The Queen will find it very difficult to do or say anything about Prince Andrew


Shortly after Prince Philip’s passing, Prince Charles made some moves behind-the-scenes about Prince Andrew. I complained, at the time, that Chaz had taken his eye off the ball, that he needed to pay closer attention to what was happening with the Sussex/Cambridge/Middleton side of things. But Charles really dedicated himself to ensuring that Andrew would never have any kind of public role whatsoever. Andrew was removed from nearly fifty organizations and all of Andrew’s sucking-up to mummy led nowhere. There’s no coming back for him. So on that, I give Charles some credit. He knew that Andrew’s Jeffrey Epstein mess still had the potential to damage the monarchy. So what happens with the Windsors’ relationships with Andrew now that Virginia Giuffre has sued Andrew? Well, unhinged royal commentator Angela Levin has some thoughts.

Levin on Virginia Giuffre’s lawsuit & how the Windsors will respond: “It is going to be very tough. You can’t expect the Queen to make very strong and determined decisions easily. She is not a micromanager, she tends to think that if I don’t do these things within my family everything will sort itself out and it will be alright. I think on this occasion it is not. If she passes it on to Prince Charles and Prince William it is going to be very difficult for them.”

The Queen will refuse to act: “The Queen has devoted herself to duty and this country since she was in her early 20s. But she is also a mother and a grandmother, moving from being the head monarch to a mother and grandmother is a very difficult thing to do for her. It is hard to make up her mind on what exactly to do.”

Andrew’s gilded cage: “The Queen has of course, in the meantime, taken away the patronages of Prince Andrew. He is not involved in anything that could help the monarchy. He is just there, perhaps you could say, in a gilded cage because he can’t go abroad to play gold and he can’t risk leaving this country. The Queen has done her best and Prince Charles has made other people do these patronages. Prince Andrew tried to come back and take one or two back but Prince Charles wouldn’t let him. They are doing something and I suppose they reckon it might happen and they had to be prepared.”

[From The Daily Express]

This is basically just Levin telegraphing the fact that the Queen isn’t going to do jack squat to Andrew at this point. Immediately following Epstein’s death in prison, the Queen continued to go to church with Andrew and ride horses with him and spend time with him. She’s still going to do all of that. I would imagine we’ll get photos of Liz and Andrew in the car together at Balmoral, like we got in 2019. In Liz’s view, Andrew’s terrible “punishment” is that he doesn’t get to stand on balconies anymore and he’s relegated to living a quiet, privileged life in his giant mansion in Windsor. With security. And mysterious cash infusions.

As for what Charles will do… who knows. It will be a very different story when Charles becomes king. I think this is very much like The Godfather Part II. Michael/Charles will not make a major move on Fredo/Andrew while their mother is still alive. Once Elizabeth Correlone dies, Andrew will be getting a very short boat trip on Lake Tahoe.

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

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

Photos courtesy of Avalon Red, WENN.

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

85 Responses to “The Queen will find it very difficult to do or say anything about Prince Andrew”

Comments are Closed

We close comments on older posts to fight comment spam.

  1. Kelly says:

    “It will be a very different story when Charles becomes king. I think this is very much like The Godfather Part II. Michael/Charles will not make a major move on Fredo/Andrew while their mother is still alive. Once Elizabeth Correlone dies, Andrew will be getting a very short boat trip on Lake Tahoe.”

    Best analogy ever.

    • Tulipworthy says:

      Loved the analogy- it’s perfect.

    • Scorpion says:

      Being in that family is like being in the Mafia
      Between the backstabbing, infighting and the general mess, everyone is out for themselves.
      If Lilibet Sr had any decent bone in her body, she would ensure her son pays for his crimes.

      • Elizabeth Regina says:

        The omerta is strong when it comes to Paedrew but it will be broken by Charles if he has to choose between the monarchy, his position or his brother. Using Meghan and Harry has almost run its course with the media. Those rota rats are on the hunt for fresh meat.

      • House of No says:

        It’s hard for them to pay for any crimes. Criminal activity’s in their blood.

