The Queen is paying for Andrew’s legal bills out of the Duchy of Lancaster funds

Garden party at Buckingham Palace

A consistent thread throughout much of the coverage of Prince Andrew and his lack of response to Virginia Giuffre’s lawsuit is “does he even have any money?” That’s a question a lot of people have been asking for a while. Andrew had money-making schemes, of course – that’s all his dumb Pitch@Palace thing was – and Andrew definitely lives large. He even bought himself a $300,000 Bentley in “racing green” right around the time of his father’s death. And yet he had issues with keeping up with the payments for that Swiss chalet, and he’s reportedly being financially supported by his mother’s Duchy of Lancaster funds. Apparently, the Queen is also using the Duchy of Lancaster funds to pay for Andrew’s lawyers. Hm.

Royal aides believe there are “inconsistencies” in the Duke of York’s account of his dealings with Virginia Giuffre, who has accused him in a US lawsuit of underage rape, as it emerged that his legal bills are being underwritten by the Queen.

Lawyers for Prince Andrew are desperate to prevent the case from going to trial in America because they fear jurors may not believe him over an alleged victim of sexual abuse. Although the prince strenuously denies Giuffre’s claims, palace insiders believe there are “credibility” problems with his version of events.

Prince Andrew’s camp have noted that Giuffre’s story changed over time, having not accused the Earl of Inverness of sexual assault in a 2011 newspaper interview. A royal source told The Times: “However, there are inconsistencies in his own account and in the credibility of his own account. If it goes to trial in the MeToo era, it’s going to be challenging to swing a jury behind the duke.”

The paper also cited a “royal household” source as saying: “No one at the palace knows what to believe about what Prince Andrew is telling them. Some of it doesn’t stack up. The basic problem is that he’s a massive embarrassment, but you can’t sack him. There are also questions over some of the legal advice he has been getting.”

An initial court hearing has been scheduled for September 13 by Manhattan federal court judge Lewis Kaplan.

It’s unclear exactly what Andrew is worth, but estimates have put that at a taxpayer-funded £32.5m, and if he is eventually required to make a payment to Giuffre as a result of her claim, it’ll come at least in part from cash paid as part of the Sovereign Grant. It’s understood that he’s no longer receiving the £250,000-a-year that grant used to bring him, after stepping down from royal duties, but it’s said that he is being supported by the Queen through income from her private Duchy of Lancaster estate.

[From The Times]

I don’t get this: “estimates have put that at a taxpayer-funded £32.5m…” As in? He accumulated wealth from skimming the Sovereign Grant or something? Did he “make” that money through schemes? And if he is worth $40 million or so, why is his mummy paying his legal bills? I mean, of course she is – the Queen will do anything and everything for Andrew. She’s also paying for his security out of the Lancaster funds too.

As for the part where “royal aides” doubt Andrew’s version of events… well, they’ve finally caught up to the fact that no one believes Andrew and we all know he’s lying about everything. Even though royal aides “doubt” Andrew, they’re still hellbent on forcing him to issue statements and denials. According to the Daily Mail, “there is mounting concern at the Palace too, where the Queen’s courtiers are piling pressure on the Prince to change tack and speak out publicly.” Andrew and the Queen have met at Balmoral a lot in the past week and those aides are super-concerned that Andrew’s silence will “damage the Royal Family itself.” Yeah, his silence!! Not the fact that he was BFFs with a pedophile and human trafficker. His silence!

The Royal Family gather on the palace balcony  at Trooping the Colour and Queens Birthday Parade on 09/06/2018

Photos courtesy of Avalon Red, WENN.

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

119 Responses to “The Queen is paying for Andrew’s legal bills out of the Duchy of Lancaster funds”

Comments are Closed

We close comments on older posts to fight comment spam.

  1. Scorpion says:

    Of course she is, Lilibet Sr wouldn’t let her previous baby 🤮 face justice like the rest of us commoners…

    • Lorelei says:

      Omfg “Lilibet Sr.” 😭
      Betty is already the less iconic Lilibet!

    • Mac says:

      They have until September 13 to use those duchy funds to settle with VRG.

      • Lady D says:

        …and then?

