Prince Andrew took three SUVs to and from Balmoral for no real reason

Prince Andrew leaves home after receiving the sack from the Queen

Prince Andrew and Sarah Ferguson have apparently left Balmoral. They were there for ten days. Despite all of the tabloid reporting of “crisis talks,” it genuinely seemed that the Queen and Prince of Wales did little to convince Andrew to change anything about his reaction to Virginia Roberts Giuffre’s lawsuit. He still hasn’t made a public statement. His lawyers are still working on it. His lawyers are still being paid by mummy. If he settles out of court with Virginia, mummy will cough up that money as well. Mummy’s favorite gets everything he wants, including an unnecessary fleet of gas-guzzling SUVs.

Prince Charles wrote a dramatic and deeply personal article for the Mail on Saturday, calling on big businesses to join his crusade for action in the fight against climate change ‘before it’s finally too late’.

His younger brother Prince Andrew doesn’t appear to have got the message. I can disclose that the Queen’s second son took not one, not two, but three SUV vehicles to Scotland for his holiday at Balmoral. The three ‘Chelsea tractors’ travelled in convoy for the 1,020-mile round-trip from Royal Lodge, Windsor, to Deeside, returning last Friday after a ten-day stay.

‘It doesn’t seem very eco-friendly,’ admits a friend of the beleaguered Duke of York. ‘It’s not clear why he needed three cars.’

It’s understood that Andrew still receives taxpayer-funded police protection even though he ‘stepped back’ from public engagements in November 2019 because of the furore over his ill-judged friendship with convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein. He was due to have his armed police cover downgraded to officers carrying just Tasers, but was reportedly allowed to keep his protection team, which carries firearms, after he complained to the Queen.

However, this was a private visit and all three cars belonged to Andrew, carrying his personalised number plates. One of the vehicles was a pristine new petrol-powered Land Rover Defender, which costs more than £53,000. The other two were his Land Rover Discovery (£51,185) and his Range Rover petrol-electric hybrid (£115,000).

Andrew travelled in the same car as his ex-wife, Sarah, Duchess of York. As revealed in this column, Fergie stayed at Balmoral for the whole of Andrew’s visit for the first time since their divorce. She previously had to leave before the arrival of Prince Philip. A Buckingham Palace spokesman declines to comment.

[From The Daily Mail]

My first thought was the SUVs were needed for Andrew’s security, but yeah… wouldn’t his RPOs have their own SUVs? These were Andrew’s vehicles and I guess he needed a lot of luggage. Fergie probably did too? How does this man have three drivers? And these three SUVs were not even the only vehicles in his fleet – Andrew left his father’s funeral in a brand-new $300K Bentley, one which he ordered as his father was dying in Windsor Castle. As for his security… it’s been widely reported/assumed that the Queen is actually paying for Andrew’s royal protection out of her own pocket too, meaning Andrew is being entirely financed by the Duchy of Lancaster these days. Gross. It’s weird that we don’t hear about how many bathrooms he has at Royal Lodge.

Prince Andrew takes his hands off the steering wheel while driving in Windsor

Photos courtesy of Avalon Red, Backgrid.

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

74 Responses to “Prince Andrew took three SUVs to and from Balmoral for no real reason”

Comments are Closed

We close comments on older posts to fight comment spam.

  1. Ohlala says:

    I wish that BM would bash them day and night as they deserve so.. But even liberal non royal Guardian is not on their case as much as they could/should. So yeah bristish press is getting on them lightly…

    • Nina says:

      So much for terrifying British press. It seems they’re only terrifying to some

      • BabsORIG says:

        Until the BM start reporting on Charles’ and/or William’s constant and frequent use of private jets/helicopters to travel to even the shortest of distances, their reporting on others using private jets, gas guzzlers etc has lost all credibility. At this point, their “pick and choose” who to bash and who to coddle is not only very hypocritical but its also very disgusting to say the very least. That’s all I got on this article.

  2. OriginalLala says:

    The level of disgust I feel towards this family just keep growing. How is there not a public outcry in the UK for this guy to get the boot?

