There are so many moving parts to Prince Andrew’s downfall, it’s hard to keep up. In the past week, we’ve heard that the Department of Justice is making big moves to interrogate/question Andrew over his friendship and crimes with Jeffrey Epstein. Andrew’s lawyers, in turn, threw a hissy fit about how the federal prosecutor for the Southern District of New York was merely a clout-chaser trying to get famous from attacking Andrew so publicly. Andrew claimed that he’s offered a witness statement, and the SDNY is all “lol, we know you did crimes, you’re not just a witness.” Anyway, that’s just a recap! Because of that drama, I somehow missed *this* other drama, which is all about how Andrew used charity funds to pay off his former employee Amanda Thirsk. Did you know that the Prince Andrew Charitable Trust has now been forced into shutdown?
Prince Andrew stepped down from his role as a senior royal over his friendship with Jeffrey Epstein and his confusing defenses of both the friendship and allegations made by one of Epstein’s accusers. But almost immediately, other aspects of Andrew’s life as a senior royal attracted scrutiny, including his connections with businessmen and the goings-on at his charities. Now, amid criticism from the U.S. government about his lack of cooperation on the Epstein investigation, the U.K. government’s Charity Commission has found that the Prince Andrew Charitable Trust violated the law by improperly paying a trustee.
In a statement, the commission said that the charity paid £355,297 to a former trustee who was an employee of Andrew’s household. The payments happened over the course of about five years, and Andrew has since repaid the money to the charity, according to the Financial Times. The commission said that the charity will now shut itself down.
The commission added that the investigation began after Andrew’s BBC interview. “This issue came to light after the charity reported to the Commission a potential reputational risk arising from significant media coverage of an interview with the Duke of York, broadcast by the BBC, in November 2019. The Commission found that resulting action taken by the charity and its subsidiaries was appropriate,” the statement said. “However, proactive examination of the charity’s accounts and records at the time identified other issues of concern that required further attention.”
In March, The Telegraph first reported that Andrew was still interested in returning to his public role, and had hired crisis P.R. specialist Mark Gallagher to help rebuild his reputation. According to the newspaper, a Monday statement from his lawyers questioning the motives of Geoffrey Berman, a U.S. Attorney for the SDNY handling the Epstein case, was one prong of their strategy. In the statement, Andrew’s lawyer’s claimed that they have made at least three offers to assist the Department of Justice. Royal sources who spoke to The Times last month said that talks of Andrew’s return to royal life are a nonstarter, and the family has “no plans to review” the terms of his resignation last fall.
This was kept super-quiet, right? This Vanity Fair story is from a few days ago, and it got buried in the (legitimately) bigger story about Andrew and the Southern District. But Andrew’s sad, corrupt charitable trust was forced to shut down because Andrew was using it as a slush fund to pay off ex-employees who knew too much, and the charity commission was like “you can’t do that.” Andrew’s charitable trust was the umbrella organization which oversaw Pitch@Palace, from which Andrew has already stepped away.
Also: the Financial Times did a short review of Nigel Cawthorne’s new biography of Andrew, and FT is being shady as hell about it! They say that any examination of Andrew’s life will raise “deep questions about the size and modus operandi of the British monarchy. These have become more pressing as the focus moves to the next generation and talk of a reformed “Firm”.”
Photos courtesy of WENN, BBC & social media.
Andrew closes down a charity and Fergie opens one up …oh, the circle of sordid lives.
I was just going to say…now do Fergie. She’s vile too.
Yep. & did you hear how apparently they made donations (which included pizza—the irony) to a charity for victims of sex-trafficking? They honestly think throwing money at things will solve everything. And honestly for a time, that White privilege move would have worked, but not anymore.
Again, this makes me wonder, whatever happened to the charitable organization for trafficking victims that Eugenie co-founded? She was also set to do a podcast about victims of sex-trafficking before her dad’s atrocious interview. And since then it’s been silence from her end on that issue, while also participating in her parents “happy family” pics on social media. She’s a total hypocrite as well—that whole family, just throw them away.
What angers me is that this kind of shady crap has always been going on. And I am glad it is being brought to light. They do not deserve the privilege they inherit and need to taken down. Too many people have been hurt. It’s about time we wake up and realize how we are being taken advantage of.
Old Liz needs to send her favorite boy off to exile without any pocket money. He’s scum & contaminates the rest of the royals, some of whom can’t bear much deep scrutiny anyway.
He is a shady grifter, and if she sent him off with no money, he would absolutely get himself into something messy and illegal and would probably wind up in prison because he’s lived his whole life believing no one can touch him and that’s not true anymore.
She might be better to keep him on an allowance–not that it’ll be enough to stop him doing crimes, but it might keep him manageable.
He has no redeeming feature that I can think of, just an utterly despicable and revolting person.
2020 might just be the year that exposes the royals for ALL their nonsense, their abuse and entitlement. Do away with them.
Why are they still in existence? Other then tourism, what’s the actual point of them?
Saw the start of your comment and thought maybe 2020 is the year we see the BRF more clearly – Then I thought there are also some bad puns about rose-colored glasses in this, too. Now I’m thinking coffee run.
Honestly though, glad other trustees (nonBRF) spoke up. I always feel like the hardest thing with NPO boards is explaining that they are still serving on a business’ board and can be held legally accountable for the business’ actions.
I honestly don’t get how Brits can be so complacent about this. Prince Andrew and everything he touches should be a huge scandal
I’m still waiting for the press release saying when Andrew is paying back the 7 million spent refurbishing Royal Lodge, the money spent on his security that he’s been receiving even though he stepped down last November, the amount he’ll be paying in rent/maintenance on Royal Lodge and how much he’ll be reimbursing the taxpayers for Sarah’s room and board. I mean isn’t this what happens when one is no longer a working royal?
