Prince Andrew was ‘summoned’ to Balmoral & he might even lose his HRH?

Prince Andrew interview

To me, the Prince Andrew story seems pretty subdued at this point, but that’s because I’ve been following the twists and turns since 2018. When Jeffrey Epstein was arrested, the writing was on the wall for Andrew. He couldn’t talk his way out of any of it, although he did try… and if anything, he made it so much worse. This week, Andrew’s victim Virginia Roberts Giuffre filed a civil lawsuit against Andrew for sexual abuse. The reaction has been… stronger than I was expecting. I guess it really was the slow season for the British tabloids and this story was presented to them on a silver platter, so they actually decided to go hard on someone other than Meghan for a change.

Andrew and Fergie were the first to arrive at Balmoral for their stay with the Queen. Most family members are invited to stay for a week or two at least, and Andrew is usually one of the first ones to arrive because he’s mummy’s favorite. The Daily Mail reported that Princess Eugenie and Jack Brooksbank have joined Andrew and Fergie at Balmoral now. E&J flew commercial, but no one knows (still) how Andrew and Fergie got to Scotland. Maybe that’s because Andrew wasn’t actually supposed to go to Scotland so soon? Sources claim Andrew was “summoned” for “crisis talks.”

Andrew has fled to see the Queen at Balmoral where she is staying during her summer holiday break. Royal sources said Andrew was not due to arrive at the Scottish castle “for some days” before he was summoned by the monarch.

One royal source said: “He was summoned up to Balmoral, there’s no doubt about it. The Duke is locked in talks, both with the Queen and his advisers which includes his ex-wife [Sarah Ferguson] who it’s fair to say is his closest confidant. It’s no surprise to anyone Fergie has ended up being very publicly back on the scene mere weeks after the Duke of Edinburgh’s death. Everyone knows the clock is ticking and all the whole further embarrassment is being caused but after this latest turn he is fighting to save the last crumb of his reputation.”

Now the Daily Mirror’s royal editor, Russell Myers, has said the Duke of York has been ordered not to release a statement after crisis talks with the Queen. Mr Myers tweeted: “Prince Andrew is ordered not to release a statement protesting his innocence after being locked in crisis talks with the Queen and advisers – until his legal team have ‘fully examined exactly what they are dealing with’ following US lawsuit action.”

Following the death of Prince Philip in April, Andrew reportedly asked the Queen to be allowed to temporarily return as a senior royal. However, this latest accusation is likely to jeopardise his return to the frontline of the Firm. Nigel Cawthorne, the Prince’s biographer, said: “Giuffre’s lawsuit will preclude a return to public duties. It is very difficult to see how Prince Andrew can return to the frontline of the monarchy while a suit is pending, or with a verdict against him passed in absentia.”

[From The Daily Express]

Crisis talks have been held before and nothing much came of it back then. I remember Prince Charles actually leading the charge and really forcing his mother to order Andrew to step down from public life. It seemed like a big argument within the family back then, because the Queen and Prince Philip clearly wanted to stick their heads in the sand and pretend that they could merely circle the wagons around Andrew and everything would be fine eventually. This is one situation where Charles read the room and understood how bad everything looked. My point? I kind of doubt the Queen really understands that it’s not business-as-usual with Andrew anymore. I think she’ll still want to do the most to protect him.

That royal historian/biographer Nigel Cawthorne also told Newsweek: “There are too many legal questions surrounding the prince and it is increasingly doubtful that he can hold on to his HRH status.” Yeah… while I would love to see Andrew stripped of his HRH and his ducal title, I doubt that will happen. The most the Queen could do or would do is ask Andrew to willingly stop using his HRH.

Duke of Edinburgh funeral

Duke of Edinburgh funeral

Photos courtesy of Avalon Red, WENN.

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

109 Responses to “Prince Andrew was ‘summoned’ to Balmoral & he might even lose his HRH?”

Comments are Closed

We close comments on older posts to fight comment spam.

  1. Oh_Hey says:

    His title isn’t going anywhere. He hasn’t even committed the most heinous crime – being black or marrying someone that is /s.

    But seriously these old messes see what he did as a “dalliance with a young woman” not repeated assault and trafficking. I hope VRG gets her day in court and he looses on the facts and because he didn’t show up.

