The Daily Beast had an interesting article about why and how Queen Elizabeth supports Prince Andrew to the extent that she does. She goes above and beyond to support and protect Andrew, even to the extent of hurting the Crown and her relationships within the family. As we’ve known for some time, the Queen is basically forcing various military branches to keep Andrew on as patron, even though he’s being sued for sexual abuse and wanted for questioning by the FBI. The Queen also financially supports Andrew completely, even paying his (extensive) legal bills and buying him brand new Bentleys. So why does she keep letting her favorite son manipulate her this way? Why can’t she see how problematic he is? From The Daily Beast:
Biographer Nigel Cawthorne on the Queen’s favoritism: “He is often described as her favorite child, and that really is the case. That is partly because of the very long interval—10 years—between Anne’s birth and Andrew’s. Earlier on in her reign the queen was entirely concerned with ascending the throne, but by the time she had him she was much more relaxed in the role and so she lavished attention on him.”
Christopher Andersen on Andrew & Liz’s relationship: “Almost from birth, the queen treated Charles as a little adult, but Andrew was a very different story. For the first time, she had the luxury to actually enjoy motherhood. She sat on the nursery floor and played with Andrew. She told him bedtime stories and taught him nursery rhymes. She went along when he was picked up at school and turned up for sports days and other school events—things she never did for Charles, or for Anne either.”
Penny Junor on Liz’s mom-guilt: “She feels, like many working mothers, a bit guilty. I think there are moments where she feels that if he has gone off the rails or is arrogant or entitled, it is her fault. Margaret Thatcher felt guilty about her son Mark, who was arrogant and unpleasant, but she adored him. The queen in some way feels something similar.”
Cawthorne on Andrew’s presence in Balmoral this summer: “It is rather extraordinary that instead of facing the world he is hiding behind a sofa in Balmoral. In some ways it is laudable that the family has rallied around in his hour of need, but from the point of view of the victims of Epstein this must look like honor among thieves.”
Anderson on Andrew’s manipulations: “Andrew is well aware that he has cast a spell over this mother. He’s always shamelessly played Mummy like a fiddle, and she’s always been willing to be played. When the queen sees Andrew, she sees the adorable infant she held in her arms and the spirited little boy who delighted her with his harmless hijinks. But the hijinks ceased being harmless a long time ago. The queen has always been in a fog when it comes to Andrew, and there is no sign that fog is about to lift. Sadly, while she’s taken a fairly hands-on approach toward Megxit, the queen has given Andrew a pass when it comes to Epstein—a still-evolving scandal that has the potential to do irreparable harm to the monarchy.”
Cawthorne on why Charles hates Andrew so much: “Andrew tried to push Charles out of the way during the Diana scandal. As Charles’ popularity plummeted, Andrew lobbied the palace to install him as a regent for William. That has created friction between them which persists to this day. Once Charles is on the throne, I’m fairly certain Andrew will fade into the shadows completely. He’ll have no other choice.”
I mean, it’s all very well and good to correctly predict that King Charles will throw Andrew out on his ass. But we might have five or ten years left in QEII’s reign. Will no one do anything about Andrew now? Is everyone just going to continue to shrug and say “well, Liz has always had a soft spot for Andy” and leave it at that? The Queen’s actions are doing substantial damage to the Crown! Ultimately, people won’t remember that QEII was a hands-on mother to Andrew, they’ll remember the fact that she did the most to protect her rapist son who was BFFs with a dead pedophile.
Photos courtesy of Avalon Red, Backgrid.
Lmao oh dear, get yourself together Betty, you are looking crazy in these streets 🤭😁
I couldn’t agree more. She will be written down as a monarch who protected a predator, and it is this act that has damaged the monarchy, soon beyond repair.
Not only as monarch, but as the head of the church of England she is actively protecting a child abuser. They are trash people, all of them ruled by ego, avarice and vanity, jockeying for position in a grubby institution.
You know what I was thinking about Andy interview he gave ? He can’t remember Virginia. Like how many other women did he do this to that he can block them out? I hope he rots in hell soon and takes the entire monarchy along with him for protecting his disgusting ass.