And let’s not forget the Swiss chalet that he is being sued over – Mummy will stiff the taxpayers over that.
@Harla – Andrew will not pay anything because he purchased (or was purchased on his behalf) the leasehold on Royal Lodge. This is no different than Edward Wessex’s leasehold on Bagshot Park. The Crown Estates own the “freehold” but sold a long term “leasehold”.
This is very confusing for a Yank but after much study I understand it to some degree.
Yes, I recall reading about the leaseholds some time ago. Didn’t Andrew and Edward pay some ridiculously low price for their leaseholds? If nothing else, Andrew should reimburse the taxpayers for his security team that he continues to enjoy.
Yep – the legal position of Bagshot and the Royal Lodge are very different to Frogmore. At best they can try to put pressure on Andrew to sell the leasehold back to the Crown Estate but otherwise they can’t take it away. Also the $7m renovations weren’t paid by the Crown Estate either, they were paid by Andrew (although god knows where he got the money from – super shady) and used to justify the low price he paid for the leasehold.
Examining the finances of the BRF is the real story of the transition from Elizabeth to Charles. If Charles wants to streamline the monarchy, the budget will also have to be looked at, including their housing, travel and security costs.
I hadn’t thought about it that way, Molly, being someone who wants to do away with the monarchy altogether, but you’re absolutely right. A slimmed down monarchy, certainly one with do nothing W & K as major players, should receive a slimmed down income to match. There are some very, very hard times ahead for the people of the UK- otherwise the contrast between the wealth of the monarchy and the poverty of the people will become even more obscene and grotesque than it is now.
“But almost immediately, other aspects of Andrew’s life as a senior royal attracted scrutiny, including his connections with businessmen and the goings-on at his charities.”
No, the UK tabloid press had this information all along and buried it. They opted to run stories about eating avocado, private jets, and “vulgar” nail polish, and whinging about godparents instead.
@Becca R – I understand the anger how you feel but all media must be careful how they report on the Epstein matter or they will also become part of the SDNY investigation. I understand why all media is treading lightly in this matter.
But they’ve been treading lightly for 25 years-wayyyyyy before this investigation.
I am shocked. SHOCKED, I TELL YOU!
If the FT is being shady about the Royal Family then you know there is some serious sh!t thats about to hit the public domain – not just about Andrew but the whole family.
If the FT are doing an expose, then you sit up and take notice – they are a proper newspaper with REAL journalists.
I hope they are.
@Digital Unicorn – You are so correct. The Financial Times is like the Wash Post and NY Times. They are not going to report on anything unless they are holding all the cards and are ready to lay them on the table.
Another BRF member who cannot think ahead. Do not f*** with the US DOJ, FBI, SDNY. These agencies knew Andrew would not comply and waited months before contacting media. Allowing queenie and chuckie to pay the victims and go into hiding is his only option. Hoping for a full reveal and financial investigation.
I mean, that is a bit of a US-centric way of thinking about it. They technically have no jurisdiction over Andrew, and there is no chance he is extradited (in fact he hasn’t been charged). Just from a legal view point what his lawyers have offered is what any sensible lawyer would do. On the other hand, Andrew can’t then go around saying he is assisting them (what he is doing is what any lawyer will let him while still covering his ass)
Just wait until they look into ALL the royals foundations. So many are shady. There was a reason Harry and Meghan wanted to separate from Will and Kate’s foundation. And why Charles put someone else on charge of the Princes Trust. Can you imagine what would happen to it if William ran it?
Charles put some else in charge of the “The Great Steward of Scotland’s Dumfries House Trust” for the Dumfries House renovation and development scheme too.
The Prince’s Trust isn’t really a trust anymore – certainly none of the funds are held ‘in trust’ to give out to other charitable organisations, like most traditional trusts are. It might be called one but it’s an audited registered charity that focuses on delivering support through programmes and courses for young people, not just acting as a middle-man for donations to charities doing the work.
Can you tell I dont think much of the traditional trust/foundation structure much? I’m sure there’s a place for them and some are great (I can think of some that disperse funds specifically to tiny charities from a bequest from a will, and those I think we still need), but the Cambridge’s Foundation just seems like a pointless middle-man to me, and a way for them to pretend they’re doing something.
Supposedly Charles had to look outside his boys to take over the charity because William and Harry didnt want to take it over. They wanted their “own”.
Didnt Margaret’s son take it?
And thanks to Billions I actually know what the SDNY is. This would all be such great gossip if Andrew weren’t a horrifying person.
He’s still “HRH” though, right? That’s the price of having a royal family. Nothing is based on merit, it’s purely birth right regardless of what a despicable person they turn out to be.
Yes, and it’s hard to see a way around this actually. Born royal, especially the ‘heir’? Then born the very definition of entitled, used to having and doing pretty well what you like. And then add the element of a heirarchy of status, and that’s where the insane jealousies we see play out develop – ” you are special, just not so special as x”, and you then get the greed that says ‘I deserve what I want too’, and the misuse of public funds as private pocketbooks, and the expectation that others will give them freebies all their lives. The better or more respected royals these days seem to be the love matches between professional working commoners like Letizia, Daniel, and Maxima and their royal partners, who bring that character they had developed to the marriage and their new role. You have to be very strong, like Felipe in Spain and Harry, to resist this, I think.
I bet he’s been using it to launder money. I bet he’s been doing it for a long time, and sloppily.