Queen Elizabeth’s lawyers ‘warned the media’ about taking photos at Balmoral

Embed from Getty Images

The Duke of York and his ex-wife Sarah Ferguson traveled to Balmoral soon after Virginia Giuffre filed her lawsuit in New York federal court. There has been mixed reporting about how and why Prince Andrew and Fergie went to Balmoral. Some sources say that the Queen and her advisors demanded that Andrew come to Balmoral for crisis talks, other sources say that Andrew was always due to come at that moment. British media outlets were also at a loss as to how Andrew traveled to Scotland, whether he took a private plane or drove. Surprisingly, there have been no photos of Andrew at Balmoral since his arrival last week. Now we know why: the Daily Beast has an exclusive report that the Queen’s lawyers sent out notices to outlets that no one should take or publish photos of the family at Balmoral. The notices were sent out on the day Andrew arrived.

British media organizations hoping to snap a picture of a disgraced Prince Andrew holidaying at his mother’s private Scottish residence have been warned off by the queen, The Daily Beast can exclusively reveal. Lawyers from British firm Farrer & Co, acting for Her Majesty, wrote to major British newspapers warning the publications against taking or publishing pictures of the royal family or their guests at Balmoral the same day that Andrew arrived there.

Sources at the palace confirmed to The Daily Beast that the letters were sent out to media organizations, but they added that similar letters were sent “every holiday” and that it was therefore not remarkable. However, the queen has been on holiday in Balmoral since July 24 and the letter was only sent on August 10, just one day after a bombshell civil lawsuit was filed accusing Andrew of raping Virginia Roberts Giuffre.

The timing of the letter being sent the day after the lawsuit landed is likely to fuel speculation that the queen is using her enormous domestic influence to protect her favorite son. A source at one paper speculated that the intention of the royals may be to protect Andrew from being pictured being served with legal papers. Although Boies conceded in a BBC interview that it is not necessary for Andrew to be physically served with the papers, the palace is believed by some journalists to be acting out of an abundance of caution for fear that Boies could stage such a spectacle anyway to humiliate Andrew.

Andrew, perhaps not entirely coincidentally, has not been seen at Crathie Kirk, a small church near Balmoral habitually visited by the royals, since he arrived at Balmoral. The church is located on public land and therefore exposes Andrew to being photographed and/or served papers, the source pointed out.

Andrew, accompanied by his ex-wife Sarah Ferguson, made a beeline for Balmoral on Tuesday 10 August, the day after news of the civil suit broke and British newspapers were desperate for clues on his reaction. That same day, the letter was sent out. Staffers at one major tabloid newspaper were sent a memo by their own legal department recapping the warning, which has been passed to The Daily Beast.

The memo says that the newspaper has been contacted “by solicitors acting on behalf of HM the Queen, her family and the Balmoral Estate” where the queen is now in residence along with unnamed other members of the royal family and invited guests. The memo says that the newspaper has been “reminded” by the solicitors that Balmoral “is a private estate and whilst there the Royal Family and their guests have a reasonable expectation of privacy.”

A British newspaper editor told The Daily Beast: “I’ve never seen a warning like this before from the queen’s lawyers. It’s clearly to keep people away from Prince Andrew. There is no coincidence in the timing coming after Virginia Roberts filed her lawsuit against Andrew.”

[From The Daily Beast]

All of the Sussex Squad peeps on my timeline pointed out that the Queen never, ever used her lawyers to protect the Duchess of Sussex at any time, not even when Meghan was pregnant and being smeared daily. It’s true. I would also argue that the Queen has never really used her lawyers to protect anyone in the family except Andrew, her favorite. And personally, I don’t even think this legal notice was the Queen’s move. The summer of 2019, the summer of Jeffrey Epstein’s mysterious death in jail, the Queen was seen on church-rides with Andrew constantly. She didn’t give a f–k. I would imagine she still doesn’t give a f–k. The legal notices strike me as the courtiers trying to protect the Queen from herself – they don’t want the Crown damaged by the Queen’s need to protect Andrew and make appearances in public with Andrew. Her advisors know that if the Queen had her way, she would be going to church every day with Andrew beside her, in full view of the cameras.

