about Phillip, his early life was no bed of roses and he has proven astute in trying to have a life surrounded by the rules of the men in grey.

    • GreenGirl says:

      At this point, though, would a divorce in the royal family (I don’t care which couple it would be, either) even be all that scandalous any more? I remember it was BIG NEWS when Charles and Diana divorced, but I think it was very much a different time. It would still be news, sure, but I don’t know that it would drum up the same sort of interest as it did back in the day.

      • booboocita says:

        It’d still be big news, but only if it happened to one of the family couples that are prominent in the tabloids. Charles and Camilla; William and Kate; Harry and Meghan. Maybe Edward and Sophie, but probably not. I doubt the Wessexes or Eugenie and Jack (is that his name?) divorcing would generate much in the way of clicks, so not them. The British tabloid press aren’t going to care much unless a juicy divorce would attract attention and thus readership. Then again, they might drum up attention just so they could connect the divorce to Meghan and blame it all on her (what can’t she do?).

    • M.A.F. says:

      I’m not seeing a divorce from any young royal. If anything, the “big thing” would be Philip dying. And when he goes, the question will be how much longer will the Queen be able to go on? They’ve been married for 70-something years. Frankly, I think Charles should have been given the title of Regent years ago.

      • Tigerlily says:

        As a few posters have mentioned I wonder if Philip’s health is worse than the RoyalS let on. And I do believe that since he retired there’s been no one to rein in Andrew in particular.

        Have to say I am fond of the old boy, I doubt he would mince words with Andrew whether he believed his ridiculous story or not. Philip did not have an easy childhood, really no home life which could explain why he had difficulties parenting Charles in particular. And he was opposed at every turn when EII became queen. He thought it was a waste of time for pages to run notes from one royal to another in the palace whenever they needed to speak to each other. His idea to install a phone system was met with shock and disdain. ‘never been done’ is something I’m sure he got sick of hearing. And finally, knowing that your mother in law and grandmother in law opposed your marriage can’t have been easy.

      • PrincessK says:

        The loss of Philip will not make much difference to the Queen they have led separate lives for years. She is fit and healthy and rides horses and might live to 100.

      • TQ says:

        There have been rumors Philip has cancer, and wouldn’t surprise me that the RF hasn’t let on if he is now in pretty bad shape.

    • Sue M says:

      Prince Philip is 98 years old. He is in precarious health. I think Charles is simply going to spend time with his dad as at any moment it will be the last time he can do that. Obviously, they will talk about the Andrew situation and all the concerns of the Royal Family. But seriously, the man is going to pop off any minute.

    • Charlie says:

      “I declare before you all that my whole life whether it be long or short shall be devoted to your service and the service of our great imperial family to which we all belong.”

      It is possible to serve your country without being queen…

      • Becks1 says:

        I just want to say that I love that you all are indulging my “feeling” and we are talking about it like a real thing LOL

      • ex-Mel says:

        There is the small matter of being invested by “divine right”. In other words, God puts the monarch on the throne, only God can remove him/her.
        Considering that the British monarch is also the head of the Church of England, it would be controversial, to say the least, to be seen as disregarding God’s will.

    • Anance says:

      “I have said to others that I’ve had this feeling for a while now that something big is coming down the pipeline with the royals.”

      IDK, maybe the big runaway train speeding down the track to the Royal Family was the Andrew/Epstein.

  2. Jumpingthesnark says:

    More palace intrigue! They should go full on Game for Thrones at this point! Seriously though, still no sympathy for the trafficked and abused girls, and they have known about Andrew’s associations with Epstein for many years. All they are concerned with is how this makes them look, which means that the Windsors are rotten to the core. The monarchy needs to be abolished.

    • Snazzy says:

      Time for the Red Wedding!

    • My3cents says:

      Yup, Shadow King really gave me Game of Thrones vibes.
      I guess they have the backstabbing and rape covered in that family.

    • Anance says:

      “Seriously though, still no sympathy for the trafficked and abused girls, and they have known about Andrew’s associations with Epstein for many years. ”

      Spot on. Charles did not sack Andrew because he suddenly cared about the victims. On the contrary, Charles pounced on the opportunity presented by Andrew’s public and colossal lack of judgment to eliminate him at last. After Andrew’s display of a callous, venal personality, not even the Queen could save him.

      • perplexed says:

        Would Charles have had the power previously to sack Andrew? He’s not actually the King. I figured it was up to the Queen to do something and she never did.

        I don’t really picture other members of the family, other than the Queen, really hanging with him as they’ve moved into separate spheres of life in adulthood. If Charles spends time alone from Camilla doing things independently when he needs his alone time, I can’t really picture him spending time with Andrew either.

        I think the only person who would have had sway with the Queen is Phillip and he, given both his age and his general sexism, probably thought Andrew could do what he wanted as long as he didn’t get caught. Ooops.

  3. Cdog says:

    I hope this happens. She should have retired years ago. I wonder what has kept her from doing so? Tradition? Pride? Fear that the monarchy will fall?

    • olala says:

      Yes! Always said one of the problem is brf longevity. The generational gap is huge and taking into account all the time and age gap of “now” society QEII is totally irrellevant but also even if she wanted i don’t think she can grasp it as the way and when she was brought up. Now more than ever to save the monarchy they need Charles to take over and streamline.
      I believe if this was done already years ago the Andy randy thing wouldn’t blow up the way it is now and certainly would not have such an effect on monarchy survival

      • Anance says:

        I agree with you. Considering Elizabeth was raised by women adhering to Edwardian traditions and has ruled an anachronistic institution, I can’t see her understanding the complicated mores of today. Today’s sexual morality is fluid and a challenge for even younger people.

        Just a thought. Let’s assume the Queen retires at 95, then Charles does so at 95 as well. That puts William at 61 when he assumes the throne. At that moment, he becomes the youngest monarch in 55 years.

        It almost makes sense to skip William and go directly to George.

    • SKF says:

      She hasn’t abdicated like her fellow elderly European Monarch’s for two key reasons:

      1) she truly believes that she was chosen to be Queen by God and wa anointed before God, and if that is the case it should be for all of her life.

