Prince Andrew has been ‘quietly removed as patron’ from nearly 50 organizations

Duke of York, Prince Andrew continues to get probed about his involvement with the Jeffery Epstein case! **FILE PHOTOS**

Towards the end of April, I wondered what the hell was going on with Prince Charles’ priorities in the wake of his father’s death. Just days after Prince Philip’s funeral, Chaz traveled to one of his many country homes to grieve privately. In his absence, Prince William, Kate and the Middleton PR machine ran amok with a series of increasingly bizarre stories. When we did hear about Charles, it seemed he was focusing on moving Prince Andrew out of the public eye and removing any hope Andrew might have a royal revival. While that is important, it felt like the wrong thing to focus on right at that very moment. But it looks like Charles got his way: Andrew has now been removed as patron from nearly 50 charities and organizations.

The Duke of York has been quietly or publicly removed as patron of almost 50 organisations, The Telegraph can reveal, despite his expressed intention to one day return to public life. The proportion of his charities and organisations, thought to be at least one in four, that opted to sever ties with the Duke following his friendship with convicted paedophile Jeffrey Epstein, underlines the scale of the damage to his reputation.

Many, particularly those working with children, felt it was “no longer appropriate” to continue their associations with him. Others said they were determined to find a representative “better suited” to their aims and values.

When the Duke, 61, announced on Nov 20 2019 that he was “stepping back from public duties for the foreseeable future” following the furore over his disastrous Newsnight interview, many of his charities found themselves in a difficult position. Board meetings were called, frantic phone calls made. Several took the decision to end their association with immediate effect. They included the Royal National Institute for the Deaf, the Golf Foundation, the Children’s Foundation, the Outward Bound Trust and the British Science Association.

The Royal Navy and Royal Marines Children’s Fund said: “We felt that as a children’s charity it was not appropriate for him to remain patron.”

Other organisations such as Berkshire County Cricket Club, the Society for Nautical Research, the Association of Leading Visitor Attractions and Whitgift School in Croydon, also severed ties.

[From The Telegraph]

Honestly, this should have happened, what? Fifteen months ago. Sixteen months ago, shortly after Andrew “stepped down” from royal life. So why didn’t it happen then? Because Andrew was convinced he could launch a comeback on the back of Beatrice’s wedding and the Sussexit. And because the Queen absolutely wanted him to launch a comeback, and Buckingham Palace threw its weight around to keep Andrew’s patronages from jumping ship. When Prince Philip passed away, Charles must have used the moment of familial crisis to work behind the scenes and push Andrew out completely. Maybe the Queen just “gave up” on that particular fight too.

As this news came out, Andrew was seen riding a horse on the grounds of Windsor Castle. That’s his life now – a layabout in Royal Lodge, spending time with the Queen privately, scheming, riding horses. Extradite Andrew To America Challenge.

Prince Andrew spotted driving his car in Windsor

Duke of York, Prince Andrew continues to get probed about his involvement with the Jeffery Epstein case! **FILE PHOTOS**

Photos courtesy of Backgrid.

Related stories

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

95 Responses to “Prince Andrew has been ‘quietly removed as patron’ from nearly 50 organizations”

Comments are Closed

We close comments on older posts to fight comment spam.

  1. Cecilia says:

    Seems like this “soft regency” of charles is becoming a full blown regency. Honestly this should have happened as soon as it was known that meghan and harry would loose their royal patronages due to stepping back.

    • Snuffles says:

      Agreed. He’s focused on getting things done behind the scenes while the Cambridges are on a desperate PR offensive to vanquish the looming shadow of the Sussex’s and simultaneously jump the line of succession when the Queen dies. My money is on Charles.

      • Cecilia says:

        When the departure of jason Knauff was announced someone said that this was due to charles. I took that with a grain of salt because i thought it was either william or the crisis managers who wanted to get rid of him. Now i think that that person might have had a point. The different households have been running wild for far too long. It seems like charles is now fully taking control and doing it with an iron fist.

      • equality says:

        @Cecilia CH was tasked with looking into the bullying allegations that Knauf was behind. They probably exposed a lot of things going on at KP that lead back to Knauf.

      • Cecilia says:

        @equality i wonder what willy will think of loosing his right hand man and how kp will work going forward

      • LaraW” says:

        Question: who do these crisis managers answer to? I vaguely recall people saying they were from the NHS and very strange choices. But if they are Charles’ people, I think some of the recent events and changes make more sense.