Embed from Getty Images

Embed from Getty Images

Photos courtesy of Getty.

Related stories

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

85 Responses to “Queen Elizabeth’s lawyers ‘warned the media’ about taking photos at Balmoral”

Comments are Closed

We close comments on older posts to fight comment spam.

  1. Merricat says:

    Maybe the queen is acting out of guilt. Do you think she dropped Andrew on his head when he was an infant?

  2. Alexandria says:

    I maintain if Queenie wasn’t family, HM wouldn’t befriend her :P

  3. Amy Bee says:

    What it does say is that if the Palace wanted to protect Harry and Meghan they could have. But being an active participant in the smear campaign meant they saw no need to protect them. It again confirms that Harry and Meghan were telling the truth. There have been no photos at Balmoral since Andrew’s arrival therefore total compliance from the press. The Palace is not powerless against the media, they allow the press to go after royals who refuse to play the game.

    • Pao says:

      At this point there is ample of evidence verifying that the call to smear harry but especially meghan came from inside. On top of that RR were pissed h&m wouldn’t give them access so they gleefully obliged. From a times reporter stating that “there were fears meghan would become bigger than Diana” in a documentary to the DM admitting in meghans lawsuit that they had a source within the royal household leaking to them about meghan. To those stupid bullying claims.

      • Amy Bee says:

        @pao: Everybody sees this except the royalists who have to be the least rational people in the world.

      • Izzy says:

        I mean, Dan Wootten even admitted it in one of his podcasts. The clip is everywhere. Once he let that slip out, thee was no turning back.

      • Nic919 says:

        Add Richard Palmer and Emily Andrews to the list of people confirming the criticism of the Sussexes was happening from the inside.

    • (TheOG) Jan90067 says:

      I think we’ve all pretty much known all along that they CAN and do put out or hold what they want put out or held.

      They ALL run to the press/tabloids. Only they put it out through “courtiers”, or “palace *sources*”, or “a friend”. Pure BS. It’s them, whinging and whining every time, throwing each other under the nearest bus, complaining, or trying to justify their privileged existence.

      • Christine says:

        Agreed. I remember word nothing from “the palace” when DRONES were flying over Frogmore. Sure, now is the time to call the lawyers, because Bettie loves her Pedo.

  4. Pao says:

    I don’t understand why courtiers won’t let andrew burn tbh. Just make sure the other royals are far removed and you’ll be fine. The royals need a scapegoat? Well here’s one handed to you on a silver platter

    • Amy Bee says:

      Because he’s too close to the Queen. It’s easier to let a grandson twist in the wind than a son.

    • Snuffles says:

      Because the Queen won’t let them. The second she is gone, he will be thrown to the wolves.

      • Pao says:

        @Amy Bee, @Snuffles: i know meghan and harry have a good relationship with the woman but its things like this why i 100% blame her too for the treatment of meghan. Because clearly she can step in if she wants too. And to the people saying that she’s most likely not aware of anything…. I find that incredibly hard to believe because when it comes to andrew she clearly on top of things + after the Oprah interview she’s definitely aware of what’s going on with h&m

      • Becks1 says:

        @Pao she did step in after the Oprah interview though, remember how it came out that she gave the order to stop briefing against the Sussexes in the press? And it did stop for like two days and then picked up again. But I feel like its kind of slowed down again, I think the crisis PR people are finally doing their job and telling William to sit the eff down and shut up about his brother and SIL. Most of the recent stories about the Sussexes are just nonsense stories like “how dare Meghan have nice things in her Montecito mansion, aren’t the bathrooms enough for her.”

        But I think she can be relatively isolated and protected and still protect Andrew – its not actually contradictory. If all she is told is from Andrew – “oh its just this girl, she wont go away, she wants money, she’s trying to take advantage of me because she knows you’re rich mummy, I’ve never even met her in my life.” Do you think the Queen believes Andrew or Virginia? She probably doesn’t even know Virginia’s name (because she doesn’t care, not because she’s a saint.)

      • Snuffles says:


        I never said she wasn’t aware of anything. I said she wasn’t aware of EVERYTHING. I still maintain the courtiers severely edit and curate what information she gets. But with Andrew, he runs to Mummy every chance he gets. So of course she knows what’s going on with him.