      2) she has never forgotten or forgiven her uncle’s abdication of the throne and what it did to her father and to herself. To her, abdication is a terrible sin and sign of weakness. She has never intended to abdicate, if she does it will be because she simply cannot carry on.

      • Bella DuPont says:

        I know this is the popular belief (especially 2), but it’s never made sense to me. If coming into all this power was such a terrible thing to her, why is she so determined to hold on to every last inch of it until her last breathe? Especially considering how desperate her son is for it, we know he wouldn’t mind having it at all, but she has zero intention of letting it go.

        My theory is that having tasted and lived with such incredible power for so long, she cannot fathom ever having it recede from her and pass to someone else. (Even if that someone else is her son).

        She is as power hungry as many dictators, trying to keep power for the entirety of their lives. It’s gross.

      • Wadsworth the Butler says:

        The second option doesn’t really apply as much as everyone pretends. Her uncle chose to abdicate in the prime of his life for personal and political reasons in favor of a brother who had had no preparation for the role of king. She is an elderly woman whose son is the longest-serving heir in the history of the monarchy.

    • Cee says:

      She, unlike other european Monarchs, was anointed at her coronation. She pledged to serve (be Queen) until her final breath. I don’t see a scenario in which she would abdicate.

      • Maria says:

        The Japanese enthronement ceremony is just as sacred as the English coronation and Emperor Akihito still had no issue stepping down for his son. She needs to learn times have changed.

      • minx says:

        Cee, I agree. She’s not stepping down, she feels the job is hers for life.

    • Monarchs don’t historically retire or abdicate (unless forced). Historically they rule until death (no matter the state of their health); however historical monarchs simply did not live into their nineties. I think if the Queen ALLOWS anything, it will be Charles as official regent. I also think, PR-wise she and her court are still living in the 30s and 40s.

    • M.A.F. says:

      I have a colleague at my work who has to retire, there is no question about it. Everyone talks about it, even the bosses but for some reason no one wants to give them the Golden Handshake. For some, retirement is a death sentence, the mind goes, etc. She simply could be afraid of what will happen to her if she does step down.

    • Mrs.Krabapple says:

      There is no reason for a monarch to retire. They get the job for life, regardless of whether their health or mental faculties decline over the years. That is no more “ridiculous” than getting the job through birth in the first place, regardless of their health or mental faculties. A monarch gets (and keeps) a job simply by virtue of birth, not ability. So there is no reason to give up the “job” when their ability declines, since there is no baseline ability required to get the job in the first place. That’s the price of having a monarchy.

  4. Athyrmose says:

    She never gets it. Her PR around this, Diana, and Meghan is tone-deaf, problematic, and awkward.

    • Becks1 says:

      Ugh I was seeing a few comments on twitter (from RRs and just randoms) that this means that Charles will “take control” of the Sussexes. And I’m like…you know what? I don’t think Charles has a problem with Meghan. I think he supported their media lawsuit, I think he likes that she works, etc. I think he could support her more in public, but I think on a personal level, they are probably fine.

      • SRB says:

        I do believe that he has a genuine affection for her. I know Charles is problematic AF, but I have definitely noticed a softening in recent years.

      • NotSoSocialButterfly says:

        He calls her “Tungsten,” doesn’t he?

      • Guest says:

        I would think Charles isnt as stupid as the dinosaur era courtiers and royal reporters. I remember seeing a reporter that the royal family need the sussexs more the sussexs need them. Hopefully Charles sees that because for sure as heck William doesn’t.

    • Eleonor says:

      Charles has rebuilt his image after Diana, probably he has a better understanding of PR.

      • Ainsley7 says:

        His understanding of PR isn’t necessarily a good thing. He’s the one who started throwing people under the bus to make himself look good thing in that family. He did it all the time to the boys growing up. He was the worst with Harry because Will is the heir. There was a story that Charles caught Harry with pot and sent him to visit a drug rehab to see how he might end up that was particularly bad. It made Charles out to be this amazing father, but it didn’t happen that way at all. Harry has addressed it in numerous interviews because it really changed the way that the press treated him after that. Charles still plays dirty with PR and hasn’t learned his lesson. So, he might save the monarchy, but it will be at everyone else’s expense.

      • Erinn says:

        “He was the worst with Harry because Will is the heir. ”

        Kind of makes you wonder if it’s some left over resentment, in a way. Probably felt like Andrew got to skate on a lot of stuff when they were kids which probably had a lasting impact on how he was with the boys.

        I see Charles as someone who did TRY to be a decent parent, but given what he grew up with (those generations are so emotionally detached and all about business) I don’t think he really knows what a ‘good’ parent looks like compared to what a normal person like you or I might.

      • notasugarhere says:

        Charles set up Club H for William to have his wild times at home. Younger Harry was brought in by his brother. Charles caught both of them with pot but only made an example of Harry. Not the first time he’s helped cover William’s ass, wasn’t the last. Because protect the heir at all costs.

    • Seraphina says:

      I whole heartedly agree. And I’m trying to understand if it’s her sense of entitlement that has made her this way or if it’s been years of having to deal with her own issues (PP and his cheating) thy has made her this way. But I truly find it crazy she has no empathy because if she did she would have done more for the women.

      • Snazzy says:

        I honestly think she believes Andrew when he tells her it’s a bunch of lies and he would never do something like that. She is blind when it comes to him

      • Jane'sWastedTalent says:

        I agree, she cannot conceive of Andrew being a rapist.

        I also think Philip is probably dying, or close to death, and that’s why Charles is visiting.

    • Pineapple says:

      Athyrmose … THIS!!!!!!!!!! She is so, so out of touch. So out of touch. What on earth do Royal Family advisors do? They sure aren’t advising.

      • Sadly I think the Royal Family advisors are doing their jobs, but no one is listening. Have thought since the time of Diana/Fergie that it must be the most thankless job ever – anyone can see the mess the RF make and anyone with half a brain can work out what they should be doing to clear it up. But I don’t believe Andrew is the only arrogant RF member, they all believe they know better simply because they are royal. I include all the Royals in this, young and old. The Queen may be out of touch (understandably) at 95, but what excuse have the younger royals for their tone deaf behaviour?