    • Kim says:

      Best comment ever (about being black or marrying someone who is). Meantime, Andrew and his ilk have no moral compass whatsoever–protected with privilege that is absolute and unchecked (absolute privilege corrupts absolutely). No spin can fix this one. Andrew needs to go quietly and I suspect these negotiations are underway at Balmoral right now.

    • Calibration says:

      According to the Fail Commentariat being black and/or being married to a black American is as bad if not worse than being a rapist /paedophile. So that’s their moral compass.. Can’t distinguish between those.

    • fritanga says:

      His title isn’t going to go anywhere – that is, as long as Mummy is still alive (or abdicates). But all bets are off when Charles ascends the throne. Yeah, he’s had his own share of peccadilloes (one stands by his side a lot), but nothing was even close to being an unrepentant child molester who abused teens trafficked by his “mate” Jeffrey Epstein. So gross.

  2. Lili says:

    if he loses his HRH that is a small price to pay, But why was fergie there ? does this mean the queen will have to fund him for the rest of his days, since he has no clout and no way of earning money.

    • Alexandria says:

      Yes of course. But the rats won’t be all up in arms about it because he’s not black.

    • (TheOG) Jan90067 says:

      I’m sure she’s got trusts set up in her will for Mummy’s favorite boy; he will probably get more than Eddy and Anne. There will be a few coins for the grands and great-grands as well. As for Charles, he *will* get the bulk of her fortune as inheritance “from crown to crown” is largely untaxed.

      Pedo (though technically, he is an Ephebophile, someone who sexually prefers girls 12-17) will never have to “rely on the kindness of strangers” (thank you, Blanche DuBois!), or even the Super-Size Tampon, who will wear the crown first, and then The Norfolk Gardener. Mummy Dearest will take care of her boy.

    • The Recluse says:

      And watch how fast he and Fergie burn through it all.

  3. Scorpion says:

    It’s way past crisis talks now. I hope Virginia and the other lady bury him. Since they cannot get justice from the courts, I hope they bleed him dry.

  4. Alexandria says:

    I think he will stay out of jail as long as he stays in the UK. The Queen and the heirs do not want to set a precedent of royals being arrested. At most he will stop using his HRH. Let’s see if karma works in other ways.

    • Mac says:

      The statue of limitations has run out for criminal prosecution in the US. The feds want to interview him for evidence in Maxwell’s case. His refusal to be interviewed just screams guilty.

      • Robin Samuels says:

        There is no statute of limitation in the state of New York for this crime. the law was signed in 2020.

  5. Jane says:

    This has been going on for a decade. Nothing is going to happen for as long as the queen is alive. He’ll ignore the lawsuit, whatever the outcome, and simply slink around mostly out of the public eye and assume it will all go away. And even once the queen is dead, he’s certainly not going to be prosecuted (the Met are currently carrying out their third review of the case and still don’t seem inclined to prosecute) or extradited to the US. Once Charles is king, he’ll probably find he can’t so easily join royal events such as the Christmas Day walk to church at Sandringham, or the Trooping the Colour balcony photo op, but that will probably be the extent of his ‘punishment’.

    • Giddy says:

      He also will probably not be able to travel outside of Great Britain for the rest of his life. No more fun trips to New York, although it’s not nearly as much fun without his buddy Epstein. No more skiing holidays in Switzerland. No more standing on the balcony…poor thing. If we can’t have him in jail where he belongs, I’m good with his shredded reputation, and his brother and nephew targeting him for further deprivations.

      • Mac says:

        Why can’t he travel outside the UK? No one has issued a subpoena much less an arrest warrant for him. His only punishment will be that he can no longer use his title to grift.

      • SnoodleDumpling says:

        @Mac Probably because the BRF only has a stranglehold on the British press. Other nations’ tabloids (and even respectable publications) have far fewer qualms about going after the BRF when they’re on holiday or on tour. Even the press of Commonwealth countries isn’t so deferential.