He probably didn’t remember any of them specifically. Not what he did but the girls he abused. They probably all run together in his mind and he never viewed them as human, just playthings for him to use and throw away.
Ugh. I remember his asinine rambling about having sex for a man is a “positive act” therefore you have to remember it.
I’m like DUDE! We know you remember it! You’re just trying to fake us out! Positive act indeed!
Wait a minute! He tried to push Charles out of line to the throne!? That is so interesting.
That’s so interesting about an attempted regency. That would’ve happened if Charles or the queen died before William became 18. No wonder Charles hates him. As Mummy’s favorite, Andrew probably thought he was entitled to the throne.
Edit: if Charles AND the queen died before William came of age at 18.
right? FASCINATING! I wonder if Andrew even got some support from Mummy in this endeavor and this is one of the reasons Charles is so keen on getting rid of her cronies (b/c they are all soft on Andrew like their boss)
I highly doubt he got any real support from mummy on that one. She may have patted his hand while he talked about it, but no way did she encourage it. This family, especially this Queen, doesn’t f@ck with abdications or scandal driven changes to the line of Succession.
Yeah, I’d love to know more about that. Saying it was during the “Diana scandal” is not very specific. I mean, was he doing that from their separation all the way through her death? Or even after? Because there was definitely a few “Fergie scandals” in there to hurt his case. That does kind of explain why Philip was against him though. I was never really sure because I couldn’t see Philip hating him over the Epstein stuff. I feel like Philip wouldn’t have seen that as criminal. He has always been loyal to the monarchy though, even more so than the Queen apparently. So, I could see him being super pissed off that Andrew would even suggest such a thing.
As Emerson said, “when you strike at a king, you must kill him.” Andrew struck and missed. Charles will be merciless when he takes the throne.
Or as Omar paraphrased, “when you come at the king, you best not miss.”
(I may or may not be re-watching The Wire after the Dominic West as Charles photos came out. Really couldn’t say. Lol.)
LOL I thought of Kevin spacey* in Usual Suspects – “how do you shoot the devil in the back? What if you miss?” Here it seems Andrew missed in a big way.
* I know I know and I haven’t watched any of his movies since it all came out and prob never will again. But the quote still stands!!
That was the most interesting part to me too! We’ve had a lot of discussions here over the past few months/years about why exactly Charles hates Andrew so much. Maybe just sibling rivarly, maybe bitterness over Andrew getting love and affection from his mother, but this would also explain a HUGE part of that. Trying to edge out Charles in such a way and to get control of William is really mind-blowing, even if in retrospect obviously there was never a need for a regent. It also makes me think that Andrew really thought that Charles would never make it to the throne himself so was making a major power play. He was still bitter over losing his status as second in line.
I bet you if Andrew succeeded, he would have proceeded with gaslighting William and Harry into abdicating. It probably would have been easy. William has ALWAYS been reluctant and Harry could have cared less and would have preferred to be a regular citizen.
As the next adult in line after Charles he was already the designated regent for William. (Anne was the next adult by age but is behind her brothers in line of succession) What he wanted was a formal declaration of his position which would have created an expectation that Charles could be passed over as the Queen’s heir.
Yes, this is the bombshell! If true, it means that sometime between Diana’s separation from Charles and her death or shortly after, Andrew lobbied his mum to REMOVE Charles from the line of succession. Presumably in favor of William, but with Andrew installed as the Wormtongue/Rasputin/name-your-favorite-royal-puppetmaster. Who knows where the succession would have gone from there? No wonder there’s no love lost between them.
A regency would have lasted only until William turned 18, although oversight may have continued until he had finished his education. The succession would have continued with Harry as next in line until he was displaced by William’s children.
I didn’t know that’s the reason Charles hates Andy. Makes total sense to me now . Watch out Andy, Chucky is having your boat built for your one way journey to the lake
+1
I’ll say it again, Betty wants to be the last monarch. She hates chaz and is obviously annoyed with TOB and since her favorite will be on his ass if Chaz becomes king, she will work to ensure he and TOB never become kings. Chaz refusing to give the title to the wessex is all she needs to know she needs to burn it down before Charles hurts her pedo son
She should make her move soon, she’s running out of time.
