There’s some asinine revisionist history around Prince Andrew’s interview debacle

Trooping the Colour 2019 Photo: Albert Nieboer / Netherlands OUT / Point De Vue OUT

Just know that I believe this is one of the most asinine stories I’ve ever covered, and I’ve covered a lot of asinine stories. The revisionist history within the royal family has gotten SO bad. Okay, so last November, Prince Andrew decided to sit down with BBC’s Newsnight to “clear the air” around his relationship with pedophile and human trafficker Jeffrey Epstein. There was a lot of confusion in real time around the interview, whether the Queen’s people knew the extent of it, and whether palace courtiers had advised against it. I always believed that Andrew had worked with his own staff, and he didn’t let his mother’s staffers know exactly what he was going to do, but he did tell his mother and she signed off on it. The interview was an utter disaster, of course, and over the next week, Prince Charles finally managed to coax the Queen into firing Andrew, but of course the Queen allowed Andrew to “withdraw” from public life on his own accord.

The revisionist history being offered up in the new book about Andrew (Prince Andrew, Epstein and the Palace) is that instead of merely believing that Andrew is a stupid rapist oaf who managed this catastrophe all by himself (with the Queen’s approval), we’re now supposed to believe that this whole thing was some next-level plot by Prince Charles and Prince William. And it also involved pushing Prince Harry out.

Prince Charles and Prince William’s factions within Buckingham Palace used Prince Andrew’s disastrous Newsnight interview as cover to orchestrate a ‘silent coup’ against Prince Harry, a royal expert has claimed. In November 2019 the Duke of York, 60, filmed the ‘car crash’ interview about his friendship with the late paedophile Jeffrey Epstein, which led to his effective retirement from public life. Soon after the interview, rumours of Megxit began to circulate, with speculation that the couple could soon resign themselves from royal life following their struggles in the spotlight.

In his upcoming book Prince Andrew, Epstein and the Palace, author Nigel Cawthorne will claim that both heirs’ teams at the palace saw the interview as an opportunity for a ‘well-timed leak’ to remove both Andrew and ‘independently-minded’ Harry. Buckingham Palace declined to comment, but FEMAIL understands that some of the central claims in Cawthorne’s forthcoming book are disputed. Cawthorne alleges the interview was the ‘starting shot’ in a bid to ‘prune the unwieldy monarchy’ and remove both Prince Harry and Prince Andrew by sharing news of Harry’s plans to ‘quit’ royal life.

‘The Charles-William faction at the palace is in seemingly unstoppable ascendant’, said Nigel. ‘The two heirs found common cause that the unwieldy monarchy has to pruned, starting with their independently-minded brothers Andrew and Harry. The starting shot was Andrew’s BBC Newsnight interview. The Charles faction at the palace clearly saw that it created the opportunity of removing not only Andrew, but also Harry from royal engagements. The first rumours of Harry “quitting” the royal family started circulating around the day of the interview, even before the backlash to Prince Andrew’s performance.’

The royal expert called Harry’s retirement from royal life ‘irrevocable’ and claimed that in the history of the monarchy, there had never been a ‘more stunning’ defenestration of Firm members.

He said: ‘Harry and Meghan had been discussing their leaving the UK for months in secrecy, but the well-timed leak on the day of the interview would remove two senior princes from The Firm in one move as the headlines forced the palace to respond. Harry’s retirement is irrevocable and it is unclear when Prince Andrew will return from his sabbatical. In the modern history of Buckingham Palace it was probably one of the most stunning silent coups. ‘

[From The Daily Mail]

Imagine thinking that strategic leaks about Prince Harry during Andrew’s disastrous newscycle was an effort to prune the royal family of both princes. Here’s an alternate theory, more based in fact: the leaks about Harry and Meghan from the palace(s) were being done for MONTHS as a way to deflect from Andrew’s mess. Harry and Meghan were the big, flashy “controversial” royals behind which all of the other royal shenanigans could hide. And while William wanted Harry and Meghan gone, Charles didn’t. Not at that point. The only thing that’s sort of interesting here – I guess? – is the sort-of admission that Prince Willileaks was the source of a lot of this drama by leaking against Harry and pushing Harry out.

(L-R) Prince Harry, Duke of Sussex, Meghan, Duchess of Sussex, Prime Minister, Boris Johnson and Carrie Symonds attend the annual Royal British Legion Festival of Remembrance at the Royal Albert Hall on November 09, 2019 in London, England.

Photos courtesy of WENN, Avalon Red.

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

39 Responses to “There’s some asinine revisionist history around Prince Andrew’s interview debacle”

Comments are Closed

We close comments on older posts to fight comment spam.