      • Cecilia says:

        @laraw. Both KP and Clarence House hired crisis managers. Who they answer to? Who knows. If charles is taking full control of the institution they might have to answer to him and him alone. But if the households will keep functioning separately im assuming that the crisis managers at CH have to answer to charles, while those at KP answer to william.

      • LaraW” says:

        @Cecilia- I guess I can’t envision a world where William actually listens to anyone telling him how to run KP unless there is some serious leverage against him to force him to play along. He’s a bastard for certain, but Knauf has been loyal to him and enabled him every step of the way. He was co-conspirator and supporter for William during the “difficult time” when William “lost his brother.”

        I don’t know why, since loyalty has never been named as one of William’s virtues, but for some reason I can’t imagine William quietly agreeing to throw Jason to the wolves. But this is all wild speculation, I have no facts or evidence to back up my half cocked theories.

      • Nic919 says:

        William was never going to get rid of Knauf voluntarily because Knauf did all of his dirty work. The fake crying story, the tiara nonsense, the fake bullying allegations, getting involved in the MoS lawsuit…. that can all be traced back to Knauf and William. (Ok possibly the fake crying story is Kate and Carole, but I can bet Knauf helped with that).

        Charles is a lot of things but he’s not dumb when it comes to court intrigue and the fact that Knauf publicly tied himself to trying to shoot down the copyright lawsuit (remember he won his own copyright case with courtiers having made some of his stuff public too) and the bullying nonsense just before the Oprah interview which likely violates a bunch of UK privacy and employment laws since the actual alleged victims never brought any complaints themselves when it happened years ago, mean that Knauf was toxic and had to be removed. Had William not been directly involved in instructing Knauf, he would have been removed months ago when the nonsense about cooperating with the Mail on Sunday came out.

      • Merricat says:

        Plus 1, Nic.

      • The Hench says:

        @Nic919 – EXACTLY this – “Had William not been directly involved in instructing Knauf he would have been removed months ago when the nonsense about co-operating with the Mail on Sunday came out.”

        Instead Knauf has his fingers ALL over loads of crap up until two days ago and then it’s a weird story about a relocation with his boyfriend and how sorry the Cambridges are to see him go. So, yeah, this looks like Charles knifed Knauf. It demonstrates (again) how William is the spider in the web of smearing Meghan and consequently I’m doubling down on my theory that the senior royal household member that the MoS Editor in Chief met with and whose word he took on the letter copyright seriously enough to go to trial was indeed William.

    • Tessa says:

      He needs to make amends with Harry and family and put William in his place.

      • Cecilia says:

        That will not happen without publicly apologizing and ordering the press to stop the attacks. The press won’t listen to him (and might even turn on him) and apologizing is basically admitting guilt. I think charles would rather eat glass

    • BlueToile says:

      Yeah, I want to know why this wasn’t announced for all and sundry to know about. They made an extremely public and critical announcement with Harry and Meg, so why does this get to fly under the radar. It’s not like H&M are wanted for child trafficking, but they always seem to get the brunt. 🤨

      • Eurydice says:

        From what I can tell from this article, it seems to have been a slow edging away of the patronages over a couple of years, rather than a one-time stripping of 50.

      • Mrs.Krabapple says:

        THIS. The royal family is still protecting Andrew. The patronages probably didn’t WANT Andrew anymore, so there wasn’t anything the royal family could do short of forcing Andrew onto them against their will. And it was done very quietly. It’s the softest treatment they could give Andrew, and they continue to protect him. That family is GARBAGE.

    • Anony83 says:

      I wonder if some of this was triggered when Andrew tried to get Petty Betty to let him wear his uniform to the funeral resulting in all the men not being able to wear uniforms.

      I wonder if Charles finally realized exactly how much Andrew was trying to leverage his relationship with their mother into a return to relevance in the family. I think Andrew is TERRIFIED about the Queen dying. Not that I think Charles will allow him to be held to account legally (that would be terrible for the Firm) but Andrew is going to get sent to the Royal equivalent of Siberia once Charles is king and Andrew clearly knows it.

  2. Smices says:

    So three quarters of his patronages decided to keep him on? That’s…telling.

    Also interesting that these removals were done quietly and at the patronages discretion while H and M’s patronage strippings were announced publicly and happened even when the charity wanted them to stay.