    • BothSidesNow says:

      @ OriginalLala, I am with you. The constant refusal to call out ANY royal family member for their excessive use of gas guzzling, private jets, massive properties, AND personal usage of the helicopters and private planes ALL at the expense of the taxes placed upon the people of the CW is beyond sickening!! I am just so sick and tired of anyone’s refusal to go after the royal family for their obtuse waste of money and the enormous damage that commit everyday in the matter of global warming!! I am actually surprised that no one makes the royal family accountable for their excessive exploitation of how much they are harming the earth and with no foresight into making changes to convert into other forms of renewable energy!! Hell, they have millions of acres worth of useless land that they could install acres upon acres of solar panels which would benefit not only their 65 bedroom mansions, they could share the captured solar power with the local members!! Chaz’s place that he bought is on 800 or 900 acres right? That he bought in ‘82, why doesn’t Chaz install solar panels!?!?? Since he is actively pushing the environmental protection program?!?

      I will get off of my soap box, but they are incredibly disgusting and absolutely hypocrites in every sense of the word.

  3. Becks1 says:

    Well at least this article told us the price of the Land Rovers rather than just glossing it over. But seriously, three cars at Balmoral? aren’t there already cars at Balmoral? I would expect there to be a fleet already there, secured, well maintained, etc, for all the country driving and whatever.

    But does this mean that Andrew did not fly to Balmoral, but drove? With three cars? This just seems weird, but I guess the response to the point about it being for “no real reason” is the same response for most things royal-related – he did it because he could.

    (now that Lorelei pointed out yesterday about Eden always saying “I can disclose”….I just cracked up when I saw that in this article.)

    • Pao says:

      What struck me most about this article is the lack of snide. If this were harry & meghan …….

      • Becks1 says:

        It’s a little snide – talking about Andrew not getting the message, complaining to the Queen, etc.

        It’s nowhere near what it would be if this were H&M, for sure, but its not completely glowing either.

    • Mac says:

      He is determined to flaunt his royal privilege. Charles is undoubtedly keeping score.

    • swirlmamad says:

      That’s exactly what I thought — we may not know how many bathrooms he has, but at least they priced his unnecessary cars out to the penny!

    • Hellie says:

      He drove because he was concerned he would be apprehended at an airport and papers served on him for the lawsuit!

      • Chrissy says:

        Yup! He must be shitting bricks because that is a verrrrrry long drive to Balmoral.

      • DuchessL says:

        There was probably 4 cars and he was in the 4th unidentified car so they wouldn’t catch him. If they did, he would not have been in any of the cars. I think there’s a link with this, the 3 cars (probably loaded with his stuff), the queens legal warning about pictures in balmoral and william saying he wanting royal lodge…

      • LMR says:

        Hellie and DuchessL, that is exactly what I was thinking about using multiple vehicles in order to avoid being served.

        For all future ventures out, I can see Andrew going in one car and sending out 3 decoys just to throw any pursuers off the trail. Like in The Italian Job.

    • Lorelei says:

      @Becks, every time!! It’s so funny to me! Like wow Richard, how magnanimous of you to share some of these little breadcrumbs with us peasants.
      I remember learning in, like, fourth grade to not keep using the same exact words and phrases over and over again. And this little bitch fancies himself a “journalist.”

  4. BlueSky says:

    And we are not going to hear a peep about how wasteful it is to use 3 (likely) gas guzzling SUVs. But Harry flew on a private jet *clutches pearls*

    • OriginalLala says:

      I mean, I’m happy to start it – we can add gas-guzzling, climate hater to the very long list of terrible things about Andrew. I wish the UK media would actually do their jobs and start writing about him more

    • Ginger says:

      Yup. The “environmentalists”will probably not comment on this story.

      • Agreatreckoning says:

        They must have a day off. It’s astounding there isn’t more anger directed Andrew’s way. Actually, quite stomach churning there isn’t. That bus that went around a while back with Andrew’s picture on it needs to make a comeback.

    • Miranda says:

      You just KNOW that the sycophants in the BM will try to make “but Harry’s private jet!” the royal version of “but her emails!”

    • swirlmamad says:

      Exaaaaactly. Where are all the folks crying about Harry from the other post? Did we not know they wouldn’t save that energy for this?