      • Jaded says:

        @Lady D — Giuffre’s civil case in New York could be tried in Andrew’s absence. If he loses the case, he could be forced to pay damages, which would be enforceable by international treaty, and would be more than enough proof that her accusations are valid. Any way you look at it he’s f*cked and will never be able to leave the UK or return to public life.

        I don’t know where Mac gets the idea they have to use the duchy funds by Sept. 13 – this trial could go on for years before any monies are awarded to VRG.

      • Mac says:

        The initial hearing in the case is scheduled for Sept 13. It would be much better for the BRF to stop it before it starts.

      • Lady D says:

        Thank you both. I didn’t realize the trial started on that date. Fingers crossed for Virginia.

      • LaraW” says:

        The hearing is just to take care of administrative stuff like laying out the case schedule. Trial date hasn’t been set.

      • Jaded says:

        @Mac – He’ll never settle before the Sept. 13 hearing. He and his legal team will drag this out for years. What may skew things against him is when Ghislaine Maxwell goes to trial in November. Although she has said adamantly that she won’t admit to anything regarding Andrew, she may change her tune when she’s facing the rest of her life in prison.

    • Andrew’s Nemesis says:

      But we ‘commoners’, via the taxpayer funded Sovereign Grant, will have to pay Andrew’s bill for the rape, coercion and trafficking of a vulnerable minor. Why the Monarchy hasn’t fallen, why questions haven’t even been asked in the House, is absolutely staggering.
      I predict that the Paedo Prince will decamp. Probably in the footsteps of the Nazis to South America, where he will live beyond the reach of the law.
      One can see the quality of Old Brenda’s parenting in her best loved, utterly evil younger son.

      • Eurydice says:

        They could send Andrew to the Falklands – he could search for where he lost his ability to sweat.

      • RoyalBlue says:

        He can also run off to Russia where I hear there is no extradition treaty.

        Fare thee well randy andy.

      • fritanga says:

        Yeah, the Falklands would be ideal – still British soil, still far enough away from the world to seem like a punishment. The Duke and Duchess of Windsor were exiled to France and then Bermuda, and all they did with collude with their BFF Adolf Hitler (there also was that pesky bit about her being an American with 3 divorces). Although the Hitler thing was pretty bad (the Duke was trying to negotiate being reinstated as monarch ruling over Britain as a Nazi satellite state), I think raping trafficked teen girls was worse, or at least as heinous.

  2. Maria says:

    She’s like Ian Holm’s character in Alien; “protecting him right along!”

  3. GR says:

    Andrew’s “worth” might include his possessions and investments – he’d have to sell his Bentley and other toys to have $40 million in cash.

    • North of Boston says:

      Net worth always includes liquid and non-liquid assets, unless specified otherwise.

      • Lemons says:

        Andrew probably has a good amount of non-liquid assets that he “cannot” pay the upkeep of on his own at this point.

  4. Pao says:

    I want the same level of outrage for this as people have for when meghan literally breathes.

    I also find it noticeable that the press points out that there are inconsistencies in andrews story. We all knew this ofcourse but its the first time the press has reported the palace machinery thinks so. They are fighting tooth and nail to protect him but it seems like the institution is slowly giving up because they’ve realized its a lost cause and he’s a liability. I wonder what queenie will do once her advisors will put proper pressure on her

    • Ainsley7 says:

      It’s not the first time. All the courtiers, except for those who work directly for Andrew, are against him and have been for years. Being the Queen’s favorite has been the only thing saving him. They’ve slow leaked his crimes for years hoping something would get him shut down, but the Queen keeps stepping in. Over time, people have gotten tired of reading about all his criminal behavior (sex trafficking is just the tip of the iceberg) because they know he’ll be saved at the last minute every time.

  5. BabyLawyerIncoming says:

    “ The basic problem is that he’s a massive embarrassment, but you can’t sack him.” THIS right here is why I can never get on board with a hereditary monarch, especially when that person serves as a head of state. Except it’s more like –

    “The basic problem is he’s a sexual predator, but you can’t sack him.”

    “The basic problem is he’s a Nazi sympathizer, but you can’t sack him.”

    And less serious, but still problematic: “The basic problem is he’s massively incompetent/lazy/stupid, but you can’t sack him.”