  5. Eleonor says:

    She is 95! This and the Brexit mess must be held by someone younger she is hurting the monarchy.

  6. Digital Unicorn says:

    I think she will retire and he will become King in all but name – I’ve been thinking this is what will happen for the past few weeks. Andrew has really effed up and his continued manipulation of his mother is very very damaging to the family. Lets face every family has an Andrew, who can do no wrong in their parent(s) eyes.

    The fact that he is talking to his father is telling, Philip is known to have influence over TQ when it comes to family matters. If I were Andrew I’d be very worried about his future as I can see this being used to cut him and his line out of the succession, esp if more evidence is released. Virginia’s upcoming BBC interview is going to add more nails to that coffin.

    This all makes for great gossip as we all know Prince Porky Fingers is NOT going to worm away without a fight and a nice big ‘pension’ (see Duke of Windsor). Charles is wise to get his father on his side and Andrew will work Mummy for all he can.

    As I said yesterday Andrew will be remembered as the sex pest morally and financially corrupt Prince who forced his mother off the throne. If Chuck becomes Prince Regent he will have all the power without the title.

    • Mignionette says:

      She can’t retire – only abdicate which is a dirty word thanks to her uncle. The unofficial Regency gets around that whilst preparing a transition for Charles.

      Chucks PR campaign has been successful.

    • Cee says:

      Can Beatrice and Eugenie be removed, as they have done nothing wrong and are adults?

      • Digital Unicorn says:

        Its more about how his line is tainted and the public (and gov) would never support someone from his family getting close to the throne.

      • Amanda says:

        The monarch can remove anyone anytime. In theory. Technically Andrew could be removed while his daughters are spared. Frankly Beatrice and Eugenie are very much adults, who are well aware of sex trafficking and like issues, and they should not be publicly supporting their dad right now (looking at you B). I realize he is their dad but again, it’s a question of showing morality and compassion for the abused and oppressed. Which the royal family seems totally incapable of doing right now. As a survivor of rape and domestic violence, I find that entirely horrible. They’ll probably just quietly retire Andrew with no formal repercussions. No need to retire B and E, since as far as I can tell they never worked for the royals anyway. I would personally cast him out completely and have him thrown in jail but hey what do I know about maintaining an outdated hierarchical monarchy for hundreds of years past its sell-by date?

      • Tourmaline says:

        I don’t think there is any talk of “removing them” per se, you can’t remove them from a place that they were not, and they were never in the set of working royals. It’s been clear since about 2012 at the latest that those two were NOT going to be working royals and I can’t see anything changing. For one thing, letting them be working royals would mean Andrew and Fergie would constantly be in the picture because the family is enmeshed in the extreme.

    • notasugarhere says:

      ‘This all makes for great gossip as we all know Prince Porky Fingers is NOT going to worm away without a fight and a nice big ‘pension’ (see Duke of Windsor).’

      I agree, Andrew isn’t going to go quietly. A huge cash payout, guarantees of taxpayer-funded security for Royal Lodge and the Swiss chalet, and big guarantees around Beatrice and Eugenie.

      • Mignionette says:

        If he pushes for those privileges the press will hound away until they implicate him. We no longer live in the times of Edward (aka David). Modern media and social media are a beast.

      • Digital Unicorn says:

        Although he won’t go quietly he has no bargaining power, except influence over Mummy and if Chuck teams up with Philip then that influence is weaker. The best he can hope for is assurances around his daughters.

        People should remember its Philip NOT TQ who runs the family. Always has been.

        His idiocy, buffoonery, his ex-wife and entitlement will continue to undo him and the RF.

      • Tourmaline says:

        Absolutely he will not go quietly and I think every step of the way in cutting him out of things could be a battle.

        Look at the Bahrain jollies he was all set to jet out to last week before it was reported he was told NO you are not doing that. The guy’s lifestyle has been champagne wishes and caviar dreams traveling first class all expenses paid for quite a few years now since his ‘trade role’ originally started. He’s going to have a hard time sitting himself down in Royal Lodge and not going on junkets.

        I’m curious to see what happens with his Pitch endeavor because it is getting a lot of comment since it’s been publicized he was taking a cut of the proceeds. Yesterday Alexis Ohanian Sr (Reddit founder and husband of Serena Williams) tweeted a link with an article called ‘Another Reason Prince Andrew is a Disgrace’ and added a warning to budding entrepreneurs to avoid such schemes.

      • Digital Unicorn says:

        Oooh am glad that the Reddit founder did that – we need to keep up the momentum on this to make sure he goes and stays away regardless of what he and Mummy wants.

        He is toxic and the family have no choice to cut him and his ex-wife off permanently. If they don’t the ensuing scandal will bring them down as he is the gift that is going to keep giving.

      • I read also that the charity under his umbrella that supports abused and trafficked women’s cottage industry hasn’t received one dime from him in 2 years. The article also said that Eugenie’s “cause” that she has had to put on hold on this issue is a direct offshoot of this and is tied to it under his Prince’s Trust umbrella. I think if public really wants to muzzle him the media needs to follow the money on the York’s and their charities.

    • Chelle says:

      As mentioned, she won’t abdicate. Placing Charles as Regent is the next closest thing to retirement as it gets. I’ve felt for a long time that Charles would be appointed Regent. I wonder if the ceremony will follow how it looked when he was given his Investiture as POW.

      Honestly, this is a huge shift and probably coming to a head faster than planned or anticipated. I honestly don’t think it’s the Andrew fiasco. That doesn’t help but I think it’s a combination of just the cultural climate change ala Brexit, she’s getting way older, the ladies in waiting are way older, the courtiers are getting older as are their tactics, Phil the Greek is out of the game, too many recent or ongoing staff turnovers at BP due to natural attrition as well as the handwriting on the wall, younger generations not having the type of “discipline” that folks born in the 20 – 40s had/have, Boris, and now this. Just too much given her age.

