The Queen ‘let it be known’ that Prince Andrew should keep his military patronages

Grenadier Guards medal presentation

In this week’s Gossip with Celebitchy podcast (Episode #100!!!), CB and I chatted about Prince Andrew’s whole situation with dodging process servers and his mummy trying to shield him from photographers and press. During the pod, I made the point (which I think is correct) that as much as the Queen is doing the most to protect Andrew, her advisors are doing the most to protect the Crown. The goals are not the same – if Liz had her way, she would make every public appearance with her favorite son and Andrew would still be a full-time working royal. The Queen’s aides and advisors have enough sense (barely) to understand how bad this has always looked, and they’ve pushed Andrew out as far as the Queen will allow. Clearly, the Queen is an old battleaxe though, and she’s still throwing her weight around a lot. Meaning, the Queen is still pressuring military divisions to “keep” Andrew as their royal patron. Andrew is currently the colonel of the Grenadier Guards and they don’t want him. But the Queen is forcing them to keep Andrew on.

The Queen has “let it be known” that she wants the Duke of York to remain as colonel of the Grenadier Guards, despite little prospect of him returning to public duties. In a significant intervention signalling her support for Prince Andrew, who is facing allegations of sexual assault which he denies, the monarch is understood to have conveyed her wish that her son keeps the honorary role he took over from the Duke of Edinburgh.

Military insiders say the situation is “unsatisfactory” and “very difficult”. A senior military source said: “The Queen has let it be known to the regiment that she wants the Duke of York to remain as colonel and the feeling is that nobody wants to do anything that could cause upset to the colonel-in-chief. It is a very difficult, unsatisfactory situation. His position is not tenable or viable. How can you have a colonel who can’t perform the role? For the brief time he was in post, he was a good colonel, but the feeling across the regiment is that it’s not appropriate to retain him. You can’t have a colonel who can’t do public duties.”

The situation had been discussed among senior defence chiefs and “all agree that he should go”, the source said.

Military officials have previously called for Andrew to be “faded out” from his appointments, saying he has become an embarrassment to the armed forces.

The duke relinquished most of his patronages in 2019, following his disastrous interview with BBC Newsnight over his friendship with Epstein, and many other organisations have since severed links with him. But he retains several prestigious honorary commands, including colonel of the Royal Highland Fusiliers, colonel-in-chief of the Yorkshire Regiment, commodore-in-chief of the Fleet Air Arm and honorary air commodore in the RAF.

Buckingham Palace is aware that any premature announcement on Andrew’s position could be viewed as prejudging the outcome of the law suit. But last year, palace aides confirmed there were “no plans to review” his position, and the Queen, although privately supportive of Andrew, is understood to be resigned to her second son’s permanent removal from public life, a view shared by the Prince of Wales and other senior royals.

A Buckingham Palace spokesman said: “The Grenadiers and all the duke’s military appointments are in abeyance after he stepped back from royal duties for the foreseeable future in November 2019, this remains the situation.”

[From The Times of London]

Notably, the Times mentioned this in the article: “The Duke of Sussex was forced to give up his military roles earlier this year, after confirming he would not return to royal duties.” Who knew that Harry could have had the option of simply putting his military titles into abeyance? I mean, all Harry did was marry the woman he loved and have two children with her. Obviously, he had to face a stricter punishment than Andrew, who sexually abused women and girls trafficked to him by a pedophile.

Anyway, of course the Queen doesn’t want Andrew to lose his military patronages. Of course she’s exerting pressure behind-the-scenes, likely because Andrew keeps telling her that she needs to do something and he desperately wants to keep playing military dress-up. But the fact that this article was published means that people within the palace – maybe Charles, maybe the dreaded courtiers – are trying to expose the Queen and force her to give up this fool’s errand of forcing the military to keep Andrew in these prestigious positions.

Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II leads the royal family out on the balcony to view the flypast by the RAF at Trooping the Colour on Saturday 8 June 2019

THE DUKE OF YORK IS NEW COLONEL OF THE GRENADIER GUARDS

Photos courtesy of Avalon Red, Backgrid.

Related stories

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

162 Responses to “The Queen ‘let it be known’ that Prince Andrew should keep his military patronages”

Comments are Closed

We close comments on older posts to fight comment spam.

  1. Chic says:

    Harmless, right? The energy for this alleged criminal /pedophile is unbelievable. This won’t end well and I’m guessing it all blows up next year during Jubilee. There’s gonna be an overload ofHM stories on all kinda stuff

    • Amy Too says:

      You would think they’d want to do the stripping of his military appointments now, as far away from the jubilee as possible, because if they keep waiting, it could all blow up right before or even during the jubilee and taint the whole thing. Do it now so that it’s old news by the time the jubilee rolls around. How confident can they possibly be in his innocence? Especially in a civil lawsuit where the burden of proof is lesser than in a criminal case. They always make the worst decisions and end up having to fight themselves out of a corner at the worst possible times just because they refuse to deal with anything proactively, or even not proactively, but just in a timely matter after the problem has hit them in the face.

      • Jaded says:

        You’re making too much sense Amy Too! Seriously, any rational person or persons would do exactly this but when have the BRF been timely in responding to serious issues or sensitive to the bad optics said issues represent? The Queen repeatedly sticks her head in the sand (remember the Diana debacle) and waits until things reach an untenable point before responding appropriately. This Andrew issue is going to snowball throughout the fall and winter as Ghislaine Maxwell’s trial reveals more and more, and Andrew’s reputation sinks further and further into a black hole of which there will be no getting out. He’ll be a pariah on the world stage and will be forced into permanent abeyance with his remaining military patronages until they send in Edward and Sophie.

      • Jennifer says:

        But if he lost ALL his patronages, he’d look guilty!

      • Kalana says:

        You’d think they would have wanted to settle this out of court! It’s civil litigation. What were they thinking letting it get to this point or is this the Queen being an ostrich and ignoring everything until forced to deal with it. Was she refusing to pay up because we all know Andrew won’t part with a penny.

  2. Seraphina says:

    I am pretty sure the Reign of Chucky Cheese will strip Andrew of whatever he holds near and dear.

    • Mia4s says:

      Oh Chuck is making LISTS as we speak. The minute the Queen is out of the picture that family is going to fracture like crazy. Harry was unbelievably smart to make a run for it early.

    • Nic919 says:

      Charles can be criticized for so many things, but he’s not going to protect Andrew once the Queen passes. This has crossed over to an unrecoverable situation regardless of what happens with the civil lawsuit.

      • Amy Bee says:

        @Nic919: oh yes he will. Andrew is more of a threat to Crown outside of the Royal fold. Charles is going to disappoint a lot of his fans when he ascends the throne. He will ensure that Andrew’s lifestyle is maintained and that he is protected to ensure that he stays in power. Let’s not forget that he was able to get the press and the country to accept Camilla.

      • Nic919 says:

        Camilla wasn’t raping underaged sex trafficking victims so protecting her media image isn’t the same as protecting Andrew. Andrew is a liability right now and there is no recovery for what he’s done. You can spin an affair into a star crossed lovers story but you can’t do that with a sex trafficking victim. The military honours will be gone once Charles is king. He’s not going to put himself or his credibility out there at all for Andrew. He probably can’t touch Royal lodge, but he is not going to protect Andrew in the same way that the Queen is currently protecting him. He also probably won’t let the FBI come and get him, but if it would come to a point where Charles had to do that to protect his own power, he will do it. This isn’t about being a Charles fan, but pointing out that Charles won’t risk his own reputation for Andrew, which is what the Queen is currently doing. He’s already turfed and cut off his son for far less, so why would he do more for his brother who has committed actual crimes.

      • LMR says:

        Charles would have planned to sideline Andrew anyway, even without any scandal. If Andrew had been a sinless choir boy, Charles’ actions would not be any different. The Epstein situation gifted Charles a valid excuse, for which I suspect he is grateful.

      • Amy Too says:

        Amy Bee, but Charles actually liked Camilla and got something that he wanted out of campaigning for the press and public to accept her.