    • SarahCS says:

      I love it. I called them a mob family recently when we heard that Fergie was being allowed to Balmoral as a reward for her loyalty. They are truly awful.

    • Kaiser says:

      To draw the analogy even further, Charles/Michael will briefly reconcile with Fredo/Andrew when the Queen dies. Charles will allow Fredo to grieve and be part of the state funeral and all of that. Then Lake Tahoe within two months.

    • Where'sMyTiara says:

      See, I don’t think the “Tahoe trip” is ever going to happen, and here’s why I think this:

      Andrew KNOWS what Charles gets up to/has gotten up to. If Charles cuts Andrew loose, Andrew will TALK. That’s going to destroy the monarchy and leave Charles vulnerable to prosecution. Charles is doing damage control not merely to save “the Firm”; he’s doing it to save his own skin. None of this is based in any altruism towards Andrew.
      Charles has a lot of pedophile friends. Like, a LOT a lot.

      Two noteworthy ones:

      1. Chaz tapped the infamous Jimmy Saville to “talk sense into” Diana when Charles’ marriage to her started crumbling.

      2. He gave material support to “his dear friend” pedophile CoE bishop Peter Ball.
      “The future King of England had been at the ceremony when Ball was appointed Bishop of Gloucester. The former clergyman later retired to a wisteria-clad lodge owned by Prince Charles’s Duchy of Cornwall empire when a first round of sex-abuse allegations forced his resignation.” – from The Daily Beast, article ‘UK Elite Covered Up Pedophile’s Crimes’

      One has to wonder, what influence and how much was Lord Louis Mountbatten, the other Family Child Rapist, allowed to have on these two when they were growing up.

      • Maria says:

        I think there will be a trip to Lake Tahoe but it won’t look the way we think. He’ll just get all the privileges that the Queen allows him to keep taken away and he’ll cut his funding. I doubt any of them have skeletons as bad as Andrew’s own, so he’d indict himself too if he talked. And he wants his daughters to be royal princesses.

      • chumsley says:

        When Charles is king, that won’t matter, the Sovereign can’t be prosecuted under UK law. I recently saw a video on the Today I Found Out channel on YouTube called “Could the Queen Get Away with Murder Legally?” that talked about this, it was a pretty interesting video.
        As for Andrew, he doesn’t have this protection, he’s only safe right now because the Queen is protecting him. I think he would keep quiet to save his own hide. But who knows, he stupidly thought that newsnight interview went well, so…

    • Christina says:

      Kaiser, you are the best writer! You have a broad knowledge of the cultures I know about, anyhow! The Michael/Fredo analogy is so perfect.

    • LMR says:

      I would like to request more Godfather analogies whenever possible please. You can sneak Goodfellas in there once in a while if necessary. Thank you.

    • Snappyfish says:

      Love The Godfather analogy.
      My guess is Charles takes the HRH & w/that goes the money, property etc

    • Tessa says:

      I don’t see Charles as a strong person the way he treated his first wife and now his second son and his family. I think Andrew may have some info that Charles would not want to be out there. Charles will do something but not remove Andrew’s titles nor his place in line of succession. That’s how I see it. Charles wants to be King and won’t jeopardize. I think he will still cater to William since he needs him at least for now. Thankfully Harry and Meghan and family left.

  2. Amy Bee says:

    I’ve only read the first few sentences so far but no credit goes to Charles. He saw an opportunity to get rid of Andrew and he took it. It had nothing to do with Andrew being friends with Epstein and him being a paedophile. Two of Charles best friends were found to be paedophiles – Jimmy Saville and that Anglican Bishop. Now, I’ll go back to finish reading the post.

    • Snuffles says:

      ☝🏽 This. He just got lucky he had a very good excuse to sideline him permanently.

    • Amy Bee says:

      Now that I’ve read the whole piece, Levin is not saying anything groundbreaking here. The Queen over indulged Andrew in an attempt to make up for being an absent mother to Charles and Anne. And Charles has been always jealous of the close relationship Andrew had with their mother. Charles’s decisions regarding Andrew are based on that jealousy and not because his brother is a paedophile. What I haven’t seen from Levin is her calling for Andrew to stripped of his titles as she has been for Harry.