        If Andrew vacations outside the UK then it WILL be splashed all over foreign tabloids along with information about his Epstein scandal, and that is the last thing the BRF wants. And I guess it’s possible some other countries might be interested in investigating what all Epstein and his friends got up to, including Andrew, and it’s much harder for them to get away with ignoring a request for a police interview when the person is actually IN the country that wants to interview him.

    • Sid says:

      I suspect Charles will also make a point of stripping his taxpayer-funded security too.

  6. Merricat says:

    Will she trash the monarchy and her reputation for him, really? I am curious to see what happens. She’s known to separate her duties as monarch from her duties as matriarch, but he is her favorite boy. She has protected him as far as is feasible without a nasty turn against her in public opinion; I’m not sure that will continue if she protects him further.
    Exciting times ahead in this week’s episodes of The Fall of the House of Windsor.

    • Alexandria says:

      Does she really separate her duties from her personal feelings or is that only for Harry? She did nothing about the courtiers, AK fighting another staff, she’s not transparent about her finances or her involvement in vetoing laws. There are multiple obvious double standards which we have pointed out when it comes to Harry. So yeah she doesn’t impress me much.

      • Merricat says:

        The separation is not between her personal feelings and her duty, as I understand it; it’s between her role as queen and her role as mother/grandmother. I’m not defending her. I happen to think monarchies are ridiculous.

      • Tessa says:

        The Queen could have insisted Harry and Meghan stay and let them work part time. Instead she let William take over. Even not saying a word in protest when William was working against his brother, even that PR stunt with the Flybe jet. She would have had to had notice it but just ostriched and let Harry and Meghan leave.

    • Becks1 says:

      I think the H&M situation is going to work against the monarchy/institution here and its going to be a problem for the queen. Already i’m seeing a lot of comments comparing the two situations and in a way that is not favorable for the royal family. the Queen protecting Andrew when she totally failed to protect Harry and Meghan is going to be noticed this time around in a way that many may have missed in 2019.

      So like you said – how much further can she protect him without public opinion turning against her? She’s had a long “impeccable” reign (as far as people remember), does she want one of the last things she does to be protecting Andrew?

    • Merricat says:

      I’m not sure what you’re trying to argue, Tessa and Alexandria. The point is that in terms of Andrew (because we’re not talking about Harry and Meghan right now), the queen has a choice to make, and it will be interesting to see what she decides.

      • Tessa says:

        I am not sure she will take action, and she may want to see if the problem “disappears” by itself. That’s what she has done in times of crisis.

      • Merricat says:

        I’m not sure, either! That’s why it will be interesting to see what happens next.

      • Couch potato says:

        I think the statement made through this Russel? guy is the only reaction we’ll get. They called up one of their rota friends to publish that they’re not going to make a statement. That was the conclusion of the crisis meeting, and now they go on as the lawsuit doesn’t exist. Burying their head in the sand again.

    • Alexandria says:

      @merricat I just don’t find her to be the so called objective monarch who can separate duty and family / friends. She gives the impression that she is but I’m not convinced. Maybe I should have done better in articulating my thoughts and bias🙂

      • Merricat says:

        I don’t have an opinion on whether she does or not, really. That’s why it’s interesting to me to see what she will do. Lol.

  7. Amy Bee says:

    Let’s get it straight, paedophilia is not seen as taboo among the British establishment, so Charles and especially the Queen don’t know what’s all the fuss is about. Their advisors on the other hand do see the ramifications of this case to a certain extent. The press is still not applying any pressure on the Palace. They don’t see Virginia as a victim and are more concerned about how the case will impact the Platinum Jubilee. Where are the calls for his titles to stripped, for him to be kicked out of the line of succession and to be disinvited to royal events from the press? As for Andrew being summoned to Balmoral, that’s BS. He’s always the first to arrive there after the Queen.

    • Tessa says:

      Some comments I have seen makes it obvious to me the reasons some women don’t come forward. This poor woman is blamed. And it is overlooked that probably Epstein and Ghislaine were threatening her with reprisal if she “talked.” This Platinum Jubilee does seem all that matters with the royals. I don’t see all the horrible comments about Andrew in the media (though some comments in the DM are very negative about Andrew so maybe the tide is turning or so I hope).