    • Sofia says:

      They can’t “sack him” but they can certainly take away a lot of his luxuries/perks. Take away his HRH, his military honours, his patronages (I know many have dumped him but officially remove them all from him) and his security. He can live at the royal lodge because he’s got a lease but that’s it. Basic household staff can be paid for but they should be the bare basics aka housekeepers and cooks.

      • Jan says:

        Charities that want to dump pedo boy from being their patron have to send a letter to Buck Palace asking for his removal, they think charities would be too embarrassed to do it.
        Charities just went ahead and announced that he was not their patron anymore.

      • Woke says:

        That’s where it get tricky, taking all of this from him right now would indicate to the world they don’t have confidence he could win the lawsuit.

      • Sofia says:

        @Woke: He’s been accused of raping a trafficked teenager. That alone should have prompted an internal investigation at least. It shouldn’t take a lawsuit. And if that’s the image they project by doing all that then so be it. H&M lost all of that and all they did was be black/marry a black woman.

      • Cessily says:

        Why can’t he pay for his own help and security? He has a lease that will secure his children have a home through out their lifespans if needed. So he already gets subsidized housing.. The Sussex’s were not even accused of a crime and were not extended the courtesy of a cook, housekeeper or security. They even had to pay back a grant used and budgeted for repairs to a property they did not own and was a third of the entire cost of the entire 70-75 year lease of PA. (Compare property sizes and cost with lease lengths it’s ridiculous).
        The UK should brush up on civil lawsuits in the USA and Compensatory, nominal and punitive damages.. I would if I was going to paying for the Royal perversions

      • Andrew’s Nemesis says:

        @Sofia No. No staff for him. He can learn to operate a tin opener and a vacuum cleaner like the rest of us.

      • Robin Samuels says:

        He would still be living far better than the average subject in the UK without titles, honorary badges, full-size domestic staff, etc. The UnRoyal family members lack social and academic skills. If all that privilege was removed tomorrow they’d be lost in paradise.

  6. Noki says:

    Its quite amazing that all these people are really not that liquid rich. I guess thats why they wanted Meghan to ‘keep working’ smh

    • Amy Bee says:

      Oh, the Royal Family wants the public to believe that they are not liquid rich but they are. Their money is hidden offshore.

      • Sid says:

        I think the Queen is liquid rich, and Charles might be at this point, but the rest of them? I doubt it. Not to say that they are poor or anything, but I think there is a lot of reliance on what the Queen can give them. The sex offender was cut off from his trade envoy role and the whole Pitch@Palace thing which means he could no longer grift and get money in exchange for providing access to the BRF and the government. I believe that hurt him financially, which is why mummy had to step in to pay and clean up the Swiss chalet drama and why she is paying his legal bills now.

  7. ModeratelyWealthy says:

    If anything, his silence is what is helping TQ´s reputation to remain intact, because everyone just assumes she is but a mother protecting her hapless son against himself.

    Charles knows this. IMO, either intentionally or subconsciously, Charles is intent in destroying the whole thing and being the last King to have a full reign because his whole plan seems to be emptying the monarchy of all things the traditionalists enjoy ( lots of minor royals doing bread and butter engagements; celebrations with the whole family waving at the balcony) while not really providing the new generations with anything or anyone to root for ( like treating the biracial side of his family like crap, and you know, wishing he was a tampoon)

  8. Harper says:

    The last time Andrew spoke out it was a train wreck so right now the Firm and the Royal DumDums Charles and Wills should sit tight and let Andrew’s lawyers decide what the public response will be. It’s most likely that the lawyers are working on a way to settle this before the hearing but they are not going to be briefing the Daily Fail about their To Do List. However, Virginia wants accountability and Boies will play hardball with that settlement so it’s not going to be easy for the Queen and her baby boy to get their way.

  9. Harla says:

    I can’t say it enough but I’m so thrilled that the queen was so short sighted as to not allow the Sussex’s to stay on part-time, Meg and Haz are far away from this mess, living their best life with their children.

  10. Annie says:

    These articles seem like messaging from Charles and Will. I think they are probably ticked off that Andrew is getting advice and following his mummies directions rather than what Charles, Will and courtiers want (and courtiers are clearly in their hand based on the stuff the spout these days to media), which is for him to speak out so they can further their own agendas. They want to shift blame to Andrew for the monarchy being poorly viewed rather then all the stuff they’ve done.