        As far as the Sussex’s relationship with her. You can take the cynical view and say they are sucking up because they know the Queen is viewed as untouchable and going after her would be fruitless. Or Harry truly believes she’s being micromanaged by courtiers and getting bad advice.

      • Ginger says:

        Agreed 100% Becks1.

      • swirlmamad says:

        I agree with @Becks and @Snuffles. The reason this request to stay away from Andrew can stand and TQ’s request to stop the Sussex briefings did not is exactly what has been said multiple times — while the Queen isn’t completely in the dark, she is not being told everything. And yes, I 100% believe she is being manipulated to an extent by the courtiers/palace. She’s an old woman with old school views and has already wrongly exonerated her son from his crimes in her head, yes. I’m not excusing that. But I also believe she is not and has not been getting the full story on what has been going on. That palace is a vipers nest, full stop.

      • Christine says:

        This needs to be a drinking game. “Guess what is in the Queen’s Daily Red Box”. Is it just horse stats, and tide charts? I wouldn’t be surprised at all. Perhaps a color wheel from her favorite dress maker?

    • Amy Bee says:

      @Pao: Given that she has staff to brief her on daily media reports about her family and it was said in the past that she reads the papers, there’s absolutely no way she could not know what’s going on. Only Harry and Meghan can explain why they absolve the Queen from what has happened to them. All we’ve got so far from Harry is that she is poorly advised. I hope he will go into more detail about this in his book.

      • Becks1 says:

        Honestly, AmyBee, that’s what I keep coming back to. I do think that H&M knew they could not say a single word against the queen in their interview, they were NEVER going to bash her even if she was the one leading the charge against them. But for some reason they do absolve her of the bulk of the bad things over the past few years, and there has to be a reason for that. If they were just holding back in the interview, that doesn’t explain why they named their daughter after her.

        Personally I think its a combination of Harry having some blinders on when it comes to his beloved grandmother (blinders he does not wear when it comes to his father or brother), and also there being a lot more going on behind the scenes than we know, things going on that DO absolve the Queen more than we can imagine. I don’t think Meghan would have consented to “Lilibet” if the queen was to blame for everything, she does not have those blinders on, you know?

      • Over it says:

        I honestly think and maybe I am wrong here but this is my beliefs. Since Harry lost his mom at such a young age, he has put his granny in a kind of mother figure role. I honestly think he tries to separate her the granny from her the queen because he can’t and doesn’t want to ever believe that his grandma could be so cold to him and his family. I think she has always been kind to Meghan so therefore Meghan also tries especially for Harry sake to be good to her because Meghan knows Harry has already lost so much and she doesn’t want him to loose one of the only important people left from his family because Charles and william I believe are toast to Harry. So she tries to help him maintain a relationship with Betty. Megs is always going to be a better person than me. This also confirms to me that Harry us in no way being lead around by his wife because Betty is his granny and if I were Megs I would have cut her off colld turkey, but that’s me looking at this as an outsider. Maybe granny really is she is a wonderful granny. I will keep looking for evidence of that

      • ABritGuest says:

        Apart from being her son, I think Andrew is protected because the queen & the firm have been complicit with covering up for him. For all we know the met police destroyed details of Andrew’s whereabouts on the night with Virginia in London as a ‘favour’ to the crown.

        There are claims that Andrew tried to lobby US authorities on the sweetheart deal for Epstein. If true someone in the firm probably knows about it& other shady dealings with Epstein & others so it’s in their interest to protect Andrew. Plus the queens son going down for rape is much worse for the firm’s image than a little racism. So I think the firm as a whole would be trying to cover for Andrew. Whereas even those in the firm who might have liked Meghan thought protecting her would be of no real value (as they didn’t realise they’d lose Harry too)

        I also think that if William (and Kate?) wanted Meghan gone & Elizabeth’s key courtiers like Edward Young also didn’t like her then who was going to go against their wishes to give Meghan protection. Who was going to advise Liz, facilitate her stepping in about the nasty press, especially when being cynical, the press’s toxic focus on Meghan provided useful cover for other royals? Even if she had wanted to step in (doubtful as she has been pretty passive when other royal brides received grief except Sophie with Sheikhgate etc) would her staff carry out her wishes? Harry believes her staff cancelled his Sandringham visit to her & we saw KP & CH ignore her apparent request not to brief against the Sussexes after the Oprah interview. I’m definitely not an apologist for her but I doubt she’s running the show. Remember that she also allegedly said Harry should run the half in plan by Charles so I don’t think she was making the key decisions around H&M.