      • Becks1 says:

        I agree. Charles may be aware enough to realize that the whole Andrew-Epstein debacle is not a good look for the royal family, but I don’t think he cared about their connection otherwise. This is definitely just about charles seeing an opportunity to sideline Andrew and seizing it.

      • Chic says:

        By not handling Andrew while alive, Charles gets to blame QEII after her death and poor parenting narrative resurfaces.

      • Tessa says:

        Anne never complained about her upbringing. Charles did.

    • Murphy says:

      Yes, Charles has been looking for a way to get rid of the Yorks since Fergie’s toe job.

      • Evie says:

        ROLFLMAO!!! But seriously, can you blame Charles?

      • Tessa says:

        Charles can’t get on his high horse anymore. Not after his track record. But of course he’s the eldest and can have power to do these things. But I think it could backfire when some in the media remind people about Charles own past. Most of this family is not flawless by any means IMO.

      • Christine says:

        Agreed, Tessa. Charles’ tampon comment is worse than the toe sucking, IMO.

    • Keri says:

      Yeah, Charles is no better than Andrew, he just hasn’t been caught yet. The man was best friends with known pedo Jimmy Savile and sex abuse Bishop Peter Ball. Both brothers’ also have ties to killer Saudi dictators. The whole family is rotten to the core.

      • Lory says:

        I’m no fan of Charles, but to our knowledge, he has not had sex with a trafficked child. So, Andrew is the worst, if we are judging.

      • Emma says:

        Lory, raped. Not had sex with. Raped.

      • Maria says:

        That we know of.
        Charles had no qualms throwing his own son and daughter-in-law under the bus and endangering their lives in order to protect his rapist brother, so I would consider him in many ways as bad.

      • Cessily says:

        @emma 👏🏼👏🏼👏🏼
        That distinction needs to be made every time.. This is not a sex issue (this was not an 18 year old boyfriend with a 16/17 year old girlfriend acting consensually FYI in some states that is also illegal). this is a RAPE allegation involving a Trafficked minor in the USA and various other locations by a powerful Prince with the Crown of a sovereign nation behind him. She had no power, no choice being a TRAFFICKED CHILD there is no consent ever! I do not care how you spin it.

      • LMR says:

        Trafficked is trafficked, and therefore it is rape no matter what the age of consent is in the jurisdiction.

        If she was 25 and had 3 kids, but was trafficked or held against her will, it is still rape. I think a lot of people (not here) get hung up on the differences between the UK and US age of consent.

      • Tessa says:

        Charles DID have some friends like Armand Hammer and Van Der Post. Diana had to literally talk Charles out of making Hammer one of William’s godparents.

  3. Aud says:

    Yes Andrew is only protected because of TQ. Charles obviously hates him for it, he hates that Andrew is the favourite and will be very happy to get rid of him. Not even because of Epstein, just because he’s petty and there’s a sibling rivalry at play.

    This really seems to be the one thing TQ is firm on, Andrew remains safe. Otherwise she’s willing to let Charles do the heavy lifting.

    • K.T says:

      The queen, Charles & the firm have done everything to try to shield & hide Prince Andrew from child trafficking charges. It seems to me that they have been pulling more strings than a muppet show! But of course there’s been disagreement & bad decisions behind it all because they are all so dysfunctional.
      But the new royal rota spin that ‘poor’ Queen is a victim too is really the insane topper on this high tea of toxic privilege.

    • Lex says:

      As much as Charles might hate how he is the favourite, there’s no way Andrew would be thrown under the bus after TQ dies… It would be an absolute horrific scandal for TRF and it would be very hard for them all not to be tarnished by it

  4. Snuffles says:

    “ Once Elizabeth Correlone dies, Andrew will be getting a very short boat trip on Lake Tahoe.”

    OMG. I think you nailed it. Andrew is the family Fredo!

    • (TheOG) Jan90067 says:

      That is *exactly* what will happen. And it won’t be immediately. He will let Pedo squirm on the hook, waiting, anticipating, never knowing when that “shot” is coming. But it *will* come.