  1. S808 says:

    I agree that they were thrown to the wolves as a distraction and William used it to further his agenda to push Harry out (& at that point I think Charles just had to shrug cause Andrew was the bigger catastrophe that needed a lid put on it) but that HORRIBLE interview was ALL Prince Andrew. I do think at point the palace wasn’t gonna defend H&M for anything in the world because Prince Andrew’s shit was waay more threatening to the crown and Harry and Meghan were great shields. They were also trying to run her off so 2 birds 1 stone.

  2. BayTampaBay says:

    I still have a very hard time believing that Charles wanted Harry gone. This is just my humble opinion and gut feeling but I always felt that Charles “got on” with Harry much better than William. I also always had, and still do have, the feeling that Charles did not care much for Katherine.

    • Chica1971 says:

      @BayTampaBay..You may be right but Charles will always put the business of the Crown over Family of the Crown

    • Harla says:

      That might well be Bay but if William was the prime instigator, pushing Harry and Meghan to leave, Charles certainly didn’t do anything to stop it or offer public support to Meghan. Imho, by sitting back and doing nothing Charles appears spineless and weak when dealing with his oldest son.

    • Noki says:

      I also find it hard to think that a family would do this to their own,but look how Charles was with Diana and then that display with the airline. I wondsr how these people are wired.

    • RoyalBlue says:

      my belief is that Charles did not want Harry gone, but he absolutely wanted Meghan gone. i think they all despised her leadership and strong work ethic, we’re jealous of her popularity and the family were horrified by the press her father, sister and brother were getting and thought that she took too much attention away from the heirs.

      yes, this is all revisionist history being written, but i believe it to be an attempt to spoil whatever will come out in finding freedom. i don’t put it beyond them to do anything to sabotage the sussexes success.

      • Mumbles says:

        I am looking forward to what the Scobie book comes out on this. The line had been that Charles admired Meghan greatly for her work ethic and steeliness. (The “Tungsten” nickname rumor). And he looked quite warm and fond of her at the wedding. But who knows. In any event it will be interesting what that book in particular says. I understand it’s not “authorized” but it will be the closest thing to it.

  3. Cj says:

    I cannot and will not blame Charles if he wanted for months to get rid of Andrew, and rightfully used this interview to do it.

    I can’t imagine what it’s like to watch someone slowly pour gasoline all over what’s supposed to be your legacy and then hear your mother saying it’s fine because he’s her favourite and pipe down.

    I wouldn’t even blame Charles if he had encouraged the interview so he had ample evidence to make the queen get rid of Andrew.

  4. Talie says:

    I don’t find it that far-fetched and people on here have said similar theories – but it’s interesting in light of the stories coming out about William being concerned about looking like the villain. I guess his team knew this would be coming and whatever is said in Finding Freedom. Prince Andrew is definitely delusional enough to compare himself to Meghan and Harry – Sarah Ferguson has been doing the same publicly for some months now.

  5. Ariel says:

    I can’t decide who is more racist, immoral, and batshit crazy.
    The royal family aka The House of Petty (to use a Celebitchy term)
    or the british press.

  6. AnnaKist says:

    Come on. What do they take us for? It’s been only 7 months since that shocker of an interview, so a tad early to be revising history. Our memories aren’t *that* bad…

  7. taylor says:

    why would charles want to boot his own son, who was doing demonstrably good work? even if he did think more ~independently, nothing harry and meghan were doing threatened the future of the monarchy. and how in the hell would harry’s “retirement” be irrevocable, but Andrew be expected and welcomed to make a return? and why the heck do they still refer to it as megxit when harry also left? sussexit is right there!!

    this whole article is irritating.

    on a lighter note — meghan looks so cute in that first picture!

  8. MissMarierose says:

    “in the history of the monarchy, there had never been a ‘more stunning’ defenestration of Firm members.”


    The Princes in the Tower beg to differ.

  9. C-Shell says:

    The constant equating of Andrew to Harry and Meghan, as though H&M are culpable for *anything whatsoever* while Andrew is a freaking criminal/rapist, is beyond infuriating and has moved into ridiculous exhaustion phase. What I find interesting is how the British tabloids/gossip rags are now talking about Willileak’s plan and successful execution to exile Harry and Meghan like it’s a well-known fact. I’m all for it.

    • Becks1 says:

      Yup, the narrative has shifted and William is definitely looking like he actively pushed the Sussexes out. They’re not even trying to act like William loves Harry and tried to convince him to stay.

      It’s not a good look for William.

      • anon says:

        But we knew that: Williams was the great schemer, the main leaker, the chief hater. The problem for Kensington is that now the rabid tabloid readers will also know that…

  10. Becks1 says:

    yeah, this reads like…nonsense.

    But look at the interesting wording. Harry’s retirement is “irrevocable,” Andrew is on a “sabbatical.” Hmmmm. Seems like there is a lot of groundwork here for Andrew to come back.