        It was smart to be nice about Liz& Phil in their interviews but it seems they were some of the only family members who were relatively kind to them & maybe that’s why apart from age & status— they got a pass. Although Harry did say she gets bad advice so presumably was critical of her decisions. Apparently they knew about their engagement before other royals, they met Archie first & looked happy to unlike pics with the others, Richard Palmer said Liz used to go to Frogmore to try settle them & Bradby said they felt other family members were unfriendly except Liz & Phil. Whilst Charles cut communications with Harry & it’s been space with William, they kept up with Liz. Maybe she sucks as a leader & mother but is a decent grandmother.

      • swirlmamad says:

        Is it possible that even though the Queen is known for her briefings, something has changed recently and the courtiers are now curating those briefings? We know that she’s not gathering all this information on her own. Please don’t think that I’m trying to find excuses for her. But I also agree that there is a reason that Harry and Meghan would go so far as to name their child after her — no one is going to do that solely to suck up/curry favor (well, maybe no one but the Wessexes). That just doesn’t seem to be this couple’s M.O. There seems to truly be a relationship and fondness there, and yes, Harry certainly can be viewing his grandmother through rose-colored glasses. But Meghan wouldn’t have the same blind spots when it comes to the TQ as Harry, and she’s said with her own mouth how much they regard her. I 100% believe there is more to this than meets the eye and it’s way more complicated than it seems.

      • Sofia says:

        Plus HM was never an assertive character. She keeps her head in the sand as long as she can until she’s forced to yank it out. She’s relied on her courtiers from the beginning, which is understandable as a 25 year old getting on the throne but she hasn’t let go of them. And at 95, that’s not going to improve. In fact it’s only going to get worse i.e her over reliance on her courtiers. So when you combine that with Harry saying “She gets bad advice”, you start to get why she acts the way she does.

        Also H&M know a lot more than we do. They know when the queen does/did something and when “the queen” does/did something. I think they’ve separated family from the institution. We can have an entire discussion on whether they can/should have but that’s what they’ve done. Hence why they love and cherish granny lilibet but could be disappointed with queen elizabeth ii. Also why they named their daughter using a family nickname of HM instead of her legal name.

    • Alexandria says:

      My guess is they won’t let there be a precedent of a senior royal being arrested or go to trial. Because a senior royal can be an heir and that’s too much work for them. They have vested interests to keep the crown going. It keeps their jobs and who knows what personal and opportunistic connections they have tied with the royals. It’s who you know, not what you know.

      My other guess is, Andrew has something on Charles or William.

    • Cessily says:

      She literally made the sixth & seventh ( now also the eighth) in line for the throne flee to Canada then settle in USA for what? To protect and Save the unredeemable ninth in line from facing rape of a trafficked minor allegations? To keep it hushed in the press? Well after the interview(s) there are many more following this mess and now we know what we are looking at.
      If the British press and people allow him to hide under his moms skirt shame on them! This entire family disgusts me.. I suggest everyone keep track of there teen daughters around palace grounds since that is where he hides and it is becoming glaringly obvious as long as the Queen is alive he can do whatever he likes legal or not within her orbit of control there are no consequences.

  5. Scorpion says:

    As I have previously said, Lilibet Sr will go to the mattresses to protect her precious son. Pity her eldest son has no parental instinct.

    • Amy Bee says:

      Charles sees his sons as rivals not family.

    • Susan says:

      Scorpion, that is where I am at. It frustrates me that people (ahem, Harry!) make excuses for her based on her age—but apparently when it comes to Andrew, no holds barred.

      • Ginger says:

        Meghan did the same interview and has always had nice things to say regarding the Queen. It’s not just Harry. Again, they know this situation better than us. THEY named their daughter after her for a reason. And yes, I believe Meghan had a say in the naming of their daughter, not just Harry.