  5. Carla says:

    This family is so gross

    • taris says:

      i can’t imagine what it must be like to be a mother with a son accused of rape. and, in this case, silence might actually be one of the least potentially disastrous responses from the queen.
      i would feel fully sorry for her *as a mother* if it weren’t for:
      a) her hypocritical and double-standard handling of members of her ‘family’
      b) those photo ops she arranged with her alleged rapist son, grinning at church like a pair of unhinged hyenas – that was repulsive and so insensitive to andrew’s victims

  6. Mac says:

    When he takes the throne I wonder if Charles will strip Andrew of his titles and honors to let him know he is never coming back.

    • Pao says:

      Could be. He might also strip him of security. You cannot, after all, advocate for a slimmed down monarchy to reduce the costs and then keep an alleged sex offender on the payroll. He took harry security due to change of status, well, andrew has had that same change of status. It would also explain why he was sucking up to his mother.

      Ps. I also think that when charles becomes king he will fight the middletons (and william and kate) a bit harder.

      • equality says:

        As long as Andrew lives on a royal estate, wouldn’t he have some security by extension so that the whole estate is secure?

    • anotherlily says:

      He can’t strip him of his titles. Honours can be withdrawn, and possibly the HRH style, but not his birth title of Prince or his dukedom.

    • Tessa says:

      I doubt it. Charles may actually take Harry’s away and not Andrew’s. Would not surprise me considering what happens in that family.

  7. Jane Smith says:

    All of us can understand that this is a very troubling situation for any family, anywhere. Especially considering the duality of the situation (son and coworker). No one wants to believe that they produced an evil predator. However, it is very objectively clear that Andrew acted immorally, illegally, and so on. It’s disgusting. She can still love him as only a mother can, but as a CEO, the queen needs to put on her business cap and get rid of Andrew in a way that says, the firm find his actions to be reprehensible and we won’t stand for it. I hate that the people of the kingdom they represent have no recourse. It’s just so sad and discouraging. I have so much respect for Virginia who keeps fighting for herself and others. I honestly do not have the strength that she does.

    • taris says:

      we’ve heard time and again that the queen is all about duty duty duty above all else. and, according to royalists, she did what needed to be done, being ‘tough’ and ‘monarchy first’ with the sussexes.
      so why can’t she be head over heart with this?

    • Chrissy says:

      The Queen has a habit of ignoring “unpleasant” things, hoping that they just disappear. Unfortunately for her, this one of Andrew’s crimes will not just go away. Andrew is her blindspot but now this lawsuit makes him a true liability. Either Charles have to convince his mother to take definitive action to isolate Andrew or the courtiers will have to overrule her wishes in order to protect the Monarchy IMO.

  8. My3cents says:

    As if we expected anything else from this Betty who’s greatest attribute is sticking her head in the sand.

    • (TheOG) Jan90067 says:

      I was going to comment, but saw this first! She should be named “The Ostrich Queen” for her predilection to do just this. She *does* always hope someone else deals with it or it will just “go away” and she can forget about it. Or she left it to PP.

      At this point, I think she just wants to be with her horses and dogs and to hell with the lot of ’em!

    • Agirlandherdog says:

      Yes. That was my first thought. There’s a huge difference between “not being a micromanager” and just sticking your head in the sand.

    • SarahCS says:

      Now I get why she and Boris probably get on, they have the same approach to leadership.

  9. Tursitops says:

    “You can’t expect the Queen to make very strong and determined decisions easily. She is not a micromanager, she tends to think that if I don’t do these things within my family everything will sort itself out and it will be alright.“

    What the hell does that mean? If she doesn’t do *what* things? This mess needs an overseer, not a micromanager. Is the odious Levin now flipping the script and saying that the queen is just a meek grandmother, confused and unsure of what to do? Is that the narrative that they are pushing now, because “strong, confident head of the firm who always puts duty first” doesn’t work in this situation that they have created?

    That quote makes about as much sense as the shambolic BRF response to this crisis of their own making, or any of their public decisions in the last five years on any point including Covid and the Sussexes.