        And I agree with the others about how Andrew will be out of all his remaining patronages and military stuff once Charles is King, but probably not face any kind of criminal consequences. It seems like Charles plans on cutting a lot of his relatives out so it’s not going to look like Andrew was singled out for punishment. If he’s one of many, I don’t think he would be able to get the kind of public sympathy for his vendetta that leads him to expose everyone’s secrets without further damaging himself. And I don’t think the press will write about those secrets if there’s not a “justifiable” reason to frame Andrew as the good whistle blower. He’s not going to have the same leverage for revenge. The story isn’t going to be “Andrew betrayed by own brother, Charles goes against dead queen’s wishes. Now in his righteous anger, Andrew hits back.” It’s going to be “Many royals retired from the working royals list, monarchy streamlined and more efficient now” and that one doesn’t set things up for a big Andrew’s revenge plot line.

      • February-Pisces says:

        The thing about Charles is he doesn’t care about Andrew raping underage girls, he only hates him because he’s his mummy’s favourite. Charles couldn’t give af about what Andrew has done, he was bffs with jimmy savile and lord Mountbatten. Charles will cut Andrew off which will be a good thing, but it won’t be because of Andrews actions.

    • GraceB says:

      I might be in the minority but I think Charles could improve things for the monarchy, once he is King, if he starts cutting out all but direct heirs.

      The British public don’t like Andrew at all. They also don’t like the tax burden of the Royals. Charles has made himself relatively popular too with his interest in organic farming, the countryside, climate change and frugality. It will be very interesting to see how that plays out once he is King or whether it vanishes into the background.

      Sadly I don’t think William will have quite the same impact. I can see his motivations being much more self-serving.

      • Pao says:

        Charles will be a good king but he won’t be a popular one. People simply don’t like him and once the queen dies, they can’t hide behind her anymore. I also think the press won’t be as sweet for them then as they are being right now. Especially not towards charles. As for his environmental work, he’s going to have to cut the hypocrisy. Yes he’s done loads for awareness but he’s the royal with the worst carbon footprint. He takes private flights regularly and drives gas-guzzling cars. On top of that, i don’t think people will appreciate him talking about organic farming when there are families who can’t even feed themselves. Isn’t the UK dealing with a food shortage right now? I don’t see that getting any better in the future.

      • GraceB says:

        @Pao, I believe his cars are all electric or hybrids of some sort. It will be interesting to see whether he makes this the default across all Royal vehicles once he is King. They all need to cut down on the air travel though and start to think about whether their trips are actually necessary.

        The UK’s food shortage isn’t quite what the media makes out. It’s more hold ups with imports and a breakdown of the supply chain, due to Covid. People keep sharing photo’s on social media of empty supermarket shelves but I can’t say I’ve seen it much of an issue since the first Covid lockdown.

        The press will be quick to point out any hypocrisy in what Charles says vs what he does but they’re like that across the board, and it’s good that these figures are held accountable. I just think Charles does actually believe in this, and that might well carry him through.

      • Wiglet Watcher says:

        Pao
        I disagree. Charles will be a corrupt king with decent PR. Just as it always is.

        And if he cuts out everyone except the heir… the institution will crumble. You need multiple working royals to cover all the ground of events and workloads. And the Cambridges do not enjoy working. That alone will harm his reign.
        And never has a King Charles been a good or even passable King.

    • Tessa says:

      Charles sat back and let Harry be driven out, He is not a strong character in the least. He also perhaps realizes that Andrew knows a few “secrets” and he won’t throw him to the wolves. I don’t hold much hope for the next two Kings. I don’t think Charles is all that popular. I don’t think Charles got the whole country to accept Camilla, maybe he thinks so. But there are still negative comments, and the Crown Series 4 reminded people about Charles’ past. The next season could even be worse for him.

      • Amy Too says:

        I honestly think that William will be the last King of England unless Charles does something radical and decides to shut it all down on his own before Will even gets a chance. Think of the ego boost Charles could get for using his short reign to do something huge, that will have to be done eventually, and that will ensure a very prominent place for him in the history books. “King of England works with government and the public to end the monarchy in amicable way, helps shape future governmental structure that gives more power to the people” gives the BRF a nicer long term reputation than “BRF fights tooth and nail to stay in power amid revolution as CW countries flee and public riots to get rid of them.” What else could Charles do that would cement his status as a memorable and good king?

      • Lady D says:

        Amy Too, I would give almost anything to witness William’s reaction after reading that. He just might gain a genuine understanding of incandescent rage.

      • Cessily says:

        @amytoo
        I think PC would have to be a good person who cared for others for that to happen, but as we have seen he is a spineless self absorbed elitist who has few if any redeeming traits. He has been and always will be a very small man with a big title.

      • Lorelei says:

        @AmyToo that is an EXCELLENT idea, smart on so many different levels. Which means that these morons definitely won’t do it.

      • Amy Too says:

        Cessily, but he wouldn’t do it to be a good person and actually give the country what it needs, he would do it to A) cement his legacy in the history books as the last king of england, the good and modern one willing to give up his own family’s power peacefully in order to set Britain on a more meritocratic path, and B) stick it to William who will probably ruin everything anyways, and prevent Charles only being known as that guy who raised the idiotic self-obsessed, Louis XVI-type who ran the monarchy into the ground.

        I don’t really think it will happen, but I would love to see it, and I think Charles is ego-driven enough to believe that no one could possibly rule as well as him ever in the entire future of the monarchy, and petty enough to completely upend William’s life and take away the one thing that made William “special” enough for people to pretend to like him.

  3. Pao says:

    I wonder how much of this is actually the queen and how much of this is the broader British establishment once again hiding behind the queens skirt

    Also “ Buckingham Palace is aware that any premature announcement on Andrew’s position could be viewed as prejudging the outcome of the law suit. “ they were sure quick to launch a bullying investigation on meghan tho. Even though there’s barely any evidence supporting that claim

    • Eleonor says:

      For once I think this is all on the Petty Betty.
      The British establichment understands if they want to mantain their positions they need the RF, the Crown, and they understand that keeping Andrew does them more hurt than good.

      • Pao says:

        You give the queen too much power LOL. My take is that an interrogation of andy will lead to discovery of some unsavory things from others within the establishment. Its the only reason why they haven’t let him hang out dry yet. But the “mothers love” narrative sells better. Even if it will cause the queens popularity to take a slight dip.

      • Ginger says:

        Complete agree Pao. They all have something to hide.

      • Amy Too says:

        I think in the case of Andrew being allowed to keep his military appointments, it’s on the Queen. I think it seems pretty obvious that the military, Charles and William, and even the courtiers want him stripped of any of these public royal perks because it’s embarrassing for them every time it’s brought up that he still has them. And it’s embarrassing for the military. And it looks bad that the Queen is prioritizing her son’s wish to be able to call himself a colonel or whatever (even now that it’s basically just a title without any opportunity to use the title or do the dress up) over what the actual military wants. It’s another one of those instances of the crown not actually doing the things they do to help the people they do them for, but doing the things they do because it makes them feel special and builds themselves up.

        Pao, I think you’re talking more about why they don’t hand Andrew over for questioning about his crimes, and in that case, yeah, I think it’s more about the entire establishment behind the crown (including the members of the RF) protecting the crown, as they don’t want to start a precedent that members of the royal family can be held legally accountable for their many crimes. But I think you’re almost conflating stripping him of his honorary military appointments with facing legal consequences as a way to spread the blame away from the Queen.

        Specifically just in the case of his military appointments, I think that’s a smaller issue, a vanity issue for Andrew and the Queen, unrelated to possible spiraling of legal consequences for the family, and that’s on the Queen. They could easily go with the excuse that they already have set as a precedent: if you’re not a working royal, you don’t get military appointments; if you’re unable to support your various military regiments because you can’t do royal work, it’s unfair to those regiments and they deserve a commander who can actively engage with them. They don’t have to make it about the civil suit at all. They’re very good at spinning their punishments as something entirely different than what they are (see Harry) and the press will parrot whatever statement the palace gives.

        This is one of those times where I have trouble balancing what I know about how the Queen is protecting Andrew from facing even these small kind of consequences that would only hurt his vanity and what we know from Harry and Meghan about her supposedly being a good person. I guess we could consider this another time that she’s getting poor advice from her advisors with Andrew in the role of “advisor.” But it really seems like the rest of the palace courtiers, her family, and even the military leaders are advising her to get rid of Andrew’s honorary military appointments. So in this case, it almost seems like she’s ignoring those same advisors now that they’re giving her good advice. Maybe they actually don’t dare give the Queen advice on this (except through leaks in the press that they hope will eventually get to her?), so Andrew really is the only person advising her? I want to trust Harry and Meghan when they say she’s a good person and that they honor and respect her, but it leaves me reaching when I try to figure out why she’s doing what she’s doing with Andrew.