    Truly the Queen (and likely his lawyers) are the only ones in this situation who have Andrew’s best interests at heart
    *note that I think he should stand trial or at the very least spoken to authorities long long ago

    • Amy Bee says:

      @Annie: You’re on to something. I think the aides are upset that they are not involved in Andrew’s affairs. It means they have nothing to leak to the press and that’s why they want Andrew to speak out.

    • Snuffles says:

      Looks like the rest of the family have finally learned that Charles and William aren’t to be trusted.

      No sympathy for Andrew, but not surprised he’s cutting the above out.

  11. STRIPE says:

    How is a duchy private money….? My understanding is that is tax revenue that comes from lands owned by the crown. Therefor that’s not private at all?

    • Eurydice says:

      From what I understand, the Duchy of Landcaster provides private income to the Queen and the Duchy of Cornwall provides private income to the POW. The land and capital gets passed down to whomever is the next “Duke of” so they can’t sell property or use capital, only the income.

    • Becks1 says:

      That’s the Crown Estates/sovereign grant. the Duchy of Lancaster is something different, I don’t know if there are any public records or reporting on how much the queen gets a year from that, just estimates.

    • Ainsley7 says:

      You are thinking of the crown estates from which the Queen receives the sovereign grant. The Duchy of Lancaster provides her private income. She doesn’t have to pay tax on it, but she pays a small percentage voluntarily because it looks better than paying no tax at all.

    • NCDancer says:

      I fInd the whole lotion of a monarch having private income kind of crazy. It’s not like she had a job and purchase things and therefore is generating wealth. It exists because she is royal which by its nature is public-ish. Some ancestor who was also royal probably got land from some other aristocrat who pledged fealty or by conquest. It’s likely all ill gotten gains, and just weird. Monarchies are weird.

    • notasugarhere says:

      We’ve had a lot of back and forth about this through the years. Whether historically an estate could be entailed on a woman, the secrecy, what has been sold in the past, what has been considered property of ‘The Crown’ but not the Windsors, why Duke of Windsor couldn’t walk away with personal ownership of the Duchy of Lancaster or Duchy of Cornwall.

      There’s a good conversation about it back in June 2019 under the CB article

      ‘The sussexes are doing more work on Frogmore Cottage, which will cost more money’

      BayTampaBay should have much more to add, but it boils down to ‘it is confusing’ and RepublicUK better jump on this opportunity.

    • SnoodleDumpling says:

      The duchy of Lancaster, the duchy of Cornwall, and the Crown Estate are all essentially real estate investment portfolios owned by the UK government. The rent collected from leasing these properties out makes up the revenue often spoken of.

      Though I suppose if you really want to be an ass about it you could define ‘taxpayer money’ as money that was once in the possession of a person who pays taxes, the tabloids do seem to like using that particular definition to froth at the mouth and howl about things.

  12. Amy Bee says:

    I’m not getting this fuss about Andrew being silent. I thought the Royal Family is unable to defend itself in public. That’s what the press says about Harry and Meghan’s accusations. So why are aides now saying that Andrew should speak out?

  13. S808 says:

    The last time that publicly spoke about this, He tried to claim he doesn’t have the ability to sweat. So yeah, not surprised he’s keeping his mouth SHUT.

  14. Sofia says:

    “There are also questions over some of the legal advice he has been getting.”

    Is the advice he’s getting actually /bad/ or is it bad because it doesn’t line up with what the courtiers/Charles/William want to hear? I said it last week but I do think it’s a good idea for Andrew to listen to his lawyers as opposed to courtiers. @Becks1 said it so much better but the courtiers do not have Andrew’s personal interests at heart but the Crown and if they think he needs to destruct for the monarchy’s sake, they will do it. I don’t care for Andrew nor am I defending him but again, listening to legal makes sense.

    • Woke says:

      That’s the same thing that happened when Harry and Meghan were getting advice from the firm lawyers when they wanted to sue the Mail. The lawyers basically told them they couldn’t sue because it wasn’t in the firm best interest.

      Andrew better listen to his lawyers even though I found the courtiers would ever throw him under the bus.