    Anyway….do I think William wanted Harry gone? Yes, but I don’t think he thought he would actually go. I don’t think Charles wanted Harry gone. That was the whole idea of the “slimmed down” monarchy – no cousins as working royals, no grandchildren (i.e. no Beatrice or Eugenie, etc) just Charles, Camilla, the Cambridges and Sussexes. I’m not sure at this point if Charles could have prevented Harry from leaving, it seems pretty clear that this is something Harry thought about for a long time, but Charles certainly could have protected them more in the press.

    I think the Andrew interview may have been one of the last straws for Harry as it was clear that he and Meghan were being used not only to protect William but Andrew as well. Every quote in an article that referenced Andrew and Harry in the same line probably drove him insane (like “the Queen’s new annus horibilis* after Harry and Meghan took a private jet and Andrew’s friendship with Epstein came under renewed scrutiny.”)

    *don’t judge my spelling lol

    • Nic919 says:

      I agree that Charles wanted Harry and his spouse to be a part of the slimmed down monarchy. This was referenced years ago when the york girls were told they wouldn’t be working royals.

      I also think when Harry and Meghan moved their staff outside of KP that was Charles trying to protect Harry from Willieleaks. The one year review is probably part of the same and he is still assisting them financially.

      Andrew, being the mess that he is did the interview of his own volition, but Charles certainly didn’t mind that it was leverage to get him out of the public eye.

      The animosity against Harry Is coming from William. He doesn’t like that his younger brother is more popular, more charismatic and has global attention along with Meghan. William believes he should be first in everything because up until now birth order dictated priority in almost all things. Meghan coming in and supporting Harry permitted Harry to be more independent and not take the crap he would have in the past.

  11. Jay says:

    Seems like royal sources are STILL equating Harry and Meghan opting out of the royal rota to escape racist abuse with Andrew’s slimy villainy. A plot to get rid of their respective “independently minded” brothers, honestly🙄

    • SomeChick says:

      ITA. Pretty much what I would expect from the Fail.

      Conflating Harry & Meghan with Andrew and his vile behavior is appalling.

    • Nic919 says:

      Being independent minded and supporting sex trafficking seems to be the same in the minds of the deranged British media.

  12. Faye says:

    Charles may have not wanted Harry to leave, but William . Charles is going to go along with what he has to for the sake of the crown.

    He may care for Harry, but he has to keep William happy.

    • Jaded says:

      I agree, there’s been a huge amount of “firstborn son and heir” cover-up from Charles and no matter which son he likes best (I hear Tommy Smothers in my head…”mom always liked you BEST”) the heir will always come first despite his unethical behaviour. However what goes around comes around and as the sun rises on the Sussex’s work it will highlight the Keen’s laziness and lack of focus.

  13. Heidi says:

    Charles was very jealous of Diana’s popularity – so maybe he felt the same way about Meghan and that is why he did nothing to publicly support her.

    • Jaded says:

      True, and Meghan’s work successes eclipsed anything the Keens were doing so Charles chose to side with William.

    • windyriver says:

      Umm, don’t buy this – why wouldn’t Charles have already been jealous of Harry, who was becoming very popular especially with his work on Invictus, etc., if he were still so consumed with jealously? I just don’t believe Charles at 70 is the same as he was at 40; he’s got a solid legacy of his own behind him, and he’s no longer an heir looking at a minimum 20 year wait for the throne. His reign as monarch is imminent, appears from recent messages to have partially started, and I’m sure he’s focused on the bigger picture.

      I think it’s all about how Will was reacting to Meghan, and Harry with her – jealous, incandescent rage, etc. Who knows what threats Will may have made. Charles made the choice not to publicly antagonize his spoiled, useless, rotten older son, the heir.

      I also wonder if Charles miscalculated. Perhaps he might have made more of an effort to support Meghan and Harry publicly if he realized they were actually willing to completely leave.

  14. Beach Dreams says:

    Huh. Funny little thing happened: Tatler also wrote an article about this same book and excerpt and deleted it rather quickly. There are still some screenshots floating around Twitter and it doesn’t seem to be saying anything different from the Fail. The title of the article was “Did Charles and William’s teams conspire against Harry amid Andrew’s Newsnight scandal?” Tatler’s been making some very interesting moves since that infamous ‘Catherine the Great’ feature…

    • Rae says:

      Very interesting. There has been a shift in reporting over this lockdown period, that’s for sure. The press, who were going to great pains to play the party line for ages, aren’t even trying to hide the meddling now. Perhaps they also never thought he and Meghan would leave (Or that he would choose to leave with her) and now they’ve lost their money makers.

  15. Rae says:

    I’m just going to wait for Omid’s book, to be honest.

  16. Mary says:

    With books coming out fast and furious, I suspect that we will get a clearer picture of what really happened in that family and with Sussexit much earlier than I ever would have expected.