      If Charles is going to be appointed Regent, I think it will happen after Trooping the Color and before the next opening of Parliament. If so, then I think H/M will do the pap walk on Christmas. For the old girl and for the Regent. United front and all.

  7. Rapunzel says:

    Why wait 18 months? She’s out of touch…now. She’s making decisions that might destroy the monarchy… now. If abolish the monarchy gains traction as a sentiment, there could be no job for her to step away as y from in 18 months. At this pace, it could all easily be over for the BRF in 6 months. One or two more good hits could finish them off… and we are not done with the Epstein stuff.

    This doesn’t seem logical. Charles should be demanding she step down in her Christmas message and he take over in the new year.

    I suspect QEII may just be trying to buy time, with no intention of stepping aside. She probably told Charles this in an attempt to appease him, thinking “in 18 months it’ll be okay and I can stay on.”

    • betsyh says:

      Agree. Elizabeth’s goal should not be remaining queen but preserving the monarchy. If she wants to end her reign with her death, that stopping point is a logical time for the British people to question whether they want the monarchy to continue. To avoid that, Charles should become king now. All this talk about being anointed for life and abdication being an impossibility is just noise. The royal family has a history of adapting to survive.

      • Mignionette says:

        I agree – I think we should have a Regency until Liz dies and thereafter abolish the monarchy.

        It is outdated and insulting to continue with such an outdated institution. She has no executive powers and Brexit has also highlighted that flaw in the institution of monarchy. How can we live in the era of human rights and equality yet laud those whose accident is being born into the correct family?

    • Chelle says:

      I think he will be appointed Regent sometime after Trooping the Color but before the next opening of Parliament. Trooping the Color would serve as the last big public nationwide ceremonial hurrah to a Queen who has served well and steadily. There have been a few family hiccups but she’s served well overall. Charles and Camilla will open Parliament.

      • Digital Unicorn says:

        Yeah I have a feeling they are setting things up to be announced after the upcoming General Election. She may announce it at her Christmas speech.

    • PrincessK says:

      With Brexit the United Kingdom is the most unstable it has been since WW2, so this is not the time for the Queen to be making any major changes to her role.

    • The Hench says:

      Yup. She’s a 93 year old woman who has lived a life of extraordinary privilege and power. Far from experiencing anything of the real world, she has been actively cocooned from it, relying on courtiers for her sources of outside information and believing, along with the rest of the RF, that the media make stuff up for the entertainment of the commoners. Your average 93 year old would be pretty out of touch – this one is off the charts out of touch. I’m surprised that we seem to be surprised that she doesn’t have a clue.

      • PrincessK says:

        @The Hench l have to disagree. The Queen knows what is going on in her family and the outside but her royal training is such that she adopts a position of being above everything and her main concern is not to compromise her position, which she puts above everything. Andrew who spends more time in her company than any of the other kids foolishly imitated her and thought he was above everything. But at 93 things are getting harder for her, and the Andrew affair is definitely going to have affected her very badly.

      • The Hench says:

        Hey PrincessK – I agree with you that the Andrew affair will have affected her very badly – it hits home hard on two fronts – her favourite boy disgraced and necessarily knifed by her and his elder brother to preserve the institution, which itself is not out the woods. But I’m not sure that the evidence is there that she does know what’s going on. Her information channels rely heavily on the men in grey suits and a lot will get filtered. If she had her finger properly on the pulse I don’t see how she would have given the go ahead to the BBC interview – and it’s pretty clear she did despite denials now.

        Something suddenly occurred to me – perhaps Her Majesty needs to become a Celebitch stat? THAT would bring her up to speed with popular opinion pretty darn quickly. Can you imagine?? Look out for posts from @Lilibet….

  8. RedRoyal says:

    She should step down in the new year. Emily A said Charles was at Sandringham for an estate meeting on organic farming.

  9. Sierra says:

    She cannot retire as the law doesn’t allow monarch to abdicate.

    The only way Charles will become king is if Queen dies.

    • Mignionette says:

      This. It seems people don’t understand that constitutionally she doesn’t get to retire. Also she pledged from day 1 to serve her whole life no matter how short or long. A direct re-assurance to the public after Edward the Nazi’s mess.

      • Bookworm says:

        She needs to be intelligent enough to understand that things change. Something that happened in the 1930s should not dictate the needs of almost a century later.

      • Babs says:

        Maybe Prince Pedo porky will just burn the entire thing down on his way out, LOL. Kinda like, if I can’t have it then no one else will.
        They think Harry went rogue? Wait till Andrew starts throwing out all those skeletons from all those ancient closets. And they all have lots of them. Hmm, me thinks they ain’t seen nothing. They need to tread carefully when dealing with Pedo.

    • Sofia says:

      Are you aware of King Edward VIII? But she won’t abdicate, she takes the promise she made very seriously

    • Becks1 says:

      Wait, she can’t abdicate? I know she can’t “retire” but I would have thought she could abdicate and then let Charles become king. I don’t think she will do that, but I am starting to wonder.

      • lsb says:

        Abdication = dereliction of duty.
        So some smears connote it. Especially when you and your line is chosen by God to lead your people.
        Old age, infirmity and frailty are no excuse.
        Don’t you know.

        On the plus side, Don Trump was chosen by god to lead his people, too. So says one of his cabinet ministers.

    • Eleonor says:

      If Pope Benedict has abdicated so can she.

    • Ainsley7 says:

      The law does allow for a regency if she is no longer able to do her duty. She clearly isn’t able to do what needs to be done anymore and should make Charles Regent.

    • Maria says:

      I’m going to be the one who says it – this whole “I will never abandon my duty” thing is stupid and tired and ridiculous that she is patterning her actions TODAY on an event that happened 83 YEARS AGO. Times have changed, she needs to as well, or go away so the proper changes CAN be made.

      • Bonita says:

        The duty thing is not only to do with her Uncle’s abdication. She joined the Armed Forces and trained as a mechanic during WWII. The Queen Mother, Elizabeth and Margaret refused to leave London during WWII. My father is the same age as she is. He, and I suppose anyone else left who was in the UK during that period, had (still has) immense admiration for the dedication to duty they showed. I seriously doubt she will ever abdicate and I also highly doubt that anyone is going to force her to step aside unless she wants to.