      • GraceB says:

        I’m not so sure that they do ALL have something to hide. William for example, I don’t think has much, or Charles. I’m sure they’ve make mistakes but nothing on this level. The Prince Micheal of Kent on the other hand seems very shady.

        I honestly believe the Queen is being very naive and has been incredibly sheltered. Andrew tells her theres nothing to it and she believes him. The courtiers don’t believe that at all and are trying to protect the Queen and the Crown.

        It does make me wonder though, if the Queen still has this level of power, to keep him in these positions, why didn’t she do the same for Harry and why does Harry still protect her so much? So much of this doesn’t add up.

      • Nic919 says:

        I don’t think the others have underaged sex trafficking victims to hide. This is the Queen protecting her favourite at all costs, which includes her legacy.

      • BabsORIG says:

        @GraceB, you have so much faith in this family👏🏾👏🏾. I’ll say this: before Mike of Kent got stung by the media, no one suspected any of his shady deals. Harry said they (The BRF) have invisible contracts with the BM to protect them at all costs, and I believe him. This family is full of criminals, its just that their criminal activities are covered up by the BM. Im with Amy Bee upthread: the reason the institution is protecting Andrew is because he is a bigger threat outta the institution that in. Randy Andy is NOT Harry, no siree. Andrew will take everyone of them down with him and they know it. And they all have crimes to hide, all of which are very well known to Andrew and they are afraid to cut him loose or even to hand him over to the FBI: Andrew will sing very beautiful songs to the FBI to safe his skin. I wouldn’t be surprised if Andrew is letting it be known that if he goes down, everyone of them goes down with him, so he pretty much got everybody’s cojones in a tight chokehold and they’re all afraid to move lest.

      • BothSidesNow says:

        @ Ginger, not only do they have something to hide, but they also refuse to take responsibility for any inaction and lack of self reflection. Chaz will do what’s best for him, and him only. Same goes for TOBB. The fact that the patronages want to dump Randy Andy should tell you that more people are willing to buck the Monarchy, now that they have shown their true colors.
        Chaz will dump Andy as soon as TQ passes as he has bigger fish to fry and that is getting the CW to accept Camilla as Queen.

    • Sankay says:

      I agree with you Pao. It’s the establishment. People give too much power to the Queen, it’s all about the image and rituals and maintaining the status quo. She’s just a figurehead.

      • Here4Tea says:

        The Queen has plenty of power, for evidence see the latest meddling in Scotland’s laws. Despite talk of Charles’ soft regency, the royal buck stops with her. On the other hand, you can bet there is a whole load of push-back from the military that even she won’t be able to ignore.

      • Tessa says:

        I think the Queen is selective in who she wants to help. I think sparing Andrew this way is hurting Harry, since she makes it seem (and encourages Harry’s critics) that she seems to give the illusion that Harry did ‘worse” when he decidedly did not. Harry and Meghan did nothing wrong. And the Queen did nothing to protect hem, she just let William apparently called the shots.

      • Myra says:

        I actually think that this one is all her. She was in the car with him smiling and riding horses with him right in the middle of the Epstein scandal, but she told Harry she was busy for a private lunch (she invited him to). It just goes to show that she is reserving her political power to protect Andrew.

      • Shahad says:

        It’s all about powerful people and institutions protecting themselves. I mean what is the purpose of the monarchy? To make us plebs admire and obsess over people who have achieved nothing but be born in the right family. And for the monarchy to be used as a soap opera to distract us from all the grifting done by people in powerful positions .

    • Bess says:

      The bullying investigation and the Epstein case are on two completely different levels & should not be equated in any way.

      • Agreatreckoning says:

        @Bess, While I do agree those situations are on two different levels. the “bullying” investigation is false, if there was actual truth to it, proof would have been provided by now. The RR’s would have atromespheric orgams already. The Andrew/Epstein case IS more problematic for the BRF with evidence. My question to you is why they should not be equated the same way? I know my answer to that question. What is your answer? Just asking.

  4. Eleonor says:

    Favourite child wants to play dress up, mommy gives him dress up.

    • Chrissy says:

      Exactly. Andrew has always been her blindspot and, in this situation, she has chosen to put her feelings as a mother above protecting the monarchy. (The power that a child rapist has over his mother – SMH) This situation could surely give Charles the power to question the Queen competence and get him the Regency/ power he wants.

    • Lorelei says:

      Exactly. When I first saw this headline, my head nearly exploded, but then I reminded myself that these are inconsequential, pointless titles that no one besides this wretched family even knows or cares about. However, I know it’s the principle of it that’s upsetting, and it bothers me because of the hypocrisy of what happened to Harry. Someone above said that by protecting Andrew, it gives the Sussexes’ detractors ammunition as proof of how horrible they are in comparison since theirs *were* stripped, and I agree with that. It’s infuriating.

      I hope Harry doesn’t care too much about it, and if he does, hopefully Meghan is able to offer some perspective and remind him how lame those fake honors are anyway. Harry served his country more than any other royal has, and he knows it, and he knows that deep down, the family knows it — so I hope that’s enough for him to be able to let this bs slide. He’s the one who served two tours in Afghanistan. Andrew is playing dress-up. But I hate the optics of it and the unfairness of it. Because if Harry really *does* care about these titles for sentimental reasons or whatnot, the unfairness and the hypocrisy must be awful for him to stomach every day.

      The article was so careful with how they worded this— Andrew is in jeopardy of losing these titles because he “can’t perform the role publicly,” not because he’s a disgusting criminal who raped underage girls. There’s no mention of the actual crimes that put him in this position. I’m not surprised, and I think the argument presented here is definitely more likely to possibly persuade the Queen, but it’s still absolutely disgusting.

      As far as what will happens when Charles is on the throne (honestly it feels so stupid even typing that in 2021; it sounds like something out of a child’s fairy tale), I think it’s the kind of thing where we won’t know until it happens because it could easily go either way. Charles detests Andrew and would love nothing more than to exile his brother completely and strip him of every single thing within his power. As someone said, I don’t think he can do anything re: Royal Lodge since Andrew has a lease, but he can take away everything else and let law enforcement officials finally get access to Andrew. However, as others pointed out, it depends on how much Andrew knows. If he has a ton of dirt on all of the others (and he seems like the type who would have been collecting as much of it as he possibly could, for years, for this exact reason), that might tie Charles’s hands. So I just think we won’t know until the time comes.

      It just sickens me to know that the media’s abuse of the Sussexes will worsen as Andrew’s situation escalates, and that tons of idiotic racists will fall for it, instead of seeing it for what it is. I think that Harry and Meghan have made their peace, as much as anyone possibly could, that the British media is going to continue to trash them and then their children, and that there’s nothing they can do about it. I’m sure it still angers Harry, but I hope that Meghan always reminds him that most people know they are good people doing great work, and that the rags aren’t worth getting upset over. And reminds him that it’s such a tiny, insignificant number of people who even know any of this exists while the Sussexes are visibly making an impact with their work. Absolutely NO ONE outside of the UK cares about this nonsense and how many medals Andrew can wear or whatever. But I think it will always affect Harry at least a little because every new attack, every new story, is a reminder that his own fcking brother is over there helping the tabloids to do it. I hope the Sussexes are happy and content for the most part, and the BM is basically just an annoyance like a gnat they have to keep swatting away.

      ETA: I’m one of the people who can’t understand how both Harry and Meghan speak so kindly of the Queen, and even named their daughter after her. I absolutely get that there are strategic reasons for everything they do, that publicly praising her only helps them with a portion of the population in the UK, and that Harry wants his beloved granny to remain just that. But at what point does this become too difficult to ignore? Obviously it’s their lives, their daughter, their decision, and that there’s a lot we don’t know, but at the end of the day we do know that the Queen is protecting a criminal when for YEARS she did not so much as lift a finger to get the media to back off the Sussexes. Harry is in a terrible position when it comes to this and there’s no easy answer; I feel so sorry for him.