    • Becks1 says:

      That’s something I’ve said about this – the queen does not think Andrew did anything wrong. Oh maybe he shouldn’t have been so open about his affairs, maybe he shouldn’t have had the bad judgment to pose for a picture, but of course all the young pretty girls want to be with him, who wouldn’t? She’s just seeing a chance to get some money from poor innocent Andrew.

      (please note that’s not what I think, but I’m sure its what the queen thinks.)

      But regardless of what she actually thinks, its clear that there is SOMEONE there who realizes how bad this looks for him.

      • Merricat says:

        Yes, in the queen’s time, a 16 year old was marriage-ready. She completely underestimated the way culture has evolved.

    • TrixC says:

      It’s not paedophilia, she was underage but not a child. Not that that makes things any better, but I think that’s one of the reasons the RF feel able to ignore it.

      • WhiteKnight says:

        That’s like saying childhood sexual abuse isn’t sexual abuse because the survivor (I don’t use the term “victim”) was older than a certain age. Under 18 is under 18 – she was a child, and it was sexual abuse. Period. I was molested by a family member at age 15, and I know many in my family thought it was not such a big deal because I was a teenager and “almost” an adult. It took me years, and a lot of therapy to realize that being sexually abused as a teenager was still childhood sexual abuse. It needs to be recognized as such.

      • Robin Samuels says:

        Are you a parent? Why are people trying to redefine this victim’s category for the sake of protecting Prince Andrew? He enjoys sex with underage females, maybe even group sex with males and females, point blank period. Prince Edward’s daughter is now the same age (17) as the victim when he first abused her. NO MAN IS ENTITLED TO SEXUALLY ABUSE A WOMAN WITHOUT HER CONSENT REGARDLESS OF HIS STATUS.

      • Merricat says:

        I don’t think people are trying to “redefine” anything. I think we are extrapolating regarding the monarchy’s point of view based on previous information and their history.

    • superashes says:

      This is crazy, I did not know this, but it explains so much about how the Palace handled everything.

  8. SuSuSusio says:

    Sincere question. Andrew is always referred to as HM’s “favorite” — I’m just wondering, the backstory there. How is that known? What is it about him that fit the glass slipper from early on?

    Thank you.

    (p.s. I always thought she loved Anne the most, but I also know in the grand scheme of things a Princess would still have to stand in line behind a favored Prince.)

    • GuestWho says:

      A lot of it has to do with when he was born. He was the one born after a lot of rumor and scandal about Phil’s infidelities (in South America maybe – can’t really remember) and he is supposedly the make up baby after that (much like Louis appeared to be for W&K). She was older too, and more settled and probably a little more available to “mother” her children.

      • SuSuSusio says:


      • Tessa says:

        Also Margaret her sister had just married and soon would have her children. The Queen perhaps wanted babies so they could be close to their cousins. David and Sarah and Andrew and Edward are close in age. Also Andrew was the make up baby. I agree.

    • Seraphina says:

      And I have always read/heard Anne was Philip’s favorite.

      • SuSuSusio says:

        Thanks. I can see that. She wouldn’t disappoint him by not confirming to his idea of masculinity

      • Maria says:

        The Crown says this but it’s incorrect. Edward was Philip’s favorite. He was present for Edward’s birth, allowed him to drop out of the Royal Marines even though Philip was disappointed, out of his four children Philip only had Edward’s portrait in his study. Lady Louise was his favorite grandchild.
        Anne was tougher than Charles and could respond to Philip better, but Edward was his favorite and part of why he wanted him to have the DoE title.

      • Tessa says:

        Anne’s portrait is also in his study. I think she and Edward are the ones he favored. There was an article about Philip that mentioned Anne’s picture was prominent.

      • Maria says:

        I googled that and haven’t found anything about Anne’s portrait, do you have that article? Just interested 😊

      • Sid says:

        SuSuSusio, the funny thing is that Edward was also Philip’s favorite, even though Edward certainly didn’t conform to traditional ideas of masculinity what with him flopping out of military training, pursuing the arts, etc. Meanwhile Philip was apparently very hard on Charles for not fitting the archetype. But sometimes people soften up when the “late in life” baby arrives.