        On a completely different note… I don’t think the Queen gets a retirement pension.

      • Maria says:

        The King refused to leave London, and the Queen Mother. They sent their children to Windsor, however.

        Again, times have changed. And the duty is to the country and the role, not to the pedophile son. She’s failing at both.

        She won’t abdicate because she wants to be in charge and likes the power. People don’t want to admit it.

  10. Bookworm says:

    She and Philip should have retired together. She enjoys being Her Majesty too much to let it go.

    All that “anointed by God for her lifetime” is BS because she wasn’t even born to be the queen – it was just because of her uncle’s abdication that she fell into the role.

    • xo says:

      “enjoys being Her Majesty too much to let it go. . .”

      I, for one, doubt this. I think she’s driven by a sense of duty.

      • Bella DuPont says:

        Please.

      • A says:

        No I agree. I definitely think she’s driven by a sense of duty also. It’s just that her sense of what duty is is wholly different from what we think of duty today. Society, thankfully, has started to see that institutions with enormous wealth and and power have a duty to not protect individuals who use that wealth and power to abuse those who don’t have a voice.

        The Queen’s sense of duty and promise, while it seemed selfless in the context of the time, is actually quite self-centered. It’s not about the people she’s representing, and it’s not about her duty as a human being to not be a horrible individuals and protect abusers in her own family. It’s about her. HER life was ruined by her uncle abdication. HER life was limited by having to become Queen. Isn’t she SUCH a martyr, for being thrust into this position of enormous wealth and power and privilege, with all of this capacity to do so much, when all she really wanted to do was race horses and live in the country side?

        I’ve always thought that, if this is her attitude towards the whole idea of being a monarch, why on earth are we surprised that William and Harry are so reticent about that position? Charles is not a monarch yet. William has only ever grown up with the Queen in that role. And this is her attitude about it all. “I don’t want to do it it was imposed on me.” The only monarch William has ever encountered in the position he will one day occupy is one who plainly expresses the fact that she never asked to be there. So why would William be any more enthusiastic about it?

    • deezee says:

      She would have been queen no matter what. Her uncle Edward VIII was (by all accounts) infertile so even if he was allowed to happily marry Wallis-Simspon and stay king, his brother would have been heir apparent but died in ’52 so his next heir apparent would have been Princess Elizabeth but she wouldn’t have become queen until 1972. So while I don’t but the “anointed by God” bit, she was born to be queen.

      • Tourmaline says:

        Well, if her parents had a son instead of a daughter when Princess Margaret was born, or a son after that, she would not have been queen. Lots of things could have happened to change the ‘destiny’

      • perplexed says:

        Things could have changed her destiny, but they never did. Margaret wasn’t born a boy and they never did have another kid after that so, yeah, I too am inclined to think she was born to be Queen.

    • Lady D says:

      How arrogant do you have to be to believe God personally chose you to rule? Out of all creation God chose Jesus and Elizabeth to lead? Holy hubris, Batman.

      • Tourmaline says:

        Don’t forget Donald, we are being told regularly by his supporters here is the US that he was also chosen by God….

      • k says:

        All elites believe that, and that because unlike us, they know how reality works, they don’y live in la la land. They know “God” is just a label for what you are desiring and worshiping. We are billions of minds. Most of us want more money, entertainment ,and/or power over another, and/or fame. Many people want really bad things. What kind of god can we have then? One that is in love with prince Andrew’s mom. And with those who have money, power, provide entertainment and are famous. And who enables people who do bad things. So, The Queen is pretty right, “god”, meaning us, is choosing them.

    • I think everyone needs to step back and give her a break. The Queen has dedicated almost her whole life to her country. Has she made and continues to make errors in judgement — yes; but she does not deserve to be thrown out with tomorrow’s trash.

    • PrincessK says:

      Why should she have retired with Philip, she was glad to be shot of. Him dragging behind her, always wondering what his next gaffe would be. Did you not notice the way she was glowing and smiling more once he stopped doing engagements with her.

  11. Purplehazeforever says:

    She should have retired years ago. Nothing has changed about Queen Elizabeth. She’s always been tone deaf & she doesn’t care about the victims of Epstein, either. She never could see the optics of how she handled situations. That being said ..very few people within the BRF actually care about the victims of Epstein. Their silence about their pain, the handling of sacking Prince Andrew & response over the years to his association with Epstein is appalling. As a survivor of sexual assault, I’m thoroughly disgusted. All this fawning over the Queen & BRF? Really…Why?? When they supported a rapist! And the hypocrisy on here…levelled at only a few members of the BRF & not every one of them. It’s messed up. As far as I’m concerned…only a few are worth the time of day in that family. The Queen is wasn’t of them.

    • Mignionette says:

      Purple so sorry to hear that.

      I agree at the very least the BRF could have issued a strongly worded statement about the victims but I suspect that would indicate some sort of guilt in connection with Andrew.

  12. S808 says:

    I hope he does convince her to step down or at the VERY least only be a figurehead while Charles runs the show. she should’ve stepped down after her jubilee and went out on a high note imo. I’m still shaking my head at all of this. Idk id I’m saying this right but I feel like everyone had to make sacrifices for the good of the crown but she gets to put her son who is an obvious problem above all else?

  13. SpankFD says:

    These people – the royal family – are *not* the products of a meritocracy. Even their retainers seem … underpowered… in terms of socio- emotional intelligence The whole operation suffers from a desperately shallow cachement basin.

    • Tourmaline says:

      Well said. It is a mess!

    • k says:

      They can’t adapt to democracy, since as a bloodline they are the product of power by force and entitlement. Not so long ago problems were solved with hanging , the tower and stripping of the title/lands. They used to kill each other in their royal families. Just like mafia. Every couple a years a new movie about poor Queen Mary of Scots is getting done and we are just not getting the hint. Nowadays they have to play nice and they can’t do it convincingly. The Pope is another former institution of killers re branded for modern times who face this problem . It’s illogical to maintain this system, and UK calls itself a modern country.