  5. Loretta says:

    All this family is disgusting.

  6. Amy Bee says:

    It’s being reported that military sources are ones spilling the beans not Palace insiders. Last week it was reported that there was reluctant from the Palace to strip Andrew of his titles for fear that it looked like an admission of guilt. I tend to believe this and i think the Queen has support from Charles on this matter. Lets not forget, two of his best friends were paedophiles. Despite his wrongdoings, Andrew has been loyal to the Crown unlike Harry. So Andrew gets to keep his titles while Harry doesn’t.

    • Pao says:

      Harry hasn’t been unloyal to the crown.

      • Amy Bee says:

        @Pao: To the Palace, the press, royalists and the British establishment, Harry has been disloyal to the Crown and the UK.

      • GraceB says:

        As far as the palace & press are concerned, Harry walked away. He put his interests before the Crowns interests and the fact he was at breaking point doesn’t come into it. In their eyes, it might have been tough but you suck it up – you never walk away. The idea of putting your needs first is an alien concept.

        If Andrew is truly innocent and has nothing to hide, he SHOULD be putting himself forward for questioning. He SHOULD want to help. The fact that he doesn’t makes him look guilty, so he should be stripped of his titles and everything else. That should be held over him, so why isn’t it? The Queen is the only reason it isn’t, as far as I can see.

        I really hope this does all blow up for Andrew. What he’s doing to those victims by hiding behind his mother is terrible. I don’t know whether I feel sorry for the Queen or not. It must be hard to accept that your child has done these things, but if she stands by putting the Crown first, how does this fit with her moral code?

    • Harper says:

      It will be interesting to see if there is any public outcry or interest in taking away Andrew’s military titles. I would guess it will never get off the ground. The British people don’t seem to care too much about equity in Harry and Andrew’s treatment. The Times also has an editorial today critiquing Harry for the Archewell statement about Afghanistan and Haiti, so the beat goes on in portraying Harry as misguided and an object of mockery.

      • Amy Bee says:

        @Harper: The press does the bidding of the Palace and the directives are to undermine Harry and Meghan and to protect Andrew. There is clear difference in the way the press reports on Andrew and the way they report on Harry and Meghan.

      • Sure says:

        With everything going on in the UK, The Times decides to opine on Harry’s Afghanistan/Haiti statement? It’s mind boggling to me. It’s as if they fear what he might do next … run for PM? I know there’s very little chance of it happening but the idea is a tantalising one.

      • ArtHistorian says:

        Harry and Meghan have been made targets by the right-wing in a larger culture war (that is intensely political). It is much larger than just punishing for leaving the royal cult. What he and Meghan value are things that are anathema to the political right. The fact that Meghan is part black and married into royalty is extra fuel on the fire of the culture wars.

        The royals and their minions were mainly motivated by racism, jealousy and insecurity – but the “issue” of Harry and Meghan has become bigger than internecine royal strife. In a sense, it always was bigger because the very fact of a white British prince marrying a WoC was a political act bc of systemic racism.

      • Merricat says:

        Art Historian, +1. Well put.

      • Here4Tea says:

        The UK is now severely diminished In The eyes of the wider world post Brexshit. The Telegraph was/ is one of Brexshit ‘s greatest cheerleaders. Stories regarding the Sussexes are designed to divert interest and prevent us from seeking to look behind the
        curtain.

      • Nic919 says:

        While I understand why Harry became a victim of right wing media attacks, the fact that his honorary military titles were removed for basically moving to the US and that Andrew keeps his despite his ties to a pedophile sex trafficker that are impossible to refute, this only makes the military look foolish. Clearly some in that field understand this hence the stories blaming the Queen for the lack of action. (Back in the day blaming the Queen world have been considered treasonous)

      • Mac says:

        If Andrew is desperate to hang on his military titles they are part of some grift he is running.

    • Ginger says:

      Agree. To them, Harry did the worst thing picking his wife over the institution and leaving the country. They see THAT as worse than what Andrew did. It’s sick but that’s how they think. Even some of the comments on twitter were saying that at least Andrew is still in the country.

      • Pao says:

        Because they want a suspect pedophile in the country? Everyday royalists stray further from the light. Leaving the family business to start a job of your own really isn’t the crime these people think it is. Having sex with trafficked minors is.

      • North of Boston says:

        They are ignoring the fact that the likely primary reason Andy hasn’t left the country is he might be subject to extradition, questioning and legal charges if he does.

      • Mac says:

        Andrew is not in any way at risk of extradition. There are no arrest warrants out for him. He fears media that doesn’t have to play by UK rules.

      • Nic919 says:

        Andrew will never go to the US again because the FBI could easily bring him in for questioning once he lands there. Extradition to the US could happen from the UK since right now they have a treaty, but it’s obvious he’s being protected and that won’t ever happen.

      • Lorelei says:

        @Nic, why do you think the US would never force extradition? I mean, I agree with everyone here that they won’t, but why? I understand that with the woman who killed Harry Dunn, it would be precedent-setting for ALL diplomats, so even though I think it’s horrible and that that woman should be shipped to the UK immediately to face justice, I can at least see the (wrongheaded, imo) justification.

        But with Andrew, it’s a completely different story. It’s not likely that another member of the British royal family will commit a crime this serious in the US, and *extremely* unlikely that a situation like this would ever happen again. So why on earth would the US help to shield Andrew as well?!

        He isn’t an elected government official of any kind; he’s akin to Trump’s kids ffs. I know they’re trying the “diplomatic immunity” defense, but he was in no way a real diplomat; he used that “trade envoy” bs to just fly around the world doing whateverTF he wanted for a few years. It’s infuriating. And I would have thought it would be more likely since Biden is in office; 45 revered the Queen and the BRF (and he was also one of Epstein’s buddies), but what possible reason is there for refusing to extradite him now? The FBI has been vocal about their desire to at least speak to him, so the govt would be backing its own FBI ffs.

    • Lizzie says:

      Harry has been very vocally loyal to the crown and continues to be. He received a standing ovation from the same military who find Andrew an embarrassment. Harry married and stood behind a black woman and that’s why he was stripped of his titles.

      • Amy Bee says:

        @Lizzie: To rational people, Harry has maintained loyalty to the Queen and the UK but to those with a vested interest in maintaining the status quo and the purity of the Royal Family, Harry is a traitor. To the British establishment, Harry turned his back on his family, country and race. Andrew even as a paedophile and a crook, has stood by his mother and that is seen as more honourable than protecting his wife and children. Andrew is willing to take the “slings and arrows” and to many including the press shows loyalty to the Crown and the UK. The Royal Family is a cult and its supporters are brainwashed into believing that it comes first above anything else. Harry leaving is seen as a selfish and treasonous act.

      • Nic919 says:

        I think this article is showing there are cracks in the facade because a story confirming that it’s the Queen not the military establishment that wants Andrew to keep his titles is telling us that not everyone thinks Andy deserves his ribbons.

    • Tessa says:

      Harry HAS been loyal to the Crown. He asked the Queen permission and he and Meghan wanted to work part time and were refused. Charles through his interviews and his authorized biography criticized his parents for the way they “brought him up.” Harry never spoke against HM but did speak up about Charles not returning his calls. Andrew through his behavior brought embarrassment to the Crown is protected by them. I truly think that the royals hoped Harry would break up with Meghan and William was pushing for Harry to “slow things down” which I see as ultimately deciding not to marry her. Harry would not put up with the treatment his wife got and he behaved honorably being loyal to his wife and children.

    • MsIam says:

      I find the idea of people feeling Harry is disloyal ludicrous when its the family that told him to go. He offered to stay as long as he didn’t have to deal with the press. He offered not to take funding and to make his own money, pay his own way. I guess drawing the line at divorcing his wife is what makes him disloyal? Smh that thinking people buy this garbage.

      • Amy Too says:

        I don’t think anyone here thinks that at all. But they RF and the super royalists and the British royal press seem to think that. Though I wouldn’t call any of them “thinking people.”

      • LMR says:

        Harry’s “disloyalty” is that he dared shine a light on the truth. That truth is that the monarchy has no justifiable reason to exist. Everyone knows it, but steps around it in a loosely-bound conspiracy of silence. Now that conspiracy of silence has been breached. So if that’s where you view it from, Harry’s actions were much more harmful to the monarchy than Andrew’s. Andrew still buys into it.