@ Kfg, I wouldn’t be surprised if that is the intention of TQ!! The hatred that Chaz has for Pedo Andy must make her blood boil as it’s a sign to her that he is not fit to be king, as he is not taking his loyalty to the family and protecting the Monarchy adequately. Yet, TQ’s loyalty to Pedo is ensuring that the monarchy will go down in flames! Once TQ passes, the list of CW will start processing their independence. The CW countries do not benefit from the Monarchy in the least, this will be an excellent opportunity to declare independence.
No, she really really doesn’t want to be the last monarch. She’s just way too disconnected from the public, constructive criticism, and modern life to realize how badly she’s mucking everything up in her attempts to protect the Monarchy. She always plays it exactly as her father and grandfather would were they in her shoes.
I don’t think Charles will do it. I think he may wimp out because Andrew might have something up his sleeve. And Charles did nothing to help Harry and Meghan so I have no confidence in him. He may tell Andrew to retire and let him keep his estate and properties and titles and that will be that.
Yep, I believe he’ll have Andrew fade into obscurity.
Correct.
A very morbid thought crossed my mind that maybe Tampon could be planning to have Pedo bumped off as soon Queenie croaks. Pedo is a liability and a dead weight, Tampon is a giant coward but this would be easy for someone like him.
I’m kinda hoping Charles’ first act as king is to order Andrew to fly to America and help the FBI with their investigation.
Because I think Prince Andrew would literally not come back from that.
Perhaps not the best Godfather reference with this family considering the very real Lord Mountbatten incident, but yes.
What a rotten family! Glad H&M got themselves out of this family den of backstabbers, this explains why all but one of the queen’s children are divorced, not forgetting her nephew and grandson; Lord Snowden and Peter Phillips.
To be fair statistically they fall right in the general divorce rate and no one is to “blame” for a marriage not working out except those who are involved ( and that includes side pieces) in the marriage. How you are raised influences the kind of person you become but once you are an adult the choices you make are entirely your own. The tendency to blame everyone else irritates me. It’s a lack of personal responsibility ( and general grossness) that has Andrew right where he is now and the Queen enabling him isn’t helping.
“As Charles’ popularity plummeted, Andrew lobbied the palace to install him as a regent for William.”
Interesting. I never knew that. So this is more than Charles being jealous of Mummy’s favorite.
They’re totally going to destroy each other.
I think Charles has been planning this dish best served cold ever since.
Me neither. I figured it was down to Andrew being a terrible person and not many genuinely liking him but if he tried to become regent for William and undermine Charles, I can totally see why that would set Charles off and while Charles still doesn’t like Andrew (although I’m sure Andrew in general doesn’t help)
It will be interesting to see if Charles throws Andrew to the authorities as soon as Mother is buried.
I don’t think he will. I think he would like to but Andrew knows everybody’s secrets and he will sing like a bird to save himself. While what he has to share may or may not involve illegalities, it would certainly hurt the RF, and Charles in particular, so Charles will allow Andrew to live a quiet life.
Yea I’ll never get the claim she places the crown duties and country above all. Big myth.
Exactly. She places nothing above herself, her wealth, and her happiness. Nothing.
He tried to do what?? Would that mean they would skip Charles and Andy would be king regent until Will comes of age?
It means if Charles (and HM) was to die before William turned 18, Andrew would be his regent until he turned 18.
@sofia that doesnt make sense though because Andrew would be regent anyway at that point, right? If QEII and Charles had both died before William turned 18, Andrew as the next adult in line (after William and Harry) would have been regent, right? So there must have been something else?
I’m not exactly sure what Andrew was trying to do as this is the first time I’m hearing of it. My guess is maybe he was trying to make it a permanent thing even after William turned 18. Or trying to use Diana as a way for Charles to abdicate when he became King (or before that) so that he could be regent. Again I’m not really sure.