      • Over it says:

        Ginger,maybe they named her after the queen to stick it to the royals and the racist section of brits that no matter what you say, lili is of royal royal blood and none of you will ever be able to forget that because we giving her the queen special name

      • Over it says:

        I mean they can take the titles away if they want or not give them at all , but lili will forever be Lilibeth

      • Betsy says:

        @Over It – you really think they would have named a child for spite? I don’t.

      • Over it says:

        Betsy, not spite, but a reminder that lili can’t ever be erased the way they tried to erase Meghan name off Archie birth certificate

  6. Becks1 says:

    I agree that this is (at least in part) to protect the queen from herself – the courtiers don’t want any pictures of gleeful andrew next to his loving mother on the way to church. Those pictures were really bad. So maybe the Queen is basically thinking “hes innocent, there’s no need to hide, everything is fine” (remember she went riding with him right after the newsnight interview) and the courtiers (directed by Charles) are saying “no no no, you can’t do this. this is not a good look.”

    As for whether this is a standard warning or not – I guess maybe if it just applies to Balmoral estate? Like we usually get pictures of the royals attending church which is how we know who’s there, but didn’t we get a pic once of the queen driving with Carole Middleton on the estate? Maybe that was allowed to be released? But like you said Kaiser the timing is off, for this warning to have been sent the day Andrew arrived…..definitely seems like it was just to protect Andrew.

    And it is notable how someone – the queen, the courtiers, Charles – can move to protect Andrew but nothing for Meghan. The most they did for her was tell her to stay home and not leave the house. Gee, that helped. Of course though how could they protect Meghan when the call was coming from inside the house?

    • Amy Bee says:

      @Becks: The family telling Meghan to stay at home was part of their plan to get her to leave. Unfortunately for them the plan worked too well.

      • Becks1 says:

        Yup, they wanted to isolate her and make her miserable. They really had it all worked out, its disturbing to look back on it. They just completely miscalculated bc they never thought Harry would go with her. They didnt realize by making her miserable they were making Harry miserable because, you know, he loves his wife.

      • Amy Bee says:

        @Becks: Who can blame them for thinking Harry would abandon his wife for royal life? Every other royal put in this situation, except David, has stayed.

  7. Andrew’s Nemesis says:

    I’m so sick of this One Rule for Them, One Rule for the Rest of Us. In a country where children starve, their parents dine on air and rape has become so normalised by the justice system that only a handful are prosecuted, this evil family’s insistence that they deserve special treatment and to bypass the law is sickening.
    I am a survivor of numerous rapes, sexual assaults, domestic violence and coercive control. Few of the cases, perpetrated by those who are both a product of and benefit from this antediluvian, patriarchal system, were brought to court. We need change from the top down. My rage persists. Disband the Royal Family and the House of Lords, destroy unearned privilege and misogynistic and misogynoir tendencies, and allow us to move into the 21st century. There should be no place for a rapist in society – anywhere; let alone at the head of it.

    • Hell Nah! says:


      It is unbelievable to me that in this day and age the British people continue to put up with this vile, grotesque family living it up on their tax dollars and holding on to the power that allows them to bypass the law.

      Burn it all down!


      (I’m so very sorry for all you’ve been through. I can feel your (righteous) rage and wish you well.)

    • Jaded says:

      I too have suffered a number sexual assaults in my time so I totally understand your rage. That QE’s legal advisors would take the step of warning the media not to take photos at or around Balmoral reeks of demanding special treatment for someone who, for all intents and purposes, should be in jail. I think this is also a ploy to prevent papers being served to him in a surprise attack by someone posing as a photog — yet another sleazy maneuver to circle the wagons around her precious Andrew. Well it’s not going to work. We’ve seen how tenacious and determined Virginia is — that woman is strong as stone and she’s not going to let this go until some kind of justice is served for herself and all the other victims of Epstein’s and Maxwell’s predatory crimes. As we get closer to Maxwell’s November trial the harsh light of reality is going to shine on Andrew more and more, and no amount of cossetting from mummy is going to help. He’ll never see the inside of a jail cell, but he’ll never be able to leave the UK. Once mummy falls off her perch my bet is on Charles stripping him of his HRH status and banishing him to one of the lesser royal residences, hopefully with no RPOs to save his sorry ass.