    • Lorelei says:

      I don’t understand the “it will look like an admission of guilt” logic, because they ALREADY forced him to withdraw as a working royal, withdraw from public life, and strip him of lots of other titles. So to the people who believe Andrew is 100% guilty, that “admission” was already made in 2019 or whenever his trainwreck of an interview aired. What makes these any different? Is it just that these particular titles are all he has left, and that’s why he’s clinging to them? The palace is so inconsistent in their treatment of Andrew.

      I wonder if the military officials are forced to abide by the Queen’s wishes, or if they do can do the right thing at the end of the day regardless of her “wishes.” I have no idea what the rules are, but this constant “But the Queen! It would upset the Queen! We can’t upset the Queen!” is so fcking old at this point. Why? What would the consequences be if they went ahead and removed Andrew’s titles anyway?

      It’s mind-boggling to me how much this woman is revered— that even in 2021, people still view loyalty to her above all else. The ones who believe Andrew is more honorable than Harry (!!) because he sticks to his mother like glue…what is wrong with these people? I know nostalgia plays an enormous part in maintaining the public’s affection for the Queen, but come ON.

      • Lorelei says:

        @ArtHistorian, I completely agree with everything you said in your comment, and it depresses me so much. The Sussex abuse is not ending anytime soon, regardless of the fact that neither one of them ever did a single thing wrong except fall in love and live their lives. And that’s just so sad.

      • Nick G says:

        Think of the country as having been serfs for a thousand years now. The Queen is more than symbol or metaphor, she is part of the national identity. Sometimes I think of prisoners who are paroled after 50 years or whatever and kind of long for the identity of being an inmate. It’s not healthy or ideal but the ego is tricky. Britain is literally not Britain without the regent, and being British is phenomenally important to ( some ) Britons…kind of all they have left.

  7. Amy Bee says:

    I’m not surprised by the Queen’s position on this. I don’t think she believes he did anything wrong. For the most part, Palace aides have been silent about Andrew and the ring of protection is secure. I think the Royal sources that are critical of Andrew’s actions since the lawsuit are really royal reporters and commentators not courtiers. It’s the press that wants Andrew to speak not the Palace.

    • Kalana says:

      Looking at how they were they were willing to treat Harry, a blood royal, and Diana, an aristocrat, I don’t think Virginia even registers to them as a person. They probably are in line with Charles’ ideas about people thinking to rise above their stations rather than accepting the natural order of things.

      • Lorelei says:

        Tbh, I’m a little bit surprised that Virginia wasn’t killed in some sort of tragic “accident” years ago. I am in *no way* a conspiracy theorist, but these people are so vile and desperate that I wouldn’t put it past them.

    • Tessa says:

      She probably blames the trafficked woman. And not Andrew who “can do no wrong” in her eyes. Just dreadful.

  8. Laura-Lee MacDonald says:

    As a veteran (CAF) who experienced sexual harassment and assault while serving, I am so angry that the official response from the regiment is that they don’t want Andrew because he can’t come to work. I wish they’d stepped the f*ck up and said that they want to do better than be ceremonially led a sexual abuser. But the leadership there is the same culture that let Andrew and others run amok as entitled predators.

  9. Over it says:

    As far as Andy mom and the rest of these people are concern, the only crime committed was marrying black. Nothing to see here people, keep it going, look to California for the true criminal.

    • Eurydice says:

      The weird thing is that “Andy’s mom” could have prevented this “crime.” She gave permission for Harry to marry Meghan

      • fluffy_bunny says:

        That is true. They needed her permission to marry based on how close he is to the throne. Andy can remarry Fergie because he no longer needs permission because he’s been pushed back.

      • Feeshalori says:

        Too bad she didn’t refuse her permission, then the racism would have been out front and plain to see. But the RF doesn’t operate like that, they wanted to give the appearance that they were all inclusive and welcoming to Meghan while doing everything they could to thwart the wedding and make life miserable for Meghan afterwards to cause her to leave or worse. I wouldn’t be surprised that if HM refused permission for Harry and Meghan to marry, Harry may well have cut his losses and done so anyway. And would have known from the beginning how his family really felt.

      • Tessa says:

        I doubt Andrew and Fergie will remarry. It did not work out for them years ago and they will have the same problems. Even a marriage of convenience would require them to put on a “happy families” act. The Queen would look totally hypocritical if she had barred Harry and Meghan from marrying. Though William seemed to be in there pitching to try to break up the couple and the Queen did not rein William in.

      • Feeshalori says:

        By not reining William in, the queen basically gave her tacit approval to these attempts in breaking up H&M. That may not have been her intention, but her usual ostrich head in the sand attitude seems to bear it out. She could have even approved the marriage despite everyone’s objections to it, figuring it was easier to do so and letting the chips fall where they may afterwards. A very convoluted and nasty situation.

  10. S808 says:

    He’s already stepped back from royal duties and will likely never return. That to me is an admission of guilt so I don’t understand why they’re clinging so tight to these patronages. Chuck is gonna strip him of everything the second the queen croaks anyway imo.

    • Jais says:

      Yeah, I agree. The clinging is kinda weird. He’s already stepped back from the public and Charles will likely strip everything eventually. Why not just do it now? The queen is the only reason I can think of. Are there people out there that really don’t think Andrew is guilty? Idk guess there are? Ew.
      As a supporter of HandM, it is hard to watch the queen support Andrew and not have seemingly done much for them. Although in retrospect, that lack of support is what led to them getting the f out and was actually a gift. Thanks god they’re out.
      I realize we don’t know what’s going on behind the scenes so idk? The queen seems not in charge but if that’s the case Charles and Andrew Young could strip titles now if they wanted. Maybe I’m just missing pieces and obv I am lol as I am luckily not a member of that family.

      • Amy Too says:

        But if they don’t think he’s guilty and that’s why they won’t strip him of his military stuff, why did they strip him of being a working royal? It’s all so weird and convoluted. Like this random thing about honorary military appointments that he can’t even perform anymore is where they’re drawing the line. He can’t do the dress up and go “lead” his regiments, so why is being their “commander” the thing he (and the Queen) want to cling to? It’s basically titles that exists only in the abstract at this point since he won’t ever really be called by those titles ever again as he won’t ever be in the uniform doing the duties ever again. So why keep them?

        It’s sort of like when they told meghan and Harry they couldn’t use HRH anymore. “You are HRH, but you can’t tell anyone you’re HRH, and you can’t be known as HRH Harry and Meghan anywhere anymore. And you’ll no longer get any of the money, security, or perks of being an HRH. But you still totally are.” Like it matters. Like just knowing in your heart that you’re HRH is some huge kind of special thing, even if you’re never allowed to say it out loud or be referred to as it or do HRH type work anymore. In Harry and Meghan’s case I think they’re 0% bothered by that anymore and the whole “knowing in their hearts” that they’re HRH isn’t some huge kind of comfort or priority for them. It seemed to matter most that the HRH meant security and royal work and such. Since they supposedly can’t have those things, I don’t think they’re clinging to knowing that they’re HRHs. Andrew appears to be clinging to the fact that he knows he’s honorary colonel even though he can’t do the work anymore. He values that sort of knowing in his heart that he has that title because to him just having the title makes him feel special. It wasn’t doing the work of being an honorary colonel, it’s just that he knows that he is. And that no one else can have those titles while he has them.

        It’s clear that at least some very high up people, including Charles and William, think he’s a guilty embarrassment because he’s no longer allowed to do royal duties or be paid from the sovereign grant. So why is this such a big deal? I would think being cut as a working royal and cut off from royal funding was the bigger deal?

      • Tessa says:

        I don’t think Charles will strip Andrew of his titles. He would more likely to that to Harry. But I think he will just sit back and do little. Maybe “retire” Andrew and keep him away from various royal events but I think he will get to keep the titles. Charles did not even help his own son and his daughter in law and grandchildren. Just sat back and let William drive Harry away.

      • Lorelei says:

        @Jais, idk about the British population in general, but I’ve learned on Twitter that there are tons of royalists and fans who absolutely believe Andrew is innocent. (Or maybe deep down they know he’s probably guilty, but their loyalty to the Crown is so strong that they’ll defend him anyway.)