  14. Sarah says:

    And as per usual, nobody in this royal family seems to be concerned about Andy’s actions. They are just worried about how they look, the optics, the PR. It’s despicable.
    But I think they will survive this because people are shockingly gullible and always on the look out for a “good guy”, Charles in that situation. Even on this website, people are turning him into a hero who intervened and did the right thing. But make no mistake, Charles is only concerned about the PR. If he really gave a single f*ck about the victims, he would have given Andy the boot a long time ago, long before this dumpsterfire of an itw, in 2011 for instance.
    tl:dt Abolish the monarchy

    • Some chick says:

      Yep. I love how the (necessary) removal of Andrew was described as “brutal.”

      Forcing yourself on a 17 year old is brutal.

      Having to retire to a f’n PALACE is NOT BRUTAL.

    • Thea says:

      Exactly. They don’t care about the victims. Charles was friends with convicted sex offender peter ball. And he was friends with jimmy salville. The queen also knighted jimmy salville.

  15. PizzaLove says:

    I think the Queen, like our beloved RBG, love working and having power. Women like them don’t retire, they die on the job. But personally I don’t think anyone over 85-90 should be making major decisions for anyone but themselves.

    • (TheOG)@Jan90067 says:

      Oh FFS, there is a HUGE difference in intelligence and intellect between TQ and RBG. Let’s be real!! One has both (RBG) and one has little, and has never displayed any real interest in more than horses (TQ).

  16. Beach Dreams says:

    I think that beyond her belief that she was ordained by God (massive eye roll), the queen simply enjoys the influence, adoration, and respect she commands in her position. She probably also has misgivings about Charles as the future king, inspiring her to cling to the throne instead of doing what’s sensible.

  17. AprilMay says:

    I don’t think taking a few days to think over all the options and make sure you’ve covered every angle is a bad thing. He’s probably jet lagged and exhausted from his 2week+ tour give the man a couple of days to figure it out. Although what more people are expecting him to do I don’t know. Charities are dripping Andrew, pulling out of pitch. Just making sure he’s gone for good is about the only thing left to do.
    As for the queen part, it would really for the best. She’s old and while they keep saying she’s still all there, no matter how well you’re doing your faculties are naturally after decreasing. Just let Charles take over

  18. CommentingBunny says:

    “And the axing of her favourite son signalled what could be her last major act of a reign that is fast coming to a close with typical quiet dignity.”

    I’m sorry but reluctantly and belatedly sacking your favourite son for giving a disastrous interview about allegations that he raped a trafficked girl 3 times – and sacking him for the interview part, not the raping a trafficked girl part – is NOT QUIET DIGNITY.

    • Mignionette says:

      I am going to go out on a limb and say that no one in the family backed that interview. Problem is Andy is Andy and he likely finally hoodwinked his mother into it. Charles defo did not want it to happen but reasoned that Andy was going to get his way in the end, so he let Andy fall on his own sword so that the RF could finally draw a line of separation.

      I’ve seen a similar scenario in families where one sibling is constantly a source of concern. Eventually you stop caring and allow the situation to play itself out.

      • Jumpingthesnark says:

        TQ would have approved the interview because it happenned in Buck palace i.e. The flagship palace and symbolic center of her power. The BRF are all about their symbolism. There is no way that interview would have been allowed to happen in that location without her knowledge and approval.

      • A says:

        I think Andy was helped, in large part, by the fact that the Queen’s staff at present is entirely inept and incompetent, especially since her previous private secretary retired. If they were around, they likely would have advised her against it, whether or not she necessarily took that advice.

    • Tourmaline says:

      Much of the British press is so reluctant to brook any sliver of criticism to Her Maj. It will indeed be a whole new world after her reign, because that kind of deference is unlikely to ever be seen again toward future monarch(s).

  19. Minxx says:

    She’s not the first elderly mother who can’t believe her favorite son has done something despicable. But at 93 she should not have to deal with any of this, it’s way out of her grasp, I’m sure. Charles should take over asap.

  20. Mignionette says:

    Time for a shed load of constitutional reform;

    (1) Abolish / hugely scale back monarchy
    (2) abolish the act of settlement
    (3) remove the monarch as the head of CoE (how can these fukkers lecture us on morality)
    (4) Have senility tests for Monarchs post 70
    (5) abolish primogeniture
    (6) take back all their palaces, jewels and land and bring them back into public ownership
    (7) give them accommodation and a monthly stipend
    (8) scale back the staff /costs
    (9) abolish/ reform the peerage system
    (10) clearly define the roles of RF members ….

    And there is so much more.

    • livealot says:

      this makes too much sense so probably won’t happen.

    • A says:

      The only argument for keeping the RF around, in my eyes, is the constitutional role they play. And that role is only ever fulfilled by the monarch. The Crown, legally, should be represented only by one single individual. Everyone else is just extraneous baggage, and they absolutely should not be funded by the state. They don’t need palaces or money. Just keep the monarch around as a figurehead, put ‘em on your stamps or your coins or whatever, but buy them a nice detached house in the suburbs with a three bedroom, two bathroom set up, and abolish the public figure aspect of their jobs entirely.

    • RoyalBlue says:

      I love this post so much I want to marry it.

  21. Rapunzel says:

    This really is just saddening how much Andy and the BRF have gotten away with covering up. The only part of this that is enjoyable is the petty stuff between Chuck and Andy. Chucky is going to Pa so Andy gets a tongue lashing! Andy’s birthday party was canceled! They took his standard down! Pitch@palace got evicted and is now just pitch@!

    If it didn’t involve sex trafficking, and pedophilia, it’d be hilarious.

    Btw, how bad do you have to be to get your own flag removed from your own house? Prince Andrew bad, ladies and gents. That’s bad.

    • PrincessK says:

      That was very significant and signals that he is finished, his lies have been well and truly exposed, that was the breaking point.