    • Cessily says:

      💯% this is a hard thing to see playing out as a survivor, I carry the same rage.

  8. Coco says:

    They don’t want the media to discover they’re constructing a Pizza Express franchise at Balmoral.

  9. Scorpion says:

    I love how these people are telling on themselves 😁

    Keep going Betty, hopefully when you leave we will get a #Rexit.

  10. Harper says:

    No doubt Boies has a little old man dressed up in his Scottish tweeds with a walking stick and his faithful dog by his side, positioned at the church doors to jump out and serve Andrew if he came near.

    But taking away the press’ ability to take photos of the Windsors coming and going at Balmoral is low. I bet William is going to have to come up with some pics of his family getting out of their Range Rover to satisfy the sharks.

    • Becks1 says:

      William and Kate also use those photos to emphasize how “close” they are to the Queen and how ready Kate is to be the FFQC. So if the press can’t use any of those photos – there’s going to be something else.

      We should start a clock counting when we last saw them. July 11, I think?

      • Harper says:

        I’m thinking TOB is buying out another commercial jet to get to Balmoral this year so the Rota Rats can at least get some shots of the Royal Cambridges arriving at the airport. The arrival shots at Balmoral are an easy give in the invisible contract. However, if not that, then Kate will release a photo of Louis or Charlotte holding a thistle, or George in his little waders fly-fishing in the river. Kate will wear a Diana co-splay woolen sweater and post it on their Instagram.

      • Sofia says:

        I think we might get a simple statement of “The Duke and Duchess of Cambridge were spotted arriving at Balmoral on x date” or something. Or there might be an outing with the kids that gets photographed with permission given to release. I remember the year the Rose rumours went out, William and the kids were spotted with Zara’s kids and having a day out.

      • Amy Bee says:

        @Becks: I think we’re going to get a Cambridge family photo at Balmoral taken by Sophie.

      • Becks1 says:

        AmyBee – or a picture of the Cambridge kids with the Wessex kids, since Louise is spending so much time “helping” with them. Win-win PR-wise for both sides.

      • Harper says:

        Also, we’ve seen photos of Eugenie and her family arriving in Scotland. There is no way FFK and Keen let the pro-Sussex Eugenie be the only grandchild photographed coming and going to Granny’s big summer vacation.

      • Over it says:

        Or maybe it’s not I mean they can take the titles away if they want or not give them at all , but lili will forever be Lilibeth

      • Over it says:

        Maybe it’s not all about Andrew, maybe will and Kate won’t be coming there at all and if they do it will just be william and George and Charlotte because behind closed doors there is no William and Kate and the royals are all too aware of this and doesn’t want photographic proof of it out there

      • LaraW” says:

        I think William will arrive and suddenly there will be pics and headlines to satisfy everyone. This has the makings of a William rage-fest. Excluded from The Grown Ups Table during a King-Making Crisis with access to something that is currently in high demand. It’s too tempting not to give to the press as a means to show all parties that he can throw his weight around.

    • Scorpion says:

      Oh to be there, when it happens 😁

  11. Scorpion says:

    Yes, it would be bad form to have photos of Noncydrew smiling like a Cheshire Cat, keeping calm and carrying on.

  12. Sofia says:

    I never want to hear that the BRF did everything they could for Meghan ever again.

  13. Lizzie says:

    Who else is there that they are hiding?

  14. OriginalLala says:

    This family is disgusting. I know Harry separates the Monarch from his Granny, but she is awful, a truly awful person who clearly gave no f*cks about helping them in her capacity as Monarch – who is choosing to protect rapist Andy at all costs, but who did nothing while Meghan and Archie were being treated to vile racists media coverage. She is despicable.

  15. aquarius64 says:

    With the lawsuit and trial going those pictures are too valuable not to get. Someone is going to bust that embargo and I hope it’s an American outlet. TMZ comes to mind.

  16. Becks1 says:

    ETA sorry my browser closed, this is supposed to be in response to @Aquarius64 at #15

    so in my opinion, as the brand of the royal family has diminished in the past years – because of how they treated Meghan, because of how they respond to crises and social movements like Black Lives Matter, because of Andrew – they’re more at risk of someone busting the embargo, because the media isn’t going to care as much.