        A lot of it is based on semantics, imo. Many people who think Andrew is guilty refer to him as a pedophile, so these people push back on that immediately because “technically” he’s not, since Virginia was at the age of consent in the UK. They LOVE pointing that out, as if it absolves him in any way. They conveniently leave out the fact that it’s illegal where he did it, and that she was trafficked, not a willing participant, so it was rape. (As well as the fact that there might be other, younger victims of Andrew out there; Virginia is simply the only one courageous enough to take on the BRF publicly, at least so far.)

        Maybe they’re correct about the technicalities, but they must be morally bankrupt because anyone can look at that photo of Andrew with his arm around Virginia and just know that it’s so wrong. When your best argument boils down to, “He’s not a pedophile, he’s an ephebophile!” that should really be a clue to STFU.

        They also throw around “innocent until proven guilty in a court of law!” a lot, which, obviously. No one is putting Andrew in prison and taking away any of his human rights. We’re talking about him receiving royal perks and simply sitting down once with the FBI to tell his story and end all of this once and for all if he’s so innocent. Regardless, anyone who uses the word pedophile immediately lacks credibility as far as his defenders concerned. If people were more specific and said “raped a trafficked teenager” they might not get shut down so quickly. Which says a lot about the values of these proclaimed royalists.

        @AmyToo: ditto to your entire comment. It was actually hilarious to me that they thought not being able to “use” HRH was some sort of huge punishment to Harry and Meghan, and that it would cause them to fade into irrelevancy. Do they not remember what happened after Diana after she lost her HRH? Her popularity worldwide skyrocketed and she remained one of the most visible and beloved women in the world until the day she died. As you said, Meghan only cared about it because of the security implications.

      • Jais says:

        Ugh, y’all make good points. It’s v convoluted and gross. That’s all I’ve got right now. As far as the press, I think some of them enjoy writing about how the queen supports Andrew bc it’s just another dig at the sussexes.

      • Steph says:

        I don’t think questioning whether or not ppl think he’s guilty is the right way to go here. I think everyone knows he was lying through his teeth in that interview and 100% believe he slept with Virginia. You have to question ppls morals. Do they believe there is something wrong with his actions? I think they view it the same way they viewed Harry’s escapade in Vegas. A young man having fun. They know he was legally wrong but don’t view it as morally wrong therfore believe there should be no consequences.

    • Nic919 says:

      Andy can’t accept reality and will try to get his way with the Queen as long as she is alive. This story is likely the product of Andy working his mother while at Balmoral. (Charles is nearby but not there)

      • Chrissy says:

        I agree. Andy is at Balmoral sucking up to Mummy so she protects him from losing his unearned perks of being the Queen’s favourite. Titles, uniforms and medals are everything to these people. Even not being able to to appear to support these military patronages is of little importance, but the prestige and status they afford is. The fact that the Queen is disregarding the wishes of the patronages is a slap in the face to the Military the BRF traditionally aligns itself with.

  11. Cessily says:

    I hope that they have the trial without him, enter all the evidence into court records for the public in the civil case, while simultaneously being indicted for criminal charges.. As we know he won’t show for that trial either but getting the evidence recognized in court is the very least his victim(s) deserve.
    Let everyone see the monster(s) they revere.. this entire thing disgusts me. It is a huge trigger for survivors, and I am truly appalled at the lack of Commonwealth outrage.
    It is making it easier for future travel plans though, since I refuse to go anywhere that has that Queens face on its currency.

    • Cessily says:

      A side not to all of this is the Memoir has not gone to print yet, I’m sure chapters could be added. At this point I see no upside in the Sussex’s holding anything back.. it is their names that are being dragged in libelous articles and slandered through commentators gossip shows.

  12. Merricat says:

    I think this is a crucible for the royal family. They’ve tried to avoid the problem of Andrew for years, and now they’re being forced to confront it. The queen has overstepped, and for once, people are not willing to accept that. Charles is in a corner now, and he will have to make a choice, a decision that will affect his reign for years to come.

    • Amy Bee says:

      @Merricat: But there has been no outcry from the press. As long as the press is on the side of the Royal Family the Windsors will remain in power.

      • Merricat says:

        Amy Bee, I believe in the power of the press, but public opinion has overridden media more than once, and what the people say matters, even in Britain.

      • Chic says:

        Once Andrew is tried in absentia,the drumbeat from the international press and their revisiting of RF foibles, it will be difficult for press not to report. Social media and internet makes it difficult to pretend otherwise.

      • Amy Too says:

        I think the fact that the press is even writing these articles is proof that they’re not wholly on the side of the BRF in this instance. Or maybe it shows that there’s division in the RF about this issue with the Queen being on the side of Andrew keeping these titles, and Charles and other BRF members being on the side of agitating for them to be removed. Perhaps the press is siding with “the BRF” in publishing these articles because they’re considering the BRF to be William and Charles. But they’re going gently, not writing a bunch of rabid royal reporter editorials, because of the Queen. But I do think that the fact that this article was written and published means something.

      • RoyalBlue says:

        But public opinion is no longer solely swayed by the press. Social media has made it possible for dissenters to have a public opinion. 100 years ago the Sussexes would have been hung drawn and quartered by the press and that is all the public would know. Thankfully now, their story can get out there and millions are aware of the invisible contract.

        Similarly, I do not think the support of the press is sufficient to keep the Windsors in power. The veil has been lifted. It may not happen in my lifetime, but I believe the house of Windsor will fall.

    • Pao says:

      @Merricat: ousting andrew from everything will be an easy choice for Charles. its completely in line with his plans of the slimmed down monarchy.

      • Merricat says:

        Yeah, I should have been more explicit. I’m saying that Charles may have to choose between Mummy and the Crown, and sooner than later.

      • Tessa says:

        Charles would look ridiculous if he continued to “punish” Harry and give a mere “slap on the wrist” to Andrew. I think Andrew knows too much for Charles to severely punish him or remove titles. Charles is out for Charles and he acts according to his own agenda. He di did not want to alienate William apparently since he “needed him” more than Harry.

  13. Susan says:

    I don’t mean to beat a dead horse, but for all you Elizabeth apologists (“she’s old! The courtiers hold all the power! She doesn’t really know what is going on! She’s a victim of Charles! she’s a sweet old grandma that loves all her kids/grandkids equally!”) I present Exhibit 12483. Imagine if she came out swinging for Harry like she has for Andrew….

    • Amy Bee says:

      @Susan: The Queen has left any decisions regarding Harry to Charles, that’s clear as day. As Head of the family, she not innocent and has refused to use her power to protect Harry and Meghan but she will damn well use it for her son. That is what we are seeing here. At 95 she is unable to function as an effective leader but she still wields power and influence as she sees fit. She took a decision not to interfere in the relationship between Charles and Harry a long time ago and what we have seen so far is a result of that decision. The fact that Harry and Meghan absolve the Queen from any wrongdoing is an indication of that.

      • windyriver says:

        The difference in the two situations is William/KP’s obvious deep involvement in smearing Meghan and exiling both H&M. It’s the rock vs a hard place situation – William is the heir, the future of the monarchy. I think H&M understand this and it’s why they still have kind feelings for TQ. Note too there’s enough other racist elements in the Firm that William would have had plenty of support trying to minimize, and ultimately ostracize, his brother and wife. Support from TQ would only have been effective if she was fully supported by Charles, who could in theory control other elements of the Firm. IMO he was the one who should have been the point person working to protect H&M. Why he didn’t, what else is going on over and above William being a totally siht person is the question.

        The situation with Andrew is simpler and more straightforward. I suspect if pressure against Andrew builds in the media, military, and general public, she will have no choice but to remove the military appointments. After all, they’ve ironically set a precedent with Harry for removing patronages from non-working royals. Don’t see anyone in the RF favoring turning Andrew over to face charges though, for multiple reasons.

      • Lady D says:

        Unintended consequences of the RF’s racism are wonderful. First, no one gets to wear Saudi diamonds in public anymore, second, no ceremonial uniforms at public events because Harry can’t, third, RF members can lose their ceremonial positions because of their own actions towards Harry.