    • Annie says:

      @sofia I agree 10000 percent as well but would add the courtiers aren’t interested in protecting the crown as they are protecting Charles, he’s taken over in everything but name but I love that the queen is full out doing stuff behind backs it appears and basically shutting out Charles and Courtiers from things.

      • Sofia says:

        Well Charles IS The Crown. Not /now/ but soon and as you’ve said, he’s practically King in all but name. Protecting the Crown protects Charles and vice versa

      • notasugarhere says:

        You’re glad the Queen is using these funds to keep funding her rapist pedo son?

    • Harper says:

      The lawyers are either going to settle to make it go away and in that case, they will have to deal with big bad headlines for the Crown right now, or stonewall the Americans for years, with the case casting a pall over the Jubilee, the Queen’s funeral, Charles’ coronation, etc. etc. Neither option looks good for Charles or TOB’s interests.

      • LMR says:


      • LaraW” says:

        Honestly, what incentive does Virginia have to settle? She’s dedicated her adult life to fighting for this. I wouldn’t let Andrew off the hook so easily, especially since I think she has a good chance of winning, including forcing Andrew to pay her attorney’s fees.

  15. Jan says:

    What is the difference between the queen and Charles? The queen is supporting her grown arse child, while Charles did the opposite, cutting security from Harry, who was not accused of sexually abusing minors.
    No wonder the queen don’t step down, because she knows Charles is prick.

    • notasugarhere says:

      You think the Queen continuing to fund her rapist pedo of a son with taxpayers funds, and refusing to hand him over for questioning is better than Charles (and Duchy board) saying Duchy of Cornwall funds cannot legally be used to fund security for someone who isn’t a working royal?

      Do I think Charles should have agreed to the half-in, half-out plan? Not sure. Right now, Harry and Meghan are far better off outside of that circus. And Charles has no private wealth, he doesn’t own the Duchy, Diana cleand out all his private funds 25 years ago. The accessible big private wealth is with Liz Windsor, who has not stepped up to provide private security for her grandson and his family.

  16. Becks1 says:

    Of course the queen is paying. Even if Andrew had hundreds of millions, the queen would still pay. He’s the favorite son being attacked by that American jezebel, he’s innocent, he did nothing wrong, of course shes going to protect him and pay for him, this isn’t his fault.


    I think being silent right now is the best thing Andrew can do, actually, and I have this image of his lawyers just sitting on him and Fergie to keep them from running to the press, lol. But it is interesting that someone is admitting that there is a problem with his version of events. Even just from a circumstantial POV – andrew admitted to being friends with Ghislaine, Andrew invited Ghislaine and Epstein to significant events in the UK (they’ve been to BP and sat on the throne, they have been to shooting parties at Balmoral or Sandringham, can’t remember which, and they attended Beatrice’s 18th bday I believe, but maybe it was William’s? There was a big bday party that was for two or three royals at Windsor at once and I think Maxwell/Epstein went to that.) Andrew stayed at Epstein’s house in New York, AFTER it came out that he was a sexual predator who abused and trafficked young girls. He was PHOTOGRAPHED there. He was photographed WITH Virginia at Ghislaine’s London house!

    Even if nothing happened and Andrew is 100% innocent, it looks pretty damn bad for him and the burden of proof is not as strict as it is in criminal cases. I don’t know if the circumstances are enough, but if I was on the jury and looking at just the things I mentioned above, and then compared that to Virginia’s story, and the only defense from Andrew was “pizza express” and “i cant sweat” I know who I would believe.

    • Cessily says:

      He is very good friends with Maxwell.. he threw her a birthday party at Sandringham.. that is a very close friendship. (2000)

    • Over it says:

      Becks your first part made me laugh. And I agree with you.Betty is a ride or die mummy to her little Andy. Charles could learn how to be. Good parent to a child in need from her. I think Andy should listen to his lawyers and stfu . Cause talking last time did him no favors. Infact one might say it’s what got him where he is now finally finding his sweat glands. Of course the courtiers want him to talk, they work for Charles and Willy and Charles wants him gone and off mummy’s purse strings and Willy wants royal lodge. So they are tag teaming for the sole purpose of destroying Andy.
      Well I hope this helps bring that family and it’s monarchy to its end.
      So glad Harry and his family got the hell away from satans den

    • Couch potato says:

      About the queen’s paying part; could leaking that the queen is paying be part of Charles’ scheme to become prince regent? Get the public’s opinion against her, so they can push for a regency act?