    Remember the hot mic, that was from maybe 5 or 8 years ago but just got leaked maybe two years ago, with the ABC reporter saying how she had the Virginia Roberts story, she had the info about Andrew, they were ready to go to air with it, and the palace shut them down (in the US!) by saying they would lose all access to William and Kate and wouldn’t be able to interview them etc. So they didnt run the story.

    Fast forward to 2021- who cares about access to William and Kate in the US at this point? Who cares about a possible interview where Kate will mumble about the early years and William will denounce racism in football but nowhere else? That’s not enough to stop a news outlet from running with a legitimate story about the royals. and I don’t think its enough for someone like TMZ like you said to not run pictures of the Queen with Andrew. Access to the royals really doesnt mean a lot anymore and its not the carrot that it used to be.

    • swirlmamad says:

      Which is laughable — what interviews have William and Kate ever done aside from their engagement interview eons ago? Neither of them has anything insightful or interesting to say so that would be no loss. Really surprising if that’s enough to keep US news outlets from running something as scandalous and newsworthy as this.

      • Nic919 says:

        Kate in particular has proven to be such a dunce in interviews that no one cares what she’s going to mumble about.

  17. Ginger says:

    The royal family are notorious for throwing each other under the bus. Charles or Andy could have made this call and put the Queens name to it so they wouldn’t get dragged. Nothing surprises me with this family.

  18. Lorelei says:

    My reaction to this was “or what?” Sure, it came from the Queen’s lawyers, but it’s still only a request. If photographers aren’t breaking any laws — and I assume there are places on Balmoral that they can take photos from without trespassing because we’ve seen them every other year — why don’t they just ignore this? Even if it means they “lose access,” does it matter? What does the BRF have that is so lucrative that they need to preserve their “access?”

    It’s not as if the BRF can “punish” them in any way; they can’t ban them, they need them to keep covering their engagements and whatever other sugarcoated nonsense they’re fed all year by the palaces.

    ETA @Becks I wrote this before I saw your comment saying basically the same thing!

  19. ABritGuest says:

    Anyway interesting that a US outlet reported it. Usually the U.K. press get upset about certain royals enforcing their privacy. Silence on this lawyer letter is an example of how the invisible contract works.

    Saw speculation that not only do they not want Elizabeth & Andrew papped together but also Virginia ‘s lawyers may look to serve Andrew in person & they don’t want that being papped. I also read that you can’t be arrested in Elizabeth’s presence. Lucky Andrew

    And yes as we’ve all said the firm proves the claims in the Oprah interview every day & how unprotected Meghan was.

    • Cessily says:

      I know the Queen cannot ever be arrested but not sure on the “in her presence “ but the way they change protocol rules I’m sure it will be added.

      This is a civil suit (the criminal investigation is still ongoing) so no arrest will be made for this, I read that PA does not have to be served in person for this lawsuit that his legal representation were served and he has until Sept 13 to respond. Not sure if that was accurate, but it came from a USA news magazine not a British tabloid.

  20. Premadonna says:

    I know I’m coming to this discussion late, but I’ve viewed H&M’s choice of the name “Lilibet” as somewhat strategic (which of course begs one to ask; WOULD they make a strategic move with the name of their child? I think yes AND I think it was smart of them. It’s not like they chose the name “McDuff” for their daughter, like the aggrieved grandmother of a thusly-named baby girl once cried to Ann Landers. Lilibet is a beautiful name.). Anyway, I think they chose to name their daughter after HM because they knew that between the Oprah interview and Harry’s TMYCS, they were going to be come for in FULL FORCE and so they needed SOMETHING to remind the world that HM still likes them and really does the British public even care about anyone’s opinion but hers anyway? (their warm words towards HM during the Oprah interview were helpful but not enough), and seeing as how the British public takes their cue from HM (why most dont seem bothered by Andrew’s debacle) if there were some large demonstration of their affection for the Queen and the Queen’s for them, the British public, if not the other members of the royal family, would view H&M more favorably. And I think Harry esp HAS been hurt by the amount of negativity towards him by the British public. He had been so loved by them, im sure that in particular has been difficult.