    • Snuffles says:

      It means the Queen is not a real leader. She’s a figurehead in every sense of the word. That the courtiers and the government have been running the show for most of her life.

  10. Pao says:

    I mean i think we could all guess the queen was going to do nothing about this because thats what she has always done when there is a crisis in her family —Nothing

    • Lizzie says:

      which everyone refers to as ‘steady’, but essentially means she does nothing.

    • Debbie says:

      Actually, I think her actions are even worse than doing nothing. Time and time again, when it comes to P. Andrew, the queen has taken steps to actively signal that she still supports him as a mother. Therefore, she will use the trappings of her position as head of her church, and country’s monarch (i.e., royal carriage, and her company) in photo-ops w/ Andrew, to silently urge Brits to support him, and to tell the media to lay off of him. That’s going over and above the call of motherhood, in that it’s mixing business w/ personal issues IMO.

      By the way, I sometimes hover my cursor over the titles of these awful British papers just to read their slant on a story. Inevitably, when it’s about Meg & Harry, it’s always “Off w/ their heads” even in the titles, but when it’s about any other family member, no matter WHAT they’ve done, or been accused of, the titles are ALWAYS NEUTRAL! I mean, the excerpts in the above article don’t even approach the “strip Andrew of his his title” that they were hyperventilating about when Meghan wrote a children’s book, or how dared to name their own daughter. Instead, Levin’s tone is more like what do you expect of the queen? These issues are haaard.

  11. Maddie says:

    Superficial comment first: I never noticed how much Andrew looks like Liz.

    But really, who’s surprised that she’s not going to do anything about her sex trafficking son? She’s known for years and always protected him.

    • ecsMom says:

      I think he looks just like Porchy!! But I think this is already out there as far as gossip. Andrew definitely looks different from the rest of them.

  12. myjobistoprincess says:

    The Queen is now not a “micromanager” but then again, since Meg came along – the royal insiders kept saying that the Queen approved everything in all details… sideeye
    This might be the final reason why Beatrice and Eugenie will bounce to get away from all this mess and live their own lives.

    • Aud says:

      I think we know that it isn’t TQ, it’s her courtiers

      • Amy Bee says:

        And Charles.

      • Tursitops says:

        Whom she employs. She has outlived *all* the courtiers from early in her reign. If she wanted to change the culture, then all she had to do was change the people around her over the course of nearly *70* years. The decision to leave the status quo (even going so far as to legislate that BP was exempt from hiring immigrants and POC) is a positive choice, not a passive event. If you washed your clothes using a specific brand of soap for 30 or 40 years, yet they weren’t getting clean, then maybe you want to pick something else from the shelf next time. If you don’t, then the visible dirt and stains are on you (literally and figuratively).

      • equality says:

        @Tursitops Well put. I can see that the Queen’s speeches and the like have inspired people at times but think how much she could have changed in the world and good she could have accomplished by taking a stand on important issues.

      • Christine says:

        Tursitops, well said!

  13. Sunshine says:

    This is more than just about Andrew. There were many senior Brits in Epstein’s black book, including member of the Tory government, the media and the royal family.

  14. Amy Bee says:

    It’s interesting to see how the Royal rota has responded to this news on Twitter. They’ve either not tweeted about it like Camilla Tominey and Johnny Dymond. Or they’ve tweeted the breaking news and moved on to other stories as a distraction. Two tweeted about the Queen going to Balmoral and another two posted a Newsweek non-story about Harry’s polling in the UK. Another reporter has not tweeted since posting the news about Andrew yesterday. Omid got a takedown order on his tweet about the case and posted the court documents in response. Sky News tweeted about story citing Andrew’s denials as the lead story and then turned off the comments on the tweet. It’s clear that the invisible contract is in effect.

    • Eurydice says:

      The contract is in effect until it isn’t. As we’ve seen with Harry & Meghan, when the RF wants throw someone under the bus, they’ll let the RR know who is fair game. They can certainly do that with Andrew, who doesn’t seem to be serving any purpose to the RF. But, will there be fallout? Will pulling on that one thread bring a whole lot of others down?