@Sofia yeah that’s how I’m working through this – that it was part of a power play that included Charles not becoming king and the crown skipping to William somehow (the queen pressuring charles to give up his place in the line of succession maybe?) and as part of that Andrew would be named regent. That’s the only way it makes sense to me AND makes total sense why it would be something that still enrages Charles to this day.
I can definitely see Andrew attempting to take advantage of Charles’ vulnerable position during his marital woes by knocking him out of the line of succession, setting William up as the next heir and gaining control of him in an attempted regency. That would have set the cat among the canaries at that time. As Becks said, Andrew would automatically become regent anyway in the event of both the queen and Charles dying before William turned 18, but this would have been an immediate usurption of Charles and then Andrew taking control of William as the next heir. Obviously the gold standard courtiers shot that notion down pretty fast if Mummy was entertaining that idea. Charles has to be LIVID over this and not something he’d forgive.
Well the previous king who wanted to marry a divorced woman was forced to step aside, so I guess Andy was hoping history would repeat itself. So Andy miscalculated and once again is a loser all the way around. Seems fitting to me.
ooh @MsIam I bet you are right – Andrew was trying to make it so that if Charles were to marry Camilla, he could only do so after abdicating/giving up his place in the line of succession, and then of course Andrew would be named regent for William. So this article is mentioning the regent thing without the middle steps. No wonder Charles hates him…..
I sometimes feel like we’re all trying to get them to be angry about something that perhaps doesn’t anger them very much. In the history of the royal family, Andrews behavior wouldn’t have been out of line. Wasn’t there a stretch when “prima Nocta” or similar (King and his Lords get first dibs on new wives) existed in Scotland as a way to quell rebellion? I think in a family where a lot of exceptions are made for behavior, this one just probably doesn’t seem like a big deal at the end of the day to them. I’m sure royals having underage women brought to them was probably par for the course in commonwealth travel. I just think it’s not problematic for them.. just annoying.
The prima nocta thing was made up by Braveheart. There is very little evidence it ever existed at all anywhere.
Nevertheless, I see your point.
Like most monarchies, it has a past of thriving on trafficked women and girls. Families would offer up their daughters as mistresses for access, power and maybe a bastard. Other royal/noble families would arrange with kings for their daughters to marry their sons from the cradle. Given this past, it’s not surprising that they really don’t think what Andrew did was wrong. It’s the “I’m a prince, she should be honored that I did that” mentality.
There are a lot of rumors around Philip’s uncle. A lot of people say that was why he was the target of the IRA bombing. They didn’t just want to kill someone close to the royals. It was to do with his connection to northern Irish orphanages. There were also a number of aristocrats who have tried to get the age of consent lowered significantly over the years. No reason to lobby the government for that unless you want to act on it. So, you don’t have to go that far back in history to find some giant red flags. That being said, I don’t know how much the Queen knows about any of it. She comes across as weirdly sheltered at times. She always seemed so genuinely shocked by all the scandals in the family. Which, I’ve always thought is why she never knows what to do about any of it. It’s so remote from everything in her bubble. So, I could see her being against it, but unable to believe that her son would do such a thing.
When the Queen was born UK law allowed girls to marry at 12 and boys at 14. The minimum age was raised to 16 in 1929. Ireland continued to allow girls to marry at 12 until the 1970s. Mountbatten encouraged the idea of a budding romance between 13 year old Princess Elizabeth and 18 year old Prince Philip.
LOL this reminds me of an episode of scandal. where the Olivia was trying to fix a rapist son’s porblem. and it was the similar story the mum over compensated for not being hands on so she gave in to him . well in Betty’s case she is blind to everything he is doing or has done. There are lessons to be learned even in advanced years and its time to put on your big girl panties and do what is right. before you let the nation down.
The piece says the Queen has taken a hands-on approach regarding Harry and Meghan. If that was really the case Harry and Meghan would still be working members of the family. I’m in the minority here, but I think Charles will continue to protect Andrew as long as he is king. Cutting Andrew loose would be a bigger threat to the monarchy than protecting him because he knows a lot of the family’s secrets.
Charles will probably exile Andrew but still fund his life. Like Edward and Wallace Simpson languishing in luxury in France until the end of their days.