      • Gina says:

        You know, Daily Fail is actually deleting comments that don’t fit their narrative? I knew it from my own experience. It was a few years ago, not connected to Royals. Something positive about celebrity DF and their commentariat used to bash.
        I got a few “your comment is awaiting moderation” and then it disappeared. Trust me it was very moderate comment but it was contradictory to the “flow”.
        Since then I’m very suspicious about the authenticity of DF comment section.

      • Green Desert says:

        @swirlmamad – my thoughts exactly. I can’t with those who claim to not like anyone in the BRF but only comment negatively on Harry posts. Meanwhile, Andrew’s a known rapist. But her emails! (*eye roll)

        Charles, the environmental “activist” who has taken many a private jet in his 70 years, writes a column for the Fail, the publication his son brought a lawsuit against and which has been responsible for most of the racist attacks on that son’s family.

        But why did Harry get his family out of there again? LOL

    • (TheOG) Jan90067 says:

      And let’s not forget the articles ad nauseam about how H&M “hopped into a “GAS GUZZLING SUV!!!” after they did volunteer work in LA handing out meals! And when he got off the “private plane into a waiting SUV” to go back to his “mansion in Montecito”. We were even treated to know how many (few) miles it got to the gallon!

      They hypocrisy NEVER ends.

  5. Alexandria says:

    Is it me or Daily Fail is sarcastic here?

    • Eurydice says:

      I’m not sure about sarcastic, but they’re certainly landing some digs against Andrew – comparing him unfavorably to Charles, pointing out his financial excesses, bringing up Epstein, implying that he’s still a burden on taxpayers, and reminding everyone that Philip hated Fergie. The digs don’t seem the usual DM style – more subtle, less vicious – but Andrew is mummy’s fave.

      To me, this seems a continuation of Charles’ op/ed from the other day – the invisible contract is becoming visible. The usual DM mode would have been to throw in a dig at Harry for the private jet trip, but that would have disturbed the contrast between Charles and Andrew. Something is afoot.

  6. Aidevee says:

    One car for Andrew, one for his massive ego and one for the shit ton of legal documents he needs.

    • Pao says:

      I actually wouldn’t be surprised if his legal team went with him to balmoral

      • (TheOG) Jan90067 says:

        You can be SURE he never set foot off the estate lest he be served (even to his RPOs/attys). He shadowed Mummy Dearest since he can’t be served in her presence even to the point of having her Church services come to her (and I don’t think that is ONLY due to Covid). God knows she goes places unmasked.

      • Feeshalori says:

        I wish a process server was disguised in the role of a footman and served him his papers along with his tea.

      • LMR says:

        Uh yeah, that process server is going to need to be a hot chick. Probably one from the local Bentley dealership delivering another car.

  7. Jay says:

    Hmm, I think it’s interesting that they feel free to criticize Andrew at all. Perhaps Mummy’s protection only goes so far. Granted, they are attacking him for being a sponger and a gas guzzler, rather than a person of interest in human trafficking and a rapist, but it’s something.

    As for crisis talks – I honestly doubt either the Queen or Andrew think there’s any crisis to address, they are that removed from reality. The privilege and influence of the monarch has always been enough to keep those in favour above the law, so why would they think any differently now? People who have always been untouchable tend to believe that it will last forever.

    • Miranda says:

      You know, I think that the failure to recognize the weight of Andrew’s crime goes beyond the RF itself, and I think his victim’s age has a lot to do with that. Virginia was what, 16 or 17 at the time? There are an alarming number of people who believe that being the age of consent means that teenaged girls are fair game for adult men. It is quite deeply concerning.

      • Cessily says:

        A Trafficked minor or adult is a RAPE victim! There is no consent when there is no choice!

        Also Age of consent for consensual sex varies by country and state. British age of consent does not apply in the USA, so sick of people trying to say that she was over 16 and that’s ok in Britain! If people see no problem with that I pray they never have a daughter.

      • Becks1 says:

        Yes, that’s what I see so often as a defense of Andrew – “well she was over 16 so above the age of consent in England.”