    • Here4Tea says:

      She may be 95 but she is as sharp as a tack and Charles can only do what she allows him to do. This institution is a relic from a bygone age because that is how she likes it!

      • Merricat says:

        Charles may have to make a case that she is NOT a sharp tack. Interesting, because she holds the public sentiment, and he risks looking treacherous and greedy, but possibly the only solution to the situation. They are hemorrhaging credibility on the global stage.

      • Amy Bee says:

        @Here4tea :Yes she can still carry on a conversation but I doubt she is capable of doing the day to day work. They put her out there so she can be seen from time to time. There’s a reason why people retire, it’s because they get tired and fed up of working.

    • Tessa says:

      With a phone call she could call off the media and tell them to stop the daily trashing of Harry and Meghan. I notice the negative articles about Andrew are few and far between. Every day there is a negative article about the Sussexes. I don’t get how she can tolerate this sort of thing regarding her own grandson while defending her son who is sued and also wanted for questioning by the FBI.

      • RoyalBlue says:

        Because Andrew is her son, so she will deal with him. And Harry is Charles’ son. so she lets him deal with his son. She is a momma bear and is protecting her tribe.

      • Tessa says:

        The thing is the Queen should know that by abdication of doing anything to help Charles is not dealing with Harry. William OTOH was working against his brother. Would not the Queen see that in the stunt with the Flybe Jet that William pulled to put down his own brother The Queen avoids things and by doing so did not do right by her grandson. And her favoritism is blatant.

      • Kalana says:

        @RoyalBlue. If the Queen were an actual protective “mommabear” she would have made it very clear to Andrew that he was to have nothing to do with Epstein or Maxwell. The Queen is an elitist who thinks the law doesn’t apply to her family.

      • RoyalBlue says:

        @Kalana I agree with your last sentence. She is an elitist and the whole family has a superiority complex. In fact she actively seeks that the law does not apply to them.

        Andrew was an adult, I don’t think she knew what he was doing at the time neither was she paying attention to who his associates were. Hindsight is better than foresight, so it’s not fair to say she should have told him to have nothing to do with Epstein. He was not a teenager at the time.

        @Tessa, I believe she thinks it’s the father’s responsibility to deal with his sons. This flybe stunt and the handling of Sussexit rests squarely on the shoulders of Charles, that despicable man. He is more loyal to his duty than to his family. He knows neither how to build that family bond, nor repair broken bonds. Harry made that clear in his interview, by letting us know of his close relationship with both his grandparents and to me also implying that his father is the defacto regent making all decisions.

      • Kalana says:

        I think it’s completely fair to tell someone representing you to not let people like Maxwell and Kevin Spacey sit on the thrones, or not to fly to NY to see Epstein. It’s also fair to stop something like Pitch at the Palace. The Queen has placed other people in danger because of her predatory son. Every step of the way, including being removed from his role in representing the UK in business ventures and being briefed on sensitive information, the Queen has had to be pressured into removing Andrew. The Queen enables corruption and abuse of her unearned role and is very likely corrupt herself.

  14. Talie says:

    This is the military doing this, which is amazing. That they are so fed up they would brief against the queen. What a mess.

    I swear, once Charles and William get elevated to their new positions, all hell is going to break loose. Harry will be so grateful for his own money and position outside of that circus.

    • Amy Too says:

      Are they able to remove him on their own or no? It seems like honorary military appointments are a thing that the Queen bestows on people and she probably has to be the one to take them away, whereas a patronage of a charity is more something that the charity can decide on? But in that case, why do we see the Queen “giving” patronages to people? I’m sort of confused about how it all works because it seems like some patronages just declared that Andrew wasn’t their patron anymore and it worked.

      • Eurydice says:

        As I understand it, the Queen is commander-in-chief of the armed forces and she signs off on all military appointments. But I also read somewhere that the regiments can request who will be the military patron and it doesn’t necessarily have to be a member of the royal family. And I think, in general, organizations have to apply to the Queen to be assigned a patron, then they are vetted and assigned a royal, depending on the workload. Back when Andrew did the BBC interview, I seem to remember that all of Andrew’s patronages were removed, so they’ve been working without a patron for almost 2 years. Some have transferred to another royal, some have officially dropped Andrew and moved on, I think.

      • Lorelei says:

        @AmyToo I asked the same thing in an above comment; I’m very curious about it too. There are all sorts of inconsistencies in the way they’ve handled Andrew since the Newsnight interview, and it seems like the Queen can just do whateverTF she wants on a case-by-case basis?

  15. North of Boston says:

    I’ve been rewatching The Office – US version lately and that last photo made me think of MIchael Scott . Andrew looks like MS would if invited to some event at MP, dressed up in some inappropriate cosplay and inserting himself where he doesn’t belong.

  16. L4frimaire says:

    I saw this post by Royal Nikkah and it has me laughing. All these apologists for the royals bs and hypocrisy are left sputtering with their “ well, he hadn’t been proven guilty” . There is no way they can morally justify this. One tweet said, “ well at least Andrew is still in England”. Omg, so messed up. I’m laughing and then the apologists get more upset at Meghan and Harry because they have nothing to do with this amoral clown show. The royals are showing their selfishness and how the sausage is made, and it is funny. Talk about Queen of the damned, lol.

    • Lorelei says:

      He’s still in England? Well that settles that, let’s move along, everybody! 🙄

      In all seriousness though, I posted above that their best argument is literally “He’s not a pedophile, he’s an ephebophile!” That it. That and “he needs to be judged in a court of law, not by public opinion!” Which, duh! That’s EXACTLY what we’re saying! He needs to be tried in court. But his Mommy won’t allow it.

  17. Bettyrose says:

    If Andrew is ultimately convicted/imprisoned, Liz’s legacy will be so intertwined with that. She really needs to be smarter about this.

    • RoyalBlue says:

      To have him questioned by the police, give evidence about a crime of this multinational nature and possibly be arrested would taint her reign. They need Andrew to lay low until the Queen passes.

      After Petty Betty passes, I think Charles would carry on business as usual, and leave Andrew alone, to honor his mother’s dying wish.

      • BlueToile says:

        Eh, no one in that family does anything to “honor a dying wish.” Each one is out for himself. Whatever Chuck does regarding Andrew, it will be what is best for him. Personally, I find it terribly offensive that these people are given these honorary military positions in the first place. Like, is the British military really ok with that? For a true military man to see one of these peacocks strutting around with full uniform regalia and a chest full of unearned metals should be humiliating, imo. To have one person be head of the official church, head of the military, and head of state simply by being born, and having done nothing special to earn such a position, is just seriously toxic.

      • RoyalBlue says:

        That would be the excuse Chuck gives for doing nothing about it.

        I like Mia Mottley’s take on why they are replacing the royals as head of state. So that every Barbadian child can aspire to reach the greatest office in the land. vs the Royals in the UK where they want no plebian or person of color to ever hold that position.

    • Jaded says:

      IKR? Everybody’s ignoring the elephant in the room that PA consorted with a man who trafficked and raped young teenagers and did jail time for it. I’m sure Virginia Giuffre isn’t the only teenager he forced himself on too. In theory, if he did travel to the US and there is an outstanding subpoena, he could be arrested for contempt of court and taken to a court to answer questions. However it’s highly unlikely he would be arrested. It would be more likely that he would simply be required to go to court and answer questions. Once in court he could exercise his right against self-incrimination and refuse to answer questions. In any event, there is no way to compel PA to give evidence in the UK in either the civil or criminal case, but his refusal to do so contradicts his previous public statements that he would help any appropriate law enforcement agency with its inquiries. However as the civil lawsuit develops, his discomfort at what may be revealed as incontrovertible proof is likely to increase to the point where he will have to relinquish all his military patronages and live the life of a pariah, no matter what mummy does, especially if the court awards Virginia and others a big chunk of royal change.

      • Cessily says:

        What is to stop her from giving him full diplomatic immunity and allowing him to travel with full protection? I know countries not belonging to the commonwealth can deny him access, but can commonwealth countries also deny him travel access under a diplomatic passport/papers?
        I do not think you can back date credentials legally, and I read that diplomatic immunity would be recorded upon entry through customs if he had it, but I do not believed there is anything stopping the Queen from allowing it for future travel.
        I find it absolutely sick that in a family of birth order, 6,7 & 8 are used as collateral damage to save the unredeemable 9.