He’ll offer Andrew a gilded cage in exchange for leaving him and Eugenie and Beatrice alone. I’m sure Charles can make their lives a living hell if he wanted to.
I don’t think Charles will. Andrew may “know too much” as the saying goes. I think Charles will “retire” Andrew and let Andrew keep his estates, properties and titles;
I think he will protect him but further isolate him within the royal bubble. Andrew will be allowed to continue at Royal Lodge (i.e. no moves to break the lease, sorry William), maybe he’ll continue with his RPOs, maybe not, but he will officially “retire” from public life and he’ll give up his military patronages, etc, and we will rarely see him again. No new Bentleys from Lancaster funds, etc.
Let’s not forget that in 2019, the first christmas Andrew was sidelined, Charles walked to church with him that AM before the main royal “parade.”
Most of the people I know could care less about the monarchy, but will claim a degree of admiration for TQ, as most of us have never know any other head of state and gloss over her many shortcomings. She has lead that institution for nearly 70 years and she is responsible for its culture and ethos. A legacy (already tarnished due to its failure to recognise and adapt to societal changes) is in danger of being completed blown to hell over her unwavering support for Andrew.
Whoa…. that regency bit is wild. No wonder Charles hates him. Isn’t a regent only applied to a minor who has no parents? He really thought he could take Charles’ son from him? Because of an affair? I’m surprised C hasn’t found a way to kill him.
The regency act of 1937 does also allow for a regency IF a sitting monarch has been certified to be mentally or physically incapable of carrying out their duties by at least three out of the sovereign’s consort, the Lord Chancellor, the Speaker of the House of Commons, the Lord Chief Justice of England and Wales, and the Master of the Rolls, and also there is evidence (not specified) from a physician that this is so.
Also, a regent may be instated if a parent not in the line of succession still lives, as it does make a clear legal difference between a regent of a minor monarch and a legal guardian of a minor monarch.
Andrew is just like one of my uncles. He manipulated my great-grandmother, convinced her that he would take care of her, moved into her house, got her to change her will so he inherited everything. In reality, my grandmother (his mother) was the one who took G-G to all her appointments, did her grocery shopping, etc, because of course she wasn’t going to let her mother be neglected, when my uncle didn’t take care of G-G. Fast forward 20 years. He does the same thing again. Manipulates my grandfather into giving all his land and property to him in exchange for my uncle’s verbal promise to take care of him and my grandmother until death. Again, my uncle gets everything, for minimal care, and his brothers stepped in to help my grandparents. Because they didn’t care about the money. They cared about their parents well-being. It was so infuriating. So selfish. My uncle hurt so many people in his own family. And I see Andrew doing the same thing. So, I completely understand why Charles hates him. They likely have civilized family meetings and agreements. Then Andrew goes behind everyone’s back, has a chat with Mom, and gets his way. And if Charles says anything in disagreement, he ends up looking like the bad guy in his mother’s eyes.
Given these folks’ reasoning, you would think Edward would be a favorite also, but I don’t get that vibe. Thoughts?
I was thinking of Edward as well! They are four years appart, right?
I was thinking that as well. Edward is the youngest and there is not the distance in age that is between Anne and Andrew and, often, the youngest if the favorite. That’s interesting to me. What is it about Andy that makes him mummy’s fave? I still don’t understand why.
LOL at hiding behind the sofa at Balmoral. My recollection may vary but I thought that phrase came up on Celebitchy not too long ago by a poster or Kaiser.
I always wondered why the Queen left such a huge gap between Charles and Anne and Andrew and Edward. I know she ascended to the throne and was getting used to her new role for the first few years, Charles and Anne were born before her father died and she became Queen. I do wonder if she even let Philip touch her during that decade, I’m just surprised she was able to avoid getting pregnant that long. I sometimes wonder even if Andrew was the product of an affair with some lover she was deeply fond of. I never thought Andrew really looked like anyone else in that family, he just looks so different from the rest. She doesn’t even seem to be that fond of Edward. And yes, I’ve read the explanations that by the time Andrew and Edward were born, she was way more relaxed since she had been Queen for a decade and was much more hands on in their upbringing. But it’s not an excuse to cover for her disgusting son.