      • notasugarhere says:

        Anne was the only girl, so that gave her a different status. But no, Edward has always been Philip’s fav. Like Andrew is the queen’s, because he’s the makeup baby. Edward was the child Philip didn’t have to stress over. Not the heir, not his wife’s fav. The fellow youngest child (Philip was the youngest) who was the child who arrived when Philip had come to terms with his role.

      • superashes says:

        Maria, that is really interesting. Puts a bit of a different light on the current back and forth between Charles and Edward over the DoE for me.

    • BW says:

      I saw an interview with Andrew years ago where he was very impressed that he was the first prince born to a reigning monarch since Queen V’s children. It was like he considered it his greatest accomplishment, when he had nothing to do with it. He was very smug when he said it, too.

      • Sid says:

        I read a story that Andrew once walked into a room and no one stood up to acknowledge him. Allegedly he said something like “let’s try that again shall we?” then he left the room and came back in so that people could acknowledge him “correctly.” The guy is something else.

      • MerlinsMom1018 says:

        MY ass would have stayed firmly in my chair.
        But then again, I am an awful American

  9. Kviby says:

    Any consequence he is given now will make the queen look bad for not acting sooner. If she gives him no consequence it will remain plausible that they are false allegations OR that the poor queen believes they are false because she is a loving mother, blinded by her love for Andrew. Whereas admitting he deserves a consequence is admitting they should have acted sooner, prompting the discussion “what else are they hiding.”

  10. Stacy Dresden says:

    I’ll believe it when I see it.

  11. Lauren says:

    That title won’t be going anywhere. The Windsor’s don’t want that particular can of worms opened. They would and should ask Pedo to not use his HRH though.

  12. equality says:

    They won’t take anything from Andrew because that would be seen as an admission of guilt. The only things taken from him were patronages where the charities themselves objected to him. Hopefully, this will lead to re-examination of friendships several family members have had with perverts. If he is there for meetings, it is with lawyers to attempt to protect the family wealth and reputation.

    • superashes says:

      That is what I think as well, that if they are going to do anything, it would be after the civil case is resolved, but even then they probably won’t do anything.

  13. cathy says:

    one of the psychics I follow correctly predicted this. Also, he said that Prince Andrew may not face justice, pay hush money. he will get out in terms of a technicality like a bill Cosby. He also explains that Andrew have weird relationship with his children like blackmailing. Like if you do this, I will let you have money like that. This explains a lot about why yorks sister sticks by him. That reading is very interesting, also he said that everyone in brf has dirt on everyone. check out aphrodite on youtube.

    Bea Lucile another one of the youtube readers predicted Philip’s death, Sussex miscarriage, and Cambridge separated behind the scenes. It’s called the royal family crumbling.

  14. Shawna says:

    When Chuck arrives, then I’ll get my popcorn ready.

    • rawiya says:

      When Charles arrives, Pedo and his dumb ex will disappear to one of the other houses.

      • Tessa says:

        I think Andrew has something on Charles and Charles will have to tread lightly. There are scandals in that family. Charles also abdicated re: helping his second son and his family. I am not sold on Charles as a hero.

    • AnneSurely says:

      I think Charles is biding his time. He knows that his mother won’t ever change her stance on Andrew, so he’s mollifying her for now. As soon as she’s gone, he’s going to throw Andrew to the wolves as 1. A sign of strength 2. To white wash anything he has done.

    • Lizzie says:

      He’s at Birkhall.

  15. Eurydice says:

    The Daily Mirror also had a piece asking what will be the next fabricated H&M “scandal” to be used as a coverup for Andrew.

    To me, Andrew should be left to twist in the wind – but history shows that the monarchy will do anything to protect itself. On the other hand, this era is so different to whatever the monarchy has experienced before. I mean, I never expected that Harry actually would be able to detach himself from the RF – history said that he and Meghan would eventually divorce, but today’s world, with global connections, instant communication and where celebrities can be more important than royals, says differently. So interesting. I have a feeling that the RF are going to cut Andrew loose.

  16. TIFFANY says:

    Please, the only crisis for Betty is that she is going to be paying a settlement to Virginia now and any other victims who file next. And she don’t like spending that money she stole and hid to avoid taxes on.