  22. Digital Unicorn says:

    There is an old nursery rhyme here in the UK that I remember a version for Andy Pandy.

    This is the original, replace with Andy Pandy and you get where I’m going :)

    Georgie Porgie, pudding and pie,
    Kissed the girls and made them cry,
    When the boys came out to play,
    Georgie Porgie ran away.

  23. Guest says:

    Shes well past the age of retirement. I wonder how sound her mind really is? Charles needs to clean house and get ride of courtiers. Then maybe things will start to get better. If he scales the monarchy it’s going to be interesting to see how much he scales it back. I dont think charles is stupid enough to believe only himself, and Camilla (who are in their 70s) and William and kate (who are just lazy) is enough. But we will see.

  24. Margo Smith says:

    I personally just don’t like the queen as a person. Can’t even believe she won’t retire. Like wow lady, you’ve been queen FOREVER and at this point poor Charles is only going to get to be king for a second. And so what if Charles wasn’t “ready” to be king before. This whole family is full of bafoons none of which are ready.

  25. This says:

    WT HOLY F let go liz

  26. Guest says:

    The problem the royal family is going to have is as the baby boomers get old and the younger generation starts to be the majority they arent the biggest fans of the royals. That YouGov poll showed yeah the queen, her heir, and his heir were well loved by the conservatives and older generations, they were meh with the younger one.

  27. Chelle says:

    Just for the record, I have to say that the circumstances as reported in the media makes me feel like this is a coup and I don’t like it. I think it’s the underhanded suggestions that QEII has lost her mind. It’s not necessarily steak knives but damaging pinpricks. Then, there is the whole Prince Philip please appear on your white charger to save the day. WTF? She’s sovereign. Not him. SHE. HER. QEII. So, I say, back the f🤬ck up off the girl! Yes, I do support Charles becoming Regent, but still . . . 😡

    • Bonita says:

      I’m kind of with you on this. The whole undercurrent of “it’s really the men in charge, that old dearie is befuddled…” smacks of misogyny. She’s the Queen, not Phillip and not Charles. Phillip has zero power over what the Queen does. Charles has zero power over what the Queen does. On the other hand, what she just did to Andrew? If she wanted to, she could do EXACTLY the same thing to any other member of the Royal Family, including her husband and her oldest son.

      • Chelle says:

        @Bonita – her offering protection and cover for her family is always on display. Andrew’s current BS is heinous that’s why her protection is this case looks odd and seems so out of order. For example, was it this summer or last summer when Charles, who I like, was clinging to her skirts and her reputation to be named Head of the Commonwealth? He didn’t do the Sunday Church ride but he clung to her in various scenarios where soft power has been needed. They are all living off of mummy’s and gran-grans dime and estates. Even Ann and her kids at her estate. Even Edward and Sofie and their 99-year lease. And even homeless, rootless, family-less Phil the Greek.

        And the misogyny. Yep. It’s killing me. Plus, what in the hell can a 98-year old man, who is dependent on his wife for his food, his sanctuary in his dotage and likely senile his damn self, do? Even a man in his likely condition is better than a standing, thinking breathing female? Once again, I say back the f🤬ck up off the girl with the BS insinuations.

    • A says:

      I agree. I don’t think the Queen is senile or unaware or any less sharp at all. I think she’s stupid, but that stupidity is a personal decision she’s making wrt the RF and their course of action regarding Andrew. I certainly think she’s under/uninformed by the people around her whom she relies on for the truth. Her staff at BP is apparently not the greatest. She needs people around her who can tell her the honest reality, but she hates that, because that often means she has to be confrontational and do something rather than sit back and do nothing unless forced, which is very much her MO always. But all of this is her decision as an individual.

  28. Mrs.Krabapple says:

    The problem is, for Charles to completely cut off Andrew (the Queen’s second son), it would mean that Charles believes Andrew is guilty. But if Andrew is guilty, then more should follow — like restitution to the victims, criminal charges, etc. And I don’t think Charles wants THAT. So how to treat Andrew as if he’s guilty, without actually treating Andrew as if he’s guilty?

  29. Birds eye view says:

    If the monarchy is to continue it is time for the queen to step back and let charles become king regent or whatever …..his apprenticeship has gone on long enough. Andrew shouldve been out in 2011, if it was up to charles i’m sure he wouldve been out on his fat arse years ago. if it takes Phillip to tell th queen its time to go then so be it.. well played charles.

  30. Middle of the road says:

    She’s freaking 95 years old. Enough said

    • Jaded says:

      She is 93 actually, but I agree that this nonsense of being the monarch until she goes toes up is ridiculous. This whole Prince Andrew debacle is bringing inordinate amounts of shame not only to him and his grifting ex-wife Fergie but to the entire senior royal family including the Queen. By their inaction they have actually given Charles the gift of forcefully taking control of the situation and starting the process of cutting out the dead wood. William and Kate are really going to have to step up to the plate as working royals because they will be seen under a much stronger spotlight from now on. I have the sense that as Prince Regent and eventually King, Charles is going to be tough – not cruel – but if you want to be a part of the modernized BRF you will have to sing for your supper and maintain a higher caliber of behaviour (looking at you Normal Bill…).

  31. Justwastingtime says:

    Based on a Vanity Fair article from about ten years ago.. Andrew was a known ticking timebomb for money grubbing and shady actions…I suspect that the reason he stayed on so long was not just mother love but also that he has the goods on the royal family. They don’t want the spotlight on other member’s dodgy financial actions.. (Panama papers anyone?)

    • PrincessK says:

      True. The RF need to put the lid on the Andrew affair before other dealings by members of the family are exposed. Charles has many influential contacts and raises huge sums of money but he does it with ‘style’. If Charles invites you for dinner or for a long weekend be sure that you will have something he wants from you at some stage. Andrew probably wanted to copy his older brother but totally lacks brains and finesse and really messed up big time.

  32. Flying Fish says:

    The monarchy needs to go.

    • stephka says:

      Yes, when the queen dies, that should be that.