    • Lady D says:

      Not necessarily the British public, just that fraction of it that believes in the Daily Mail. They have 1 million subscribers, 1/66 of the British population. A small and angry for who knows what reason, segment of the British population.

  21. You Know Me says:

    So NOW the queen is worried about photogs? The older Liz gets the more I dislike her. Evil ole bitty

  22. Athena says:

    The summer before COVID a bunch of staged pictures of the family on the estate were published; Anne and Phillip going for a walk, James fishing, Peter, Sofie, the Queen, everyone was photographed. The whole thing was so odd. I wondered back them if the press had something on the family and they offered up pictures to the press for their silence.

  23. Keri says:

    Hahahhaaha. I laugh because it is 2021 not 1921….it will not be too long before the son of the queen of England goes down for rape and then we will see what leg the monarchy has to stand on.

  24. Keri says:

    Meghan markle is testament to what a good woman can do to and for a man. Had Harry married anyone else who probably conformed to what the brf stands for, whether black, white, yellow or even red, he would have been lost to and in this mess by now. They made wise decisions.

    • Nic919 says:

      I also wonder how William would have turned out had he married someone with character similar to Meghan instead of the social climbing sycophant that he went for instead.

  25. Rapunzel says:

    On the “why does Harry still like the queen when she doesn’t protect him like Andrew?” topic:

    Harry knows what we don’t. He said it earlier- if we knew, we’d understand. So I don’t even find it suspect that he still loves her.

    My tin foil tiara heory: Something is very very wrong with Wills and Harry knows it. He’s known for a long time which is why he’s so loyal. Gan Gan is stuck- she cannot let the truth about Wills out. Wills probably makes threats. Harry doesn’t mind coming second and he and Meg were willing to put up with the pain. But Harry found out Wills was selling him out to the tabs. It was no longer a matter of staying silent in the face of slander. The call was from inside the house. Harry tried to deal with this privately and arrange half in but the Queen and Charles avoided the issue. Or, maybe courtiers rearranged schedules and didn’t pass messages (Harry said as much about TQ). Then Wills leaking forced Harry’s hand. Charles got pissed. TQ is now dealing on the DL with Harry, without courtiers.

    This explains so much why TQ isn’t blamed and Charles/Wills are. TQ is surrounded by obstacles (courtiers, and a Charles chosen secretary) which Charles and Wills tried to stonewall Harry with. They’re the ones who have put TQ in a place where it was all over before she could really act. They underestimated Harry, and kept TQ from understanding just what Harry was willing to do.

  26. Murphy says:

    So she could have protected Diana too.

    • Tessa says:

      She should have protected Diana, the way she treated Diana was unspeakable IMO. She did not even have prayers read for Diana the morning she died, at the Church service she told the boys to attend. The way she and Andrew are grinning in that car says it all.

  27. ElleE says:

    The BRF has to allow themselves to be used as fictional characters by the British press-were know this. Harry has been cast in the role formerly played by Andrew: the hard-partying cad, spare, surrounded by gad-abouts, with a middling military career: but Harry smashed through all of those narratives by being a brave soldier, good husband, successful businessman and now, an immigrant.

    Back to Betty: She only steps in to control the Andrew narrative, yes, but not because he is her “favorite “, Edward is her favorite, not that she parents like a human. There are darker forces at play here, and she is way beyond making these decisions at her age. C. put the regency in place in 2014?

  28. blunt talker says:

    The invisible contract with the royal family and the Uk media was stated by Prince Harry during the Oprah interview-The Queen is using her authority to stop any pictures from getting out so Andy won’t be served with papers in the lawsuit and pictures splashed all over the world-She is using her media authority on all the Uk to protect her son-this is plain as day-freedom of the press is no such thing in the Uk-they work for the royal family and the Uk’s elites to keep them protected from any scandal-God will not look kindly on this level of deceit-May God have mercy on their souls-they are going to need it. The evil coming out of the royal family about the media shows how far the royals go to protect their own-even if they are gulity.

  29. Ellie Armstrong says:

    The Queen will protect pedo prince until the papers are full after Maxwells trial. There is no doubt he is guilty as sin.