  17. Kiddy says:

    Ghislaine Maxwell said that Andrew was innocent. I think they have already made a deal: Ghislaine “proves” that Andrew is innocent and therefore there will be strings pulled so that Ghislaine won’t get jailed as long as she deserves. Clin_ton and G_ates aren’t on the rack either, are they?

    • Merricat says:

      Believe photo evidence, or the word of a sex trafficker who sat on the queen’s throne?

  18. Sofia says:

    Nothing will happen while his mother is still alive. Nothing will also happen when Charles/William reach the throne other than Andrew possibly being told to not use his HRH anymore and maybe an official exile somewhere like Switzerland. Andrew will never talk to the FBI and the royals/establishment won’t allow it either.

  19. Tessa says:

    It seems there will be damage control, with a double down on the “perfect” Cambridges and trotting out the children even more. And I notice Charles is sending out old pictures of the time he and Anne were children. I can see more of this happening.

  20. Lady Digby says:

    Telegraph reported that Andrew may claim diplomatic immunity as he was a working Royal at time of alleged incidents as they so delicately phrased it. The suggestion has been widely mocked online as a complete non starter and many posters are calling for the end of monarchy now. Andrew looks seedy and flabby faced : too much lockdown pizza or just his true character on display?

  21. Jennifer says:

    On a related note, British Documentary is claiming Andrew will be stripped of the HRH. I’ll believe it when I see it:

  22. TheNorthWing says:

    I’m thinking that TQ and Charles will tell him to stop using HRH and his military titles. They really can’t have him prancing around in his red jacket and shiny medals while the lawsuit winds its way through the courts. They won’t take the military titles away like they did Harry, just ask him to stop using them….

    • notasugarhere says:

      The didn’t remove Harry’s military titles, as Harry earned his rank and his service medals. What they removed were his honourary Royal Patron Of X military regiment. Likewise, they cannot remove any of the ranks or medals Andrew earned during his military service. Branches of service could start demanding Andrew be removed as their royal patron.

  23. J ferber says:

    Oh hell. I say just appoint him to the U.S. Supreme Court. His background could be a great trajectory to the seat next to Cavanagh. Douche bros issuing legal decisions to hundreds of millions of people. Come live here, Andrew. You’d fit right in.

  24. Lizzie says:

    There has been so much reverence around the passing of Philip, yet as soon as he is in the ground they all welcome back fergie the freeloader, whom he hated and banned from his sight. Yet Charles is just awful for not respecting a decades old wish for his title to go to Edward.

  25. Athena says:

    Virginia had also accused a well know US attorney, his name comes up every now and than but not with the consistency of Andrew’s. Yet with the clock running out to file civil charges, a filing was only made against Andrew. Why not file against every last one of them unless settlements were reached with others.

    • Chaine says:

      She has filed a lawsuit against the attorney. Look at her Wikipedia and it seems like it is an ongoing suit.

    • Haylie says:

      Alan Dershowitz. One of OJ’s attorneys. Frequent traveller to Epstein’s Pedo Island.

      • nina says:

        Alan Dershowitz. Isn’t he the one who admitted to getting massages but that he kept his underwear on and he only got massages from older women on the island. Claimed that he knew one of the women were a 40 year old. Of course that woman has yet to surface or be identified. “eye roll”

  26. lee says:

    Loose his HRH? Isn’t that an admission of guilt. I don’t see that happening while Mum is alive. Mum is one tough cookie and she is not going to admit her son is a pedo. As for the plaintiff collecting any money in a civil suit I don’t think so. Mum has enough money, lawyers, and resources to tie this thing up in both countries for years.

  27. Josie says:

    I think everybody needs a reality check. The rich and powerful can do what they want and not suffer the consequences. Prince Andrew won’t be arrested. He won’t be put in jail. He will have to pay VRG, but after that, it will all go away.

    • Lizzie says:

      Not always, Rod Blagojevich, Martha Steward, OJ Simpson.

      • nina says:

        The only reason they saw consequences were because there was irrefutable proof. Martha’s stock trades, Rob audio trying to sell the senate seat, OJ’s video and audio proof of the robbery

  28. Julia K says:

    What would happen if he admits the sex was consensual and he had no idea she had been trafficked ,was duped by Epstein, then offered a financial settlement and an NDA from her?