Have you never heard of Porchie?
https://www.harpersbazaar.com/culture/film-tv/a29752077/who-is-porchey-queen-elizabeth-ii-friend/
There has always been rumors that he was Andrew’s real father.
These people are all so “blue blooded “ (inbred) it is hard to tell.. he does look a lot like PA but so does she. Wouldn’t be surprised if they were cousins because that seems to be a Royal/aristocratic thing.
Porchy was a dear friend from childhood but not Andrew’s father, the timing doesn’t work. Andrew was actually conceived when Philip returned after being away at sea for some months and Betty wanted to get her marriage back on track.
He was not related to the Queen either.
Huh, this would be an interesting setup for elevating Charles. Mummy loves Andrew best, Mummy is protecting a rapist, Mummy was “hands-on” in getting rid of H&M, Mummy watched Andrew try to elbow Charles out of the line of succession, Mummy is endangering the monarchy…
@Eurydice
This is an article about the effects of the British public school system ( elite, expensive schools) on current British politicians. Some of the talking-points are therefore definitely applicable to the royals. I found very interesting and quite frightening because it sums up our current PM’s behaviour perfectly!
https://www.theguardian.com/education/2021/aug/08/public-schoolboys-boris-johnson-sad-little-boys-richard-beard
Very interesting – this would explain a lot!
Thanks for the link, fascinating and depressing at the same time, but it makes some things make sense…
Yes, she’s just a little old working mom. She was just so busy…. blah blah blah. She chose to raise her kids how she raised them despite so many advantages and now expects us to believe she just didn’t have time to be hands on. More like she didn’t want to be.
Would Andrew become regent for George if something happened to the Queen, PC, and William? If Covid had taken them all out (or if a variant does), would Andrew become regent, or would it still be Harry?
That’s an interesting question, as Harry is technically higher in rank but has given up his royal duties. I think it would have to be Andrew, BUT Andrew has also given up royal duties due to raping sex-trafficked minors, so then Edward would be the next adult in line. But of course Andrew would immediately want to jump back in if he had half a chance so Harry might come back just to save everyone from Andrew. What a mess that family is.
After Andrew the next adults are in fact Beatrice and then Eugenie. No idea if regents are supposed to be working royals if they are then yes Edward is next.
I did not know that Andrew tried to become regent! No wonder Charles hates him. What a dysfunctional family ( I mean mine and probably most others are too but I guess the stakes aren’t as high and we are not all in the same business together so it doesn’t get as ugly).
This is PA legacy..
Wanted for questioning by the FBI, named as a “Person of Interest” by the Federal prosecutors office in the ongoing Epstein/Maxwell investigation.
Named in a Civil suit accused of first and third degree rape involving a trafficked minor.
The Victims are who matter.
Queen will make sure Andrew is provided for financially so he and Fergie can retire gracefully because new King won’t honour promises. E2 is 95 and could die peacefully in her sleep anytime hence Andrew at Balmoral ensuring his inheritance is sorted! Harry could embarrass his dad far more than Andrew and look how shabbily he’s been treated!
The last paragraph about Andrew trying to push Charles out of the way to become William’s regent at the height of Charles’ unpopularity reminds me of a blind. The blind said another royal let the cat out of the bag about Andrew and Epstein in retaliation for a long ago action Andrew took against the royal. I wonder if it was Charles. If so, as they say, karma never forgets an address.
Some mothers have the hardest time acknowledging that the precious infant they birthed is a dirtbag. Liz is one of them. Wake up lady. You are almost the last person to realize what a low life your son is. No amount of money, titles, or mommy’s love and attention is going to change him.
Yikes that family is something. The part about how Liz read Andrew bed time stories, played with him, went to school functions, and ‘enjoyed motherhood’ with him when she didn’t do any of that with the others kids was just sad. I think Charles is awful but I can see why he is the way he is.
To be fair, Andrew was BFF’s Forever with a LIVNG pedophile, who later died.
He was never BFF with a dead pedophile.