      • Jaded says:

        @Cessily – the Queen can’t confer diplomatic immunity on anyone, it’s done via a bill enacted by the UK parliament. She has something called “sovereign” immunity but only the head of state can have it. If, however, royal work includes traveling to foreign countries, then said royal would have diplomatic immunity for the duration of the visit only. In Andrew’s case, his lawyers are trying to use the “diplomatic immunity” angle because he was in the US and the Caribbean when the alleged rapes took place, however he wouldn’t have been covered for the alleged rape(s) while in the UK. If, however, it can be proved that Andrew was not on “official” trade envoy business while visiting Epstein in the US and Caribbean, then he could be in a whole lotta hot water. My take is he’ll quietly capitulate at some point, pay off Virginia and possibly others, then disappear from public life for good.

  18. Here4Tea says:

    @Amy Bee

    She is diminished physically due to old age that does not mean that she is gaga. Old age does not mean mental incompetence.
    That is an offensive trope.

    • Merricat says:

      For almost every person in the world, extreme old age–95 years, for example–is accompanied by some mental decline. Sorry, just the facts.

      • Carmen says:

        Really? Obviously you never met my aunt who died when she was 102 and was sharp as a razor right up to the end. I’ve met many very old people just like her.

      • Eurydice says:

        I’ve seen it in some and not at all in others – the elders in my family are all sharp as a tack. But what is different is their understanding that there aren’t a lot of years left and they have to be careful about priorities, so they don’t give a rat’s ass about things that don’t matter. It’s not mental decline; it’s pragmatism – there’s not enough time to care about everything.

      • Merricat says:

        Biology. But sure.

      • Eurydice says:

        Sure, biology – decline begins from the moment we’re born. But the objection is not about decline; it’s about assumptions made here that the elderly must also be mentally incompetent. The Queen may be totally gaga, or she may not be – we don’t know. For me, that isn’t even the issue. I think she’s made dubious decisions even when she was a lot younger – decisions made by her and/or her advisors – and her desire to shield Andrew is nothing new, either. And I think that, as always, there are a host of competing forces looking to fill up the empty spaces – Harry, Andrew and, soon, the Queen herself. When I read the conflicting stories in the media, supposedly planted by or on behalf of the members of the RF, I think all of them sound mentally incompetent.

      • Here4Tea says:

        Perhaps some mental decline but not mental incompetence. Sorry just the facts

    • windyriver says:

      @Here4Tea – thank you. Have periodically seen on CB over the months some quite offensive old age = mental incompetence comments referring particularly to TQ and it’s sad when they do pop up. This one by comparison is relatively mild compared to some in the past.

      Apart from the fact that it’s not the case in my experience with the older people in my family, we have no reason to believe it’s true for TQ, and IMO citing mental decline diminishes any responsibility TQ should have for what goes on around her.

    • Amy Bee says:

      @Here4tea: Where did I say that the Queen was mentally incompetent? There’s no way at 95 years old that the Queen is carrying out a full schedule.

    • Merricat says:

      If your aunt or granny or mother or whatever is in her 90s and still sharp, congratulations, you’re lucky. Statistically, our cognitive abilities begin to decline in middle age. That’s the medical science.

  19. aquarius64 says:

    For all the protection the press and courtiers put on the Crown, does it occur to these sycophants that enemies of the United Kingdom know all the royal dirt? Andrew’s mess, William’s Rose gardening, Prince Micheal’s full association with the Kremlin, Sussexit, the Panama Papers, etc.? How hard would it be for an enemy of the British state to hack into a royal reporter’s account and get this? Said adversary may have reams of information and waiting for the right moment to blow up the UK. A way to damage a country and its morale is to destroy a symbol and the monarchy is a big one. With the royals and its minions hiding everything they just provided the enemy enough to hurt all. My 2 cents.

    • Cessily says:

      I never thought of it that way.. data breaches happen daily so it is very probable. Imagine the headlines.

    • Eurydice says:

      Yeah, no. If Philip’s long-time mistress was a welcome guest at his funeral, I don’t think William’s rose garden is going to blow up the UK. The monarchy has been steeped in scandal in one way or another for almost 1,000 years. If the monarchy dies it will be because it’s irrelevant and the people decide they don’t want it anymore

  20. Margaret says:

    Well today’s DM is dragging the queen left and right. Abigail change from previous a drew queens favorite.
    Also complaints about the lack of open comments on Andrew articles. Maybe the brits are waking up.

    • Kalana says:

      Eden’s article praised Charles who has gone to bat for a pedophile himself. I think this is more about sidelining the Queen to give Charles more power. Charles uses everybody to make himself look better.

      • RoyalBlue says:

        Yes it’s all about sidelining Betty now. First of all because she was shown to be close to Harry – driving over to Frogmore, phone calls and video calls etc. They are on one front trying to say she is annoyed with the Sussexes (reluctantly had the face to face meeting with Harry) and on the other front trying to imply that she is weak for still maintaining a relationship with them. And now she is weak for not handling Andrew. Lizzie, you in danger girl.

    • Nic919 says:

      Charles wrote an article for the DM about climate change recently and so these articles defending Charles are the payback.

  21. Izzy says:

    LMAO YOU COULDA HAD HARRY!! This family deserves all the bad press they’re getting.

    • aquarius64 says:

      And Meghan. The Sussexes were smart to get out of Dodge. I still don’t see Gigi Maxwell willing to ride or die for the Windsors when it get closer to her trial.

  22. nina says:

    Richard III: My Kingdom for a Horse
    QE II: My Kingdom for a shield for my son.
    How anyone can regard her as a great leader is beyond me. True leaders make the difficult decisions and be done with it. She is offering up a 1000 dynasty to protect her favorite son.
    This is going to stain the monarchy worse than the debacle with Diana’s funeral. Hopefully it will lead to its demise.

  23. Serena says:

    Good lord, the double standard.. It’s insane, Harry had to give everything up just because he wanted peace for his family, while pedo-Andrew gets to retain some of the patronages because he’s momma fav boy even though what he did is some the worst you could think of.

  24. BL says:

    I am truly DISGUSTED

  25. Layla says:

    The people continue to keep digging their own graves.

  26. Elizabeth R says:

    Burn it to the ground.

  27. Pat says:

    They don’t want to take All Andy’s access to young underage girls of the table. He’s got to maintain that part of his life. People of the Commonwealth countries shouldn’t allow Any of their children around him, me or female.The queen doesn’t care about peasant children they aren’t hers. She believes Andy over all

  28. ABritGuest says:

    As I said previously the queen wants to protect her son but the establishment is also protecting Andrew & using ‘mother’s love’ is easy way to cover for the establishment keeping roles open for him. There’s certainly many people compromised for covering for Andrew & probably interacting with Epstein & Ghislaine directly given they were regular palace guests.

    Don’t forget Andrew was forced to step down from trade envoy role years ago because of Epstein association but continued patronages etc. When he stepped back in 2019 they clearly thought this was a temporary thing until the Epstein ‘fuss’ blew over& that’s why there was no summit, taking use of HRH etc. The queen still had him pass on messages on covid to the Chinese ambassador in February 2020 & he was front & centre giving comments to the BBC after Philip’s death.

    The courtiers briefed just the other day that taking patronages etc would be an admission of guilt. They probably thought they could ease him back to some public appearances after a moment of quiet& then they could officially retire him out without compromising the firm when Charles becomes king.

    I think it’s the military that is pushing back & leaking their unhappiness with the situation but I don’t think the firm wants the ability for the royal patronages or military to reject royals. The idea of these orgs having a sort of ‘morality clause’ so they can reject a royal patron would compromise the ability for the royals to do military cosplay & pretend they care about charity. So that’s why I think the firm are letting you know Andrew is staying put with key roles.

    And I agree with a poster above- no way would Betty protect her grandson more than her own son & especially against an heir that is briefing against him & right wing press machine who are angry about lack of access. It was up to Charles to protect Harry but his role & keeping William& the press on side was more important.

  29. Reia says:

    This is QE and other forces. Let’s not be fooled into thinking this is all the queen. Andrew probably knows people involved in higher places and those people do not want be exposed.