      • Tessa says:

        The Regency is only if the Queen is incapacitated. I am not so sure the public all that much cares for Charles to listen. It also would not be good for William to get more power if the Queen steps aside. I am not sold on the “skills” of the next two monarchs. If HM and Charles had any foresight they would have let Harry and Meghan stay and told William to back off. The whole establishment is falling apart. I think Harry and Meghan are much better off now away from this mess.

      • Couch potato says:

        @Tessa they could argue this is proof of the queen being mentally incapasitated due to old age, along with “other evidence” of her being forgetful. But, as you say, the public don’t care much for Charles. If he goes after the queen, it’s going to backfire more spectacularly than the jubilee fireworks. The problem is, Charles and Willnot have hugely inflated egos. They think they are the greates creatures on earth and completely clueless about what other people outside their white elitist bubble thinks, so THEY might think this is a good idea. Just as they thought bullying Meghan and not agreeing to half in half out was a good idea. They also think sending greetings to all the etnic people and stating “we are very much not a racist family” makes everyone belive them.

        Thankfully H&M are out, and not part of this shitshow.

      • SnoodleDumpling says:

        They wouldn’t need to push for a regency act, the Regency Act of 1937 is still in force and sets forth a permanent plan to enact in the case of the minority or infirmity of the Monarch.

        They’d have to get at least one Doctor to give evidence that she is sufficiently incapacitated, and at least three of the following five people to agree and sign off on a regency: the sovereign’s consort, the Lord Chancellor, the Speaker of the House of Commons, the Lord Chief Justice of England and Wales, and the Master of the Rolls.

  17. Mina_Esq says:

    I honestly don’t know whether I should be more outraged at the Queen for supporting her pedo son through thick and thing, or Charles for not supporting his son through a marriage to a biracial woman. That family has some effed up priorities.

  18. Eurydice says:

    I don’t get the “taxpayer funded wealth” either. Maybe it’s that he didn’t spend all his £250,000 per year allotment and invested it, instead. The seed money could be “taxpayer funded,” but not the rest? In any case, it’s a nice dig against Andrew – it’s not just the Queen, the taxpayers also have been supporting this rapist.

    • notasugarhere says:

      So much is down to the secrecy around funding. We’re told there are boards and accountants who oversee everything and say the Windsors are doing thing legally. And yet, for decades the Queen misdirected funds for Buckingham Palace upkeep. What did the gov do? Vote her an additional 400 million for BP restoration and never question where the original funds went.

      In some other royal families, they have to show how they spend every penny. If it is unspent at the end of the year, it is returned to gov coffers.

  19. TabithaD says:

    The wording in that extract from The Times is quite revealing. It would appear that HIS OWN LAWYERS do not think Andrew is a credible witness. Which is not a surprise to anyone who watched that disastrous Newsnight interview, but it’s quite something to see it written down like that.
    That being the case, his lawyers will want to try anything they can to keep him from being called to the stand, in case he incriminates himself further under questioning- which he almost certainly would. Which could be why they’re (reportedly) now looking into “diplomatic immunity” arguments, so that it never gets to that point.

    • Ainsley7 says:

      Andrew got off the first time, in 2008, because of diplomatic immunity. So, it makes sense they want to try it again. It was apparently “too much trouble”, back then, to figure out when Andrew had immunity and when he did not due to his role as “special trade ambassador” and representative of the Queen. It was decided that he was only immune when he was on official business, but he mixed a lot of official business with unofficial business. I doubt they will get away with it this time. This isn’t the same era of the Epstein sweetheart deal.

  20. Cessily says:

    I would like nothing more than for PA to face a criminal trial, since that is not likely i hope that this civil suit produces enough evidence to show the world who the Royals and Royalist defend and just how sick that institution is. I really have no doubt that a jury will award her record breaking amounts in damages, I imagine he is sweating now.

  21. aquarius64 says:

    This is frankly karma on the House of Windsor for their treatment of the Sussexes. The hammer being brought down by Americans is poetic justice.