    • Gail says:

      Yes @ Smices
      But I can’t see a difference
      Can you see a difference?*
      *snide voice **
      play on a commercial from ages ago..so long ago I forget what the product was; the tag line always stayed w/me and seems so apropos in this moment….

    • VS says:

      question: how can you be an effective patron of so many patronages? as has been shown a few months ago, the charities don’t gain anything by having a royal patron. It looks like the royal family just collect these patronages for their own resume and do absolutely nothing with them! what a sham but it is not my money, so all is ok, I guess!

      • Chaine says:

        You can’t really. Let’s say you have 200 patronages and there are max 250 days you work a year at 8 hours per day (that’s 5 days a week for 50 weeks, assuming you only take two weeks off which we all know is not realistic for the royals who seem to have oodles of down time). At that rate, you could devote equally to each patronage just 10 hours per year, and that would have to include your physical visits to pose and look Royal and cut ribbons. So there is no way they are doing anything meaningful other than stand and cut ribbons, or have chats with children, or make a formulaic zoom call for most of the organizations.

    • BlueToile says:

      I’m sorry, Smices. I hadn’t read your comment before chiming in above. You said it first and you are 100% correct.

    • BountyHunter says:

      This exactly.

  3. Snuffles says:

    Charles was getting rid of a liability (as much as he can get rid of his brother). Like Kensington Palace getting rid of their liability, Jason Knauf.

    I wouldn’t be surprised if Charles exiles Andrew to the furthest Commonwealth country he can once The Queen dies.

    • equality says:

      Clarence House was supposed to be looking into the bullying allegations so getting rid of Knauf may be Charles also. Now he needs to work on ousting Prince Michael and wife.

    • Jais says:

      @snuffles-speaking of exile…even if he isn’t necessarily sent sent to a commonwealth country, can Charles make him leave Royal Lodge? Or is that his from the Queen forever?

      • equality says:

        In 2004 Andrew signed a 75 year lease on Royal Lodge for 1 mil pounds and, I think, upkeep. That amounts to 250 pounds a week. Good deal if you can get it.

  4. Kalana says:

    Even in his seventies, Charles was too intimidated by Philip. Remember back in 2019 when Philip surprised everyone at Balmoral and sent Fergie packing? But now it may be full speed ahead on whatever Charles wants.

    • Cecilia says:

      I have my personal opinions on charles but I honestly think that that might be a good thing for the monarchy. Tho i get a feeling that the rest of the left over royal are not really going to like it

    • Snuffles says:

      If I were Charles, I would purge or minimize the liabilities like Jason Knauf (I still think he got deported) Andrew, Prince Michael etc. Get Clarence House, Buckingham Palace and Kensington Palace aligned in their goals. Especially put a stop to Kensington Palace running amok.

      I would also refocus their priorities to the UK and stop trying to compete on the world stage with the Sussex’s. Because quite frankly, unless they shore up their position in their own country, the anti-monarchy UK citizens are gonna come for their necks once the Queen dies.

    • Renata says:

      If as a 70 year old man you are still so intimidated by your centurian father who is actually beneath you in constitutional authority, you don’t deserve to be king. I mean nobody deserves to be king by birth but that’s amplified when you’ve never resolved childhood issues many of us grapple with and resolve with fewer resources and less power Charles had. A man like Charles is so insecure he’ll just go with public opinion. That’s great for getting Andrew out but see where that left Harry and Meghan! Weak, cowardly king who will occasionally ACCIDENTALLY get some things right but also screw up epically for not having a spine.

    • Tessa says:

      Charles just let Harry be pushed out by William.

    • BothSidesNow says:

      @ Snuffles, do you think that was the final straw for Charles? Do you think that Charles clearly knows what Baldimort is up to, and his Keen wife with them encouraging the press for the monarchy to skip Charles? I wonder if Charles knows that his own child is behind stabbing him in the back for the next king to be Baldimort.

      • Tessa says:

        I see all these social media posts to “skip” Charles and go straight to Kate and William, Kate somehow got elevated to “Queen of England.”

  5. Watson says:

    I hope Charles erases Andrew from his security team, patronages, royal events. If anyone had any sense in that family they would have done it far earlier. Mind you Charles is also motivated to axe his brother cause Andrew will always be mummy’s fave but hey, if Andrew wasn’t a massive nonce, Charles would never have this opportunity to oust his brother. Team Charles on this one.