      • Stellaluna says:

        I read on some other site, or maybe somebody quoted Helena Bonham Carter, or wherever, that there is little tradition left in the small island of 60 million people. However, the British have affected the entire world in many ways, good and bad. The monarchy is what keeps interest in many people outside of the country. Nobody may be “interested” that much, except for people like us, but everyone admires pomp and circumstance if the Monarchy.

        I remember, as a kid, watching Diana marry Charles, during the early morning hours. I loved her from that date on, as did all, mostly female, Americans. Whatever faults she had, Diana, along with ELizabeth Taylor and Doris Day, reached out to touch people with AIDs, and her special “something” can never be replicated. Charles was mocked by everyone for promoting organic food, protecting landmarks, and more. The two of them should have made the best team in the world.

        Charles spoiled and ignored his sons, and were afraid of them. William’s behaviors were as bad as Harry’s, except William was a bit more discrete. As to Kate waiting around for William for ten years, my mother raised her daughters to wait for nobody to rule your life. I knew not one woman who would put her life on hold for a man. She was finally married when William somehow found the time to propose. The two were not learning the ropes for years – they were on vacations, and were burnt by comments and articles.

        Meghan is an older woman than Kate when first married, but she was and is not wasting her time for a man to guide her. She is too American, and Americans instinctively take charge. It is In our DNA. It is hard to swallow at times, and always, but a,ways, he media puts one woman against the other. Neither Kate or Meghan are outstanding in Royal duties. They both are being themselves.

        As to Meghan making a remark about Andrew, and slammed because Andrew is family? Free press. I went through hell over and over with a family member who was guilty of bad stuff, but I was told not to speak about my “issues” to protect the family name. I spoke out, to let other people that family member was bad, and I will not cover up for him anymore.

  33. Dottie says:

    The Queen won’t meddle in her childrens lives unless they ask. She has her own job she does more events then any of the young Royals. If Andrew told her the interview went well she would have believed him. Sadly she has blinkers on with him. Most mothers are going to protect their children even if they arrogant, delusional and a general oaf. The Queen asked Charles if he was having an affair with Camilla he told her no which was a lie. Prince Phillip is the head off the family and he understands the Queen like no one else. His retirement has had an impact on the family. The Queen will not retire she can’t she made a promise on her 21st birthday that she wouldn’t. She is head of the church she takes it very seriously. The Queen is on top Charles now has input and is doing more of his mothers duties as he should he put it off because he likes to do his own thing and his own causes. There are things that as a Monarch you can no longer have a say in. I do think we will lose Prince Phillip and for awhile The Queen will be lost. Just cause they arent with each other 24/7 doesn’t mean they don’t talk every day. I think Prince Charles will off course talk about Andrew he isn’t out of the woods yet. The woman who has accused him has done her own interview. 96 percent of viewers didn’t believe Andrew. I doubt many off his family are buying his story they just can’t say so.

  34. Meg says:

    Do you think charles knows what andrew did was awful or does he like william just see this as an opportunity to remove others, flex his power, and by recommending the Queen retire be closer to the throne?

    • Wistee says:

      Epstein (who didn’t kill himself) was first arrested and convicted in FL in 2008. Andrew has been friends with him since way before that. Of course Charles and family knew about this all along. What they didn’t bargain on was the entire world finding out about PA’s sick procliviities. And him being the favorite son of the Q probably gave him somewhat of a pass for years. But when Epstein was busted again and thrown in jail in NYC, the media was all over the connection and it came out, forcing the RF to act and to boot PA. They sure didn’t seem to care about the victims of PA before it became public knowledge. This is just like what the Popes and Catholic church have done concerning their pedo priests. They go mute, keep it under wraps but when the scandals break and everyone finds out, THEN they take action. The RF has covered this up for years.

  35. Bread and Circuses says:

    Charles could be prince regent while Queen Elizabeth lives. There’s definitely precedent for a queen “retiring” without giving up her title or throne.

  36. Jbh says:

    The Queen will not step down but Charles is def stepping up. Andrew needs to go away – the problem is funding his lifestyle and his children’s place in the royal fold. Andrew clearly has no judgement and will have to be monitored carefully cause who knows what shady stuff he will do to fund his lifestyle now that he has been ‘fired’. Fergie is a grifter too. It would be in the best interest of the Crown if Charles could get the Cambridge and Sussex teams to stop the leaks. I read a great article that said a key issue is that there the Royals have lost control of the message because there are too many communications teams vying to get their message front and centre and they are tripping over each other while the media ultimately benefit. I know that isn’t as popular as the theory that William is somehow the mastermind for throwing the Sussex’s under the bus but really do you think William benefits long term from this mess. Nope. I also don’t think he is that strategic. There is nothing like family fighting to stir the media up cause it SELLS. So ultimately the media benefit most from making up stuff that we then speculate on.

    • notasugarhere says:

      The Shipman article tells otherwise. W&K benefit too much from all of this, in the face of the Rose Hanbury scandal and their games with the press. They are doing nothing different but getting the best press of their lives. Not a coincidence.

  37. RoyalBlue says:

    Charles is trying to save the monarchy as it’s on its dying legs. He is stepping up and attempting to seem important and be a decision maker. Sadly, the Crown has proven it has no power and should be replaced by a deserving president, someone who is scholarly and of profound experience. A title that will be limited by term and not hereditary in nature. Retire the palaces to stately museums and art galleries and let’s leave this concept of hereditary rights to the likes of history books.

  38. February Pisces says:

    The queen will carry on as normal until her 70th jubilee in two years time, then she might quietly slow down. I think Charles will pretty much take the reigns and pick up the work load, but the queen will always queen until death, she probably just won’t be seen as much.

  39. Cerys says:

    The story of Charles becoming Regent when the queen turns 95 was in the British papers a while ago. I think he is more than capable and that the queen should have stepped down a while ago. However, i can’t see William stepping up to cover his father’s current role if this happens.

  40. Cami says:

    Wouldn’t surprise me if Charles cut Andrew off when he becomes King, and rightly so.

    • notasugarhere says:

      Queen Mum lived to 101. Should they wait another eight years to deal with Andrew, if the Queen has the same long life as her mother?