      • Harper says:

        Andrew will threaten to talk if Charles takes it too far. Remember, Andrew spent six decades not taking responsibility for anything. I don’t think Andrew “gets” the idea of taking responsibility and Exhibit A for that is that trainwreck interview. Andrew will get a household budget In exchange for keeping his mouth shut for the rest of Charles’ life.

        Andrew will have to take up pottery classes or acrylics or sculpting to keep himself busy at Royal Lodge. Then he can have someone sell his wares for some extra cash.

      • Jais says:

        I wonder what Andrew knows about William? Lol but something to think about.

  15. Lesli says:

    Perfect analogy!

  16. Over it says:

    Kaiser your entire godfather comparison have me in stitches . I can’t stop laughing. Thanks I needed that.

    • AmyB says:

      @Over it – AND it’s so fucking perfect!!! Godfather may be one of my all time favorite films, and this analogy fits this dynamic of the RF to a tee!! Andrew is Fredo!! LOL

    • LMR says:

      I guess that makes Ghislaine = Johnny Ola and Epstein is Hyman Roth.

    • BeanieBean says:

      That right there was some mighty fine writing, yes it was! And now we need a cake with Salty Isle on it, that TQ can cut with a sword.

  17. Eurydice says:

    I think Andrew is totally guilty, but he hasn’t been convicted of anything, and even if he loses the civil suit, that still isn’t going to send him to jail. Maybe if the Metropolitan police get off their asses, or if something comes out of the Maxwell trial, I don’t know.

    The Queen’s options seem limited – she can strip Andrew of everything and lock him up in the west wing like the first Mrs. Rochester, but that won’t change anything. The only thing I can see that would be helpful to the victims, if not to the RF, is if TQ and Charles step back from any pressure they might have put on the authorities to keep them from investigating Andrew. Then they have to prepare for damage control.

    • Miss Melissa says:

      If they put up no defense, they will lose the civil suit.

      How will a legal judgement in the US against the Queen’s favorite son look? It won’t be pretty. I don’t see how that scenario doesn’t tarnish the crown just as much.

  18. Bess says:

    As I’ve said before, there is no way a person can grow up in that “family” and be psychologically healthy. The same for any person who marries into that family and stays married. A psychologically healthy adult person would take one look at the inner workings of that clan, run away and cut off all contact.

  19. sparky says:

    The whole poor Andrew can’t leave the UK comment was amusing given the kudos the Cambridges received for the story about them not leaving the UK.

  20. AmelieOriginal says:

    I really don’t think Charles will throw Andrew to the wolves once the Queen dies. They don’t want to deal with the image of one of their own in a US court of law. But he won’t go out of his way to help him either. Angela Levin is right that Andrew is a prisoner in a gilded cage. He can’t leave the UK without the risk of getting arrested and hide somewhere and he can’t participate in the pageantry stuff. So he’s a useless waste of space and will have to live behind closed doors for the rest of his days. And if Charles happily turns Andrew over to the US authorities (not happening), my guess is Andrew could spill a lot of stuff about Charles. Andrew is a liability and the only safe place to stow him is indefinitely behind palace walls.

  21. India says:

    It would be lovely to see Fredo The Pedo get his just desserts. Get On With Charlie Boy!!! And slap all of those Middletons in that boat on that short trip to Lake Tahoe. Do A Full Sweep.

  22. Green Desert says:

    “Once Elizabeth Correlone dies, Andrew will be getting a very short boat trip on Lake Tahoe.”

    Such great writing as always, Kaiser. 🙂

  23. Josie says:

    Whether intentionally or not, Kaiser hit the nail on the head. IMO, the royal family is nothing but a criminal organization, living off the people’s tax money. Stealing the people’s tax money I should say. And what are they doing with all that tax money? Raping children. Covering up the rape of children. The royal family is absolutely worthless.

  24. Tessa says:

    The Queen had to stop the Burrell trial by saying he was not guilty. She can’t do this now, totally powerless. But she probably will ignore this for as long as she can.

  25. Bean says:

    Please, please find another lake other than Tahoe! Says the Bay Area resident who loves Tahoe!