    Note: the similarities btwn Charles/Andrew and William/Harry are not lost on me. Everyone is jealous of the spare for one reason or another. Andrew got his mother’s love which Charles never got, Harry got the love of the people which William doesn’t know how to cultivate. Lol. They all need therapy.

    • Lizzie says:

      Also for a time during his dating years Andrew outshined Charles in popularity. We know how jealous he was of Diana for the same.

  6. Lauren says:

    Chuck probably read the headlines and thought took advantage that his mother has decided to semi-retire and that Andy has decided to concentrate his efforts on getting that inheritance. Still, the fact that these charities kept him as a patron for so long is pretty urgh. I know that Betty was pushing and denying them the possibility to change their patron behind the scenes, but at least those children and youth associated should have pushed back harder.

  7. ABritGuest says:

    Yeah the Chuck regency is going full steam. The Sunday Times even referred to him as King Charles in a headline.

    Weird that Andrew still maintains many patronage’s though- I read he had like 200+. Will those & his military associations be faded out seeing as patronage’s are apparently tied to being a working royal and a life of public service?

    • Jaded says:

      I think they’ll just gradually sever ties as Andrew is a pariah now. Who wants someone who was basically caught red-handed diddling underage girls trafficked by a convicted sex offender showing up to cut ribbons and make inane speeches? He may still be on the books as their patron but that doesn’t mean he still gets a seat at the table.

  8. CidyKitty(CidySmiley) says:

    Seems like Charles is clearing house. I think he is making his transition into the seat of power now that Phillip is gone. It is my understanding (I don’t know a ton of the history) that he was pretty scared of Phillip. Now that he’s gone, he might be able to make the changes he wants to make.

  9. Over it says:

    Well randy is white and hasn’t tainted the esteem house of racist by marrying a woman of color. So therefore humiliating him by screaming this from the rooftop for all to hear just won’t do. We need to treat him with grace and dignity. We reserved that for the one who married black and his black wife

    • Rice says:

      True. But I often wonder if Randy Andy has lost his appetite for young girls. Maybe, Chuck is really fed up with Randy and his grossness. Maybe Chuck knows that Randy still pays for underage girls and he (Chuck) doesn’t want that tarnishing the Royal Family. I mean, racism, infidelity, and xenophobia are allowed in their world. But paying for sex with young girls is a bridge too far for the Future King.

      • Tessa says:

        CHarles ousting his own son and his family and/or letting william push Harry out, is gross.

      • SomeChick says:

        “lost his appetite for young girls” – is that really a thing that happens?
        I can believe that he’s lost his source of supply, for sure. but do dudes like that ever change?

  10. mariahlee says:

    It seems most of them opted to keep them tho. Hm.

  11. Southern Fried says:

    Do the Royals add anything of value to the organizations or more like smiley stickers at kindergarten round-up? Kids get them even if they pee their pants or bite the teacher.

    • Snuffles says:

      I think they put more time and energy into the organizations that they created and run, like The Prince’s Trust, than the ones they just occasionally show up for, for the photo op. For the most part having a royal as a patron hold very little value. It benefits the royal’s image more than it does the charity.

      • Cava24 says:

        I think more and more people are figuring this out now, too, with everything that has happened in the last couple of years.

  12. Andrew’s Nemesis says:

    It sounds as though Prince Charles is establishing himself firmly as the Windsor patriarch. And I think PWT and Wiglet should watch it. Charles can be utterly ruthless. I think he’s been allowing them just enough rope – and waiting for them to hang themselves.
    Now if PaedoAndy could just be moved *into* HMP Belmarsh…

    • LaraW” says:

      If Charles is regent, does this mean he holds the purse strings to all of the monarchy’s money? I can imagine some ultimatums to William and Kate: you WILL get off your asses and work; you WILL look like a happily married couple; you WILL grit your teeth and bear it or no helicopter, no palace protection for the Middleton clan, no botox and fillers and blow outs, no trips to Norfolk.

      He’s perfectly happy to cut off one son who actually worked and did what was asked of him— I think he’s perfectly happy to do it to his other son, with Philip now gone and Elizabeth greatly weakened.

      • Andrew’s Nemesis says:

        Not sure, @LaraW”… but he DOES have the Duchy of Cornwall money and a significant private fortune. I doubt that he would want to spend it, however.

      • Snuffles says:

        I believe he does hold the purse strings right now when it comes to the operating budget. I recall stories of Harry not being happy about having to compete with William for money for projects he wanted to do or the staff he wanted to hire.