  22. TabithaD says:

    I also think Andrew’s finances could do with some closer investigation. (The whole BRF actually, but starting with Andrew).
    For example, all those years he was a “trade envoy”, mingling with super-rich businessmen, some of them not so respectable. Are we certain there were no kick-backs/back-handers? What about when Andrew sold his house to some Kazakhstani oligarch at millions over the asking price, only for it then to be abandoned and fall into disrepair, before being demolished. (Were any money-laundering checks done, I wonder?). There were also reports that his Pitch@Palace thing was creaming money off the entrepreneurs it was meant to be promoting.
    And the business with the Swiss chalet. Odd that Andrew ran out of money to pay the remaining instalments almost immediately after Epstein died. Could be a coincidence, I guess.
    It’s a huge can of worms.

    • Couch potato says:

      1000 % this!

    • Cessily says:

      £3M over asking on the sale of a personal property to one of these individuals was ignored along with various other shady schemes. (There are a lot of them buried on the internet that went no where after the allegations)

    • notasugarhere says:

      Wiping away 1.3 million in debt for Sophie’s failed business should also be examined.

      • Tessa says:

        Absolutely. I see this super promotion of Sophie now with even Louise getting PR.

      • notasugarhere says:

        And the BRF/William interference in getting France to dismiss 2-3 Middleton-related legal issues. Pippa’s gun scandal, the Papa Matthews rape allegations by his underage niece. How much William leaned on a free press to disappear the affair talk and James Nazi Marshmallows incident. All kinds of things.

  23. Merricat says:

    Andrew would fold like a cheap suit under any competent questioning. I think Charles will “exile” him to a far-flung royal property, and Andrew will never leave England again.

    • Tessa says:

      I think the Queen will provide for Andrew in her will and leave him a residence. I would think that Andrew would not dare leave England.

    • The Recluse says:

      It probably infuriates Charles to no end that Mummy is using money from his eventual inheritance to support Andy.

  24. ABritGuest says:

    Didn’t Andrew & some of the palace’s ‘gold plated advisers’ think that the newsnight interview went well until the public backlash? Best thing he can do is not listen to them but listen to his lawyers & STFU.

    As he’s not a working royal & hasn’t been for two years now not clear why he still has honorary military appointments & any royal patronages. I thought the palace said you had to be part of working team of royals to have these earlier this year. Clearly they were hoping to bring him back one day but if they are serious that there’s no way back for him then hope these go ASAP.

    • TabithaD says:

      Yes, apparently Andrew thought it was “a triumph”!! Which just goes to show how colossally stupid he is.

  25. ChattyCath says:

    Bankrupt estates revert to the Duchy of Lancaster as do unclaimed estates. It was claimed on TV that TQ gives this money to charity. I’m really shocked this has become a thing

    • Couch potato says:

      Well, her second born son is her favorite charity case, isn’t he?

    • AmB says:

      Charity begins at home!

    • SenseOfTheAbsurd says:

      Duchies of Lancaster and Cornwall get the estates of anybody who dies intestate there, amongst other shady perks. When George IV did a deal with government to hand over royal estates in exchange for ceremonial/figurehead powers plus civil list, those two were somehow ‘overlooked’. Also, some of the properties designated as privately owned, like Sandringham and Balmoral, were purchased with public money in the 19th century.

      Panama Papers showed how many billions they’ve been stashing away in offshore tax havens.

  26. Water Bearer 💧 says:

    If Andrew is found guilty it ain’t got nothing to do with ‘Me Too’. It’s because he is. Virginia has receipts dates, times and now witnesses are prepared to come forward to corroborate some parts of her account. The wheels of justice turn very slowly but I’m confident that Virginia Giuffre will have her day in court.

  27. OriginalLala says:

    For anyone still wondering whether Petty Betty is a good person – she is still financially supporting a rapist. Please STFU about her being this sweet passive granny, she is stone cold.

    • Tessa says:

      Indeed she is. Cold to her own sister not reaching out during the Townsend years. TO Diana, ignoring the situation Diana was in, ignoring the warnings by courtiers about Charles’ association with Camilla, to Harry and Meghan. But she tries to move heaven and earth to spare her son. She is not warmhearted in the least. Maybe selectively and her concerns just for Andrew.