        I think William is still beholden to Charles for money and probably got his way through tantrums and emotional blackmail. Maybe Charles is tightening the financial noose.

      • SurelyNot says:

        Charles has always held the purse strings .

      • (The OG) Jan90067 says:

        I believe Charles does, until TQ passes and he becomes King, when it is at HIS discretion and pleasure to bestow the PoW title on Baldimort, whereby he’d get the duchy and the monies that come from it as his income.

        Then watch all hell break loose!

      • LaraW” says:

        @SurelyNot— I guess even if Charles has always held the purse strings, something about the internal power dynamics has changed since Philip’s death. Was Philip in charge of the household finances? I’m really confused as to how the monarchy’s assets work.

        @Andrew’s Nemesis— this just makes me even more confused about all their sources of income. There’s the various trust funds set up by past royals for current royals, and private wealth, and wealth renting out stables and selling yogurt and sandringham beer and favors for Russia, and then income from duchies, and then the sovereign grant??? Like- what is the income that ALL the royals share? Which is the pot of money that all those auxiliary royals are so desperate to keep and so vehemently oppose Charles’ plan to slim down the monarchy?

      • Nic919 says:

        Charles doesn’t officially control the money unless there is a Regency Act in place, as what happened with the last prince regent later George IV. That’s why there was such a battle back then to actually get a regency implemented.

        The Duchy money is his by right. But anything beyond that would be unofficial and at this point if he is being given control it is because the Queen permits it.

      • equality says:

        So maybe, the Queen really allowed Philip to control the finances behind the scenes and now Charles is doing that?

    • Capepopsie says:

      @Andrew’s Nemesis P Charles was totally ruthless to P Diana throuhgout their marriage and now towards P Harry and his family! So I expect this is who he really is. It’s probably going to show more now that P Phillip is gone.

  13. Amy Bee says:

    Nah, Charles doesn’t credit for anything to do with Andrew’s current situation. His best friend was the notorious paedophile Jimmy Saville and he threw his support behind an Anglican Bishop who was also accused of paedophilia. He allowed Andrew to speak to the BBC following Philip’s death and has made move to make Andrew to talk to the FBI. Let’s not forgot that Charles mentor, Lord Mountbatten is alleged to have preyed on young boys. The aristocracy do not view paedophilia as a crime or taboo.

    • I’m with you, AMY BEE. Charles has a very public history of supporting pedophiles close to him so I don’t think this is about what Andrew did. This is about the negative PR surrounding Andrew and a chance for Charles to do what he’s wanted to do for ages —- jettison Andrew. Charles is extremely good at marginalizing anyone who gets in the way of his ego: Diana, Harry, Meghan, Fergie, Andrew….the list goes on. I also think the Cambridge’s are going to find out just what a KEEN, stealth player Charles truly is when he wants his way.

    • Elizabeth says:

      I was just rewatching the first season of Ladies of London and I decided to read up on the Montagus. The current earl’s father was accused of child molestation, including by his own youngest son!

      Just to say, it is so tragically pervasive in society. I always gave Charles the benefit of the doubt with Seville, but his own brother? Come on. Hand him over to the FBI already.

  14. Noki says:

    Out of all the Queens children,who are the closest? They have never seemed like tight siblings.But this changed with their own children atleast. And this generations cousins seem pretty tight.

    • Snuffles says:

      I think Charles and Anne respect each other. Anne just focuses on her own thing and her own family. I don’t think she ever cared about being number 1 in the family or in the public’s hearts. So, no real threat to Charles.

      • Brielle says:

        I thought Anne was jealous of Diana and that’s how she was bestowed with the title Princess

  15. aquarius64 says:

    I call this the Oprah interview effect. It brought the Andrew and now Prince Michael situations into focus to the point the rota rats have a hard time defending the punishments on the Sussexs. Also, Ghislaine Maxwell’s trial is coming up and the Windsors are bracing themselves for revelations that may put Andrew at the defendant’s table. I think Charles is building the case for Parliament to pull Andrew’s titles for committing crimes against citizens of an ally nation, the US.

    Notice William was not consulted on this decision on Andy’s patronages. And the Cambridges better watch their backs. Charles is not playing.

    • Snuffles says:

      As I consider Harry and Meghan now separate from this circus, I have no dog in this Game of Thrones. But I will watch and be entertained to see if anyone comes out on top or will they mutually destroy each other.

    • (The OG) Jan90067 says:

      I don’t think they will EVER give up Pedo to the Feds. Or to anyone. It would make them ALL vulnerable in the future (to be prosecuted for anything they may do, be it criminal, tax fraud, etc).

      Pedo will be always be under the protective wing of the Monarchy, even under Charles, though he will be at the very *tip* of that wing, not close to “the body” of the bird.

      • Snuffles says:

        I’m sure that is what Charles is telling Andrew. I’ll keep you out of jail and in luxury as long as retreat into obscurity and no longer represent The Crown.

    • Jaded says:

      If Ghislaine Maxwell sings to get a lighter sentence Andrew will truly be up schitt’s creek without a paddle. Her trial has been postponed to the fall in light of a bunch of additional charges the defense needs time to prepare for. If these additional charges implicate Andrew even more his only route would be to go into full retirement mode. He won’t be able to travel as many countries have extradition treaties with the US. So in effect he’ll be a prisoner in his own castle. I imagine Charles has utterly no more f*cks to give re: Andrew and is making it clear that even as Prince Regent, he will throw Andrew to the lions if he so much as farts in the wrong direction.

  16. Eurydice says:

    I’m confused by this article. Who is actually doing the removal here? It only mentions organizations that chose to cut ties with Andrew over the past couple of years. When their boards were making frantic phone calls, were some of them from Charles?

  17. India says:

    Charles had better address the Cambridges and Carole because they sure are trying to hard to kick him out of the line of succession and make Baldy the next monarch. This should be his focus not Prince Pervert.

    • Snuffles says:

      Maybe a drugs raid for that marijuana farm near the Middletons Buckleberry estate. 😉😉😉. Take nasty Uncle Garry down. And I’m sure there is plenty of dirt on the Middletons that can be unleashed in the press.

    • Jaded says:

      I think Charles is quietly giving them enough rope to do the job of hanging themselves quite properly. He’s very tactical and in this for the long game. Remember the saying “keep your friends close and your enemies closer”.

    • Merricat says:

      Lol, those amateurs cannot begin to imagine what is coming for them. Charles is no fool.

    • BothSidesNow says:

      @ India, I agree that Charles needs to put a muzzle on these rabid dogs, especially CarolE! The Cambozos are a vile bunch.

    • Tessa says:

      Charles did so much damage. Harry and Meghan are vilified on social media and she is called all sorts of names. The DM and other tabs trash them. He did nothing to help Harry. I think he lacks credibility.

      • Nlopez says:

        100% agree with Tessa ! The vitriol directed at H&M is still astounding to me if I read comments anywhere except Celebitchy!

  18. Hannah says:

    Good lord, visions of a portly, stout 60 something year old riding horsies round mummy’s estate. G-d he truly is repugnant. He physically repulses me. I see pics of him with his daughters in their early teens, and think, you revolting sweaty fat f**k, you should have been kept away from them as well. I need to go wash my hands now. I feel dirty just reading and typing this.

    • Eurydice says:

      Oh, but I thought he can’t sweat. Truly a disgusting creature. I don’t know how they can criticize Harry for talking about mental health when the RF is practically a psychotherapist’s dream.

  19. Doulton says:

    I think that Charles is a narcissist. Only a narcissist can be so seemingly cruel to a child (or even an adult child). Notice that Camilla has, for about 5 decades, known how to handle a narcissist. People around the narcissist must feed the beast or be made to suffer. A narcissist can be excellent in many areas: brilliant, talented, gifted. But the people around him or her cannot themselves be narcissists for there we have duels to the death OR one person agreeing to submit and be used.

    I don’t think that other prime narcissist, CarolE Middleton can compete with Charles.

    It’s an epic battle for the fealty of William. And he’s got his own gardening to do.

    • Tessa says:

      Camilla has her own residence. How much time she and Charles are under the same roof is subject to speculation. Charles has enablers on his own staff. He apparently lets Michael Fawcett rule the roost. Other enablers of Charles included the late Queen Mother and Mountbatten.

    • Dee Kay says:

      I think narcissism definitely runs in the RF gene pool and Charles probably is one, William another. I wonder between the Queen and Philip who was the NPD, or maybe it skipped a generation. (Don’t think it was the Queen’s father, by all accounts he was dim but dutiful, like QEII herself.) Poor Diana and poor Harry. Dealing with a lot of NPD in the family must just be totally exhausting until you find the courage to walk away. At least Harry is free now but they will always be trying to get at him one way or another.