  28. Catherine says:

    Andrew has money. He just doesn’t like to use it except when he wants to and if he can get out of paying for things he takes advantage. The chalet lawsuit occurred after years of the other couple trying to get him to pay his portion. He had the money. He just thought he could enjoy the luxury without paying. In this case though the fact that the Queen is using Duchy Of Lancaster money and they announced it serves one very specific purpose. It lets everyone know that Andrew had the full support if the Queen and that he will be protected by the institution. So regardless of talk about him being “punished” by losing the HRH, or his patronages or military titles. The overall message is that he will ultimately be protected.

    • Couch potato says:

      Or, like I’ve mentioned higher up, Charles’ camp is leaking this to make the queen seem unfit to rule, so they can push for a regency act.

      • Lady D says:

        I hope your theory is the the right one, Couch potato.

      • Tessa says:

        Charles is a real flop when it came to helping his second son. I am not convinced Charles will be a “hero.” He may be scared of what “revelations” Andrew might have up his sleeve.

  29. Margaret says:

    I have a big problem with the friendly BM, writing articles on Andrew, and not opening up the comments. There is no problem when reporting silly articles on the Sussexes.
    If the British public is so in love with the BRF, why not let them have a say on this issue?. Maybe the public should ask the editors of the BM about the double standards.

    • Tessa says:

      And those comments inevitably bring in Harry and Meghan and practically blame THEM for Andrew.

  30. Liz version 700 says:

    After years of listening to the “Meghan the Culturally Diverse Duchess will bring down the monarchy I feel like all but the really deep look aid drinkers can see that Andrew and William have the end of the Monarchy covered. William is driving the car and Andrew is punching the gas.

  31. FeatherDuk says:

    Stupid question, is it pronounced “Duch-ee” or “Duck-ie” or “Dook-ee”?

    • Sofia says:


    • russianblue says:

      @Featherduk Your comment made me laugh, because it really should be pronounced “dookie”… as in poo. Prince Andrew, the Dookie of York.

      • Agreatreckoning says:

        LOL. It made me laugh too. I was thinking Green Day’s Dookie album and how they originally wanted to call it Liquid Dookie. Prince Andrew, Diarrhea of York.

  32. Lady Digby says:

    Andrew’s whereabouts and companions can easily be confirmed by Royal Protection Officer record logs surely? No doubt they would have been cited if they confirmed his trip to Pizzaland, Woking!

    • Couch potato says:

      Aren’t those logs suspiciously “lost”? Like the footage from when Epstein hanged “himself”.

    • Cessily says:

      Yes but it’s been reported widely that they no longer have those records.. somehow they were destroyed or disappeared.

      • SenseOfTheAbsurd says:

        Dodgy in itself. As a police officer, your notebook is sacred, a legal document to be preserved forever, even after retirement. Hot Fuzz was not exaggerating the importance of notebooks.

  33. notasugarhere says:

    In other news, Lilibet is finally listed in the official line of succession list on the Royal UK site. Looks like the site was modified on 26 July but cannot tell if that’s when the info was added.

  34. RoyalBlue says:

    What is as disgusting as Andrew’s deeds, is the Palaces attempt to cover it up and hide him away. They surely are complicit in this attempt to evade the law.

  35. Robin Samuels says:

    IMO. The House of Windsor will settle, paying an undisclosed amount with no further reporting. Case closed and on with the Jubilee.

    • Anna says:

      They should’ve settled with Giuffre ten years ago. Too drunk on privilege to imagine they’d ever have to be held accountable.

  36. TabithaD says:

    There are certainly lots of funds sloshing about that TQ could use. She gets around £20-25m per year from the Duchy of Lancaster which is “private” income. The Duchy of Lancaster has net capital (mostly huge chunks of land and houses) of about £550m but the capital apparently can’t be touched and is handed down from crown to crown.
    The Sovereign Grant is about £86m this year – that’s to cover the BRF’s expenses for their “public work” (but it appears to cover a suspiciously large number of private-looking helicopter trips) plus a bit for servicing the castles.
    Then there’s Crown property, and lots of additional private property plus inheritances. So Andrew’s legal fees really shouldn’t be a problem.

  37. t'otter says:


  38. smash karts says:

    If you’re still wondering if Petty Betty is a nice person, consider this: she’s still financially supporting a rapist. Please stop acting like she’s this nice passive grandmother; she’s ice cold.