  20. Jay says:

    The timing tells us everything – this didn’t happen in the immediate wake of the FBI investigation , it happened because Andrew had a horrible interview on the news and embarrassed himself, and it hasn’t blown over like they seem to have expected. It’s the interview, not the crimes, that hurt him.

    I wonder if these patronages have been asked to drop him quietly “on their own” so as not to make the stink any bigger.

    But, in my experience, these things snowball. No organization is going to want to be the last one standing with Andrew. I imagine they are all getting quiet questions from board members who don’t want to go down with the ship, and it may also be a little power play from Charles, as we can be pretty sure the queen would be exerting lots of influence behind the scenes to try to protect her second son if she could. It’s a show of Charles’s strength and perhaps a demonstration of the waning power of his mother, but I don’t know if it’s a performance for Andrew (to show who’s in charge), to the Cambridges/Middletons (Here’s what I can do, watch it), or to the courtiers/ other royal charities (Help me and I’ll help you).

  21. Kkat says:

    I just read the comments on the article on this at the daily fail.
    The comments state they are being moderated, and 98-99% of the comments are anti Andrew.
    And a lot are saying he should be interviewed by the FBI.

    Interesting to see that the fail are letting the comments be so negative about him.

  22. Well Wisher says:

    Timing is everything. The patronages that decided to have him replaced after the interview, did so just after the event. At that time it was Meghan who was constantly attacked. It was not advantageous to relay this information at that time? Why now?
    The allegations and circumstances are the same as they ever were.
    Prince Andrew was among the only one who was supposedly cordial to Prince Harry after the funeral.
    There was talk about a proposed summit, the Yorks’ attire were criticized etc.
    Instead of the summit, the proposee was sent to a farm on Cornwall and another visit to Wales. Jason was assigned the scapegoat d’jour and since left.
    Prince Charles has validated Harry’s assertions by confessing that he was not always practicef good parenting towards Harry and reiteriated that he wants both Harry and Meghan to have a role when he becomes king. He added that it will take years for the probabity of their return and he is willing to work towards that. A mea coupla of sorts?
    Who benefits from the discord between father and son? the one sided feud? one sided.compétition?Remember how it all started.
    What happened to Carole Middleton?

  23. Justwastingtime says:

    Andrew like Charles looks much older than his actual age (Edward like Philip appears to be aging more normally ). Has their life been so stressful given that they never have to worry about money or status?

  24. blunt talker says:

    Charles is definitely clearing out the closets before he reigns-Harry and Meghan will be cut out of any royal business-Anything to do with family related issues I think they will be apart of some things-A poster above stated how tactical Charles is and they are right-and he very patient with biding his time-He will not forget any slights or criticisms-Just sit back and watch.

    • BABSORIG says:

      Didn’t Harry and Meghan ALREADY walked away on their own and haven’t looked back since? Why are some gleefully still harping on the Sussexes being cut off from anything royal?

  25. KinChicago says:

    Who the f*ck wants a pedophile rapist and trafficker as a patron? Surely none.

    None worth any lasting respect or dignity anyway!

  26. blunt talker says:

    Folks screaming about Harry and Meghan’s titles being removed because of the podcast-When they decide to go down this road-Prince Andrew’s titles should be removed not just his patronages-Michael of Kent-titles should be removed for selling himself to the Russians for money. I will be definitely be watching how this plays out.

  27. Catherine says:

    This story is manipulating the facts to make it seem as if Charles/the Royal is taking action against Andrew. The majority of these removals happened immediately after the interview and they were initiated by organizations themselves. The Family has not asked Andrew to remove himself nor have they taken the action to have him removed. it’s convenient for them now to act as if they are taking the initiative to punish him because of all the bad PR they are getting. As for Jason Knauf. I’m not buying that narrative either. No one who is fired get to stay on the job for another 7 months. When Charles wanted Christopher Geidt out. He was out immediately. The announcement was made. He was done. They made this big announcement about Knauf to make it seem like they are doing something.

  28. SusanRagain says:

    If wealthy people would donate large sums of money to various charities instead of hoarding it like misers, the BRF would be out of jobs.
    Isn’t being the patron/face of selected charity their proper job? Besides dressing like paper dolls dripping in jewelry at PR dinners? And big parades like trooping the colors?

    I’m trying to be a bit funny.
    Nothing funny about Andrew and his criminal behavior.