        First – that’s the defense you want to go with? Yes, the 40 year old duke slept with the 17 year old teenager but she was over the age of consent so it was completely okay. That’s the best defense you have? Because I think most people would still say that was wrong. My husband is 40 and I can’t see him even looking at a 17 year old like that, because to him they are children.

        Second – someone who is trafficked cannot consent, regardless of whether they were 17, 21, 27. There was no consent there which is the whole point.

      • Miranda says:

        Oh yes, the trafficking is next-level vileness, but I left out that element because I thought it went without saying. Actually, a few days ago, I saw a comment (can’t remember the site) from someone who trivialized the trafficking and said Virginia was probably into the idea of having sex with a prince Which elicited a bitter laugh from me, because yeah, when teenaged girls fantasize about nabbing a prince, they go after not Harry or even William, but their doughy 40-something uncle.

      • Kalana says:

        These same people absolutely freak out about Kate being followed by photographers when she was 23 and 24 and her brain wasn’t fully formed yet but as far as they’re concerned Virginia was an adult at 17 who gave full consent and not a trafficking’ victim.

      • Jay says:

        I’ve always thought it was less about the crime itself, and more that they (royals) view themselves as untouchable – like, the AFFRONT of a any mere police officer who would dare not to take Andrew’s word that he did nothing wrong!

        And yes, I agree it is so gross to think it’s ever okay for an adult to sleep with a 17 year old, and regardless, trafficked people cannot consent regardless. One of the grossest details from Epstein’s deal was that he managed to get his charges changed to something more like “prostitution” than human trafficking, implying that his victims were sex workers rather than rape victims.

      • EveV says:

        Exactly, my husband is 41, our oldest child is 15. My husband would never look at 17 year olds in a sexual manner because they are children to him. Andrew is so disgusting.

  8. Amy Bee says:

    The only thing I got from this story is that Charles is firmly in the pocket of the Daily Mail.

    • Becks1 says:

      “dramatic and deeply personal….calling for businesses to join in his crusade!”

      now I’m singing Les Mis…..

      “will you join in our crusade, who will be strong and stand with me….”

      • Scorpion says:


        😂😂😂😂😂😂🤭🤭🤭🤭 I feel a revolution coming

      • (TheOG) Jan90067 says:

        (That’s ok tho… I love the soundtrack 😉 )

        Now, if the British public would take up the cry!

    • Sunshine says:

      What I got from it is just how unloved Harry is by his family.
      Just wow.

      • Amy Bee says:

        @Sunshine: That’s be known for some time now. There’s a reason Harry said on his website “I’m my mother’s son”.

      • swirlmamad says:

        Or only loved CONDITIONALLY, and absolutely cast aside unless he can serve a purpose for them. So glad for him that he found the love of a good woman.

      • Hellie says:

        Harry has always served a purpose for the RF.
        To take the heat or any bad press off of W

  9. Jan says:

    Money is getting tight for Princess Anne, she is opening her home to the paying public next year.

  10. Michelle Connolly says:

    My first thought was so they could pretend he was in another car if they tried to serve him papers once he left mummy’s dress folds and was out of regal protection!

  11. Cessily says:

    I saw it reported that the Royal Lodge property which he leases has 76 bathrooms.. I believe that was the entire property and outbuildings included in the 75 year lease.
    PA epitomes the glutinous Monarch we envision dressed up with a trough and greasy turkey leg in his hands expecting everyone to revere his delusional sense of superiority. Simply put he is a pig in silk.

    • Emma says:

      Pigs are intelligent and sensitive animals. Andrew is a selfish, cruel man.

      Royal Lodge has only about thirty rooms total. I’m not sure where the 76-78 bathrooms number is coming from, unless people are mixing it up with Buckingham Palace — which has 775 rooms and 78 bathrooms according to the royal website. Talk about wasteful.

      • Becks1 says:

        I think when they’re counting the bathrooms they’re including all the outbuildings and cottages etc. The main building has 30 rooms total, so when you factor in the cottages, the security buildings, etc. there are more than 30 rooms on the property, but that doesnt say anything about the bathrooms.

        BUT the point isn’t how many bathrooms does it “actually” have, its why isn’t the number of bathrooms brought up in every single article about it. It should read like this – “Andrew returned to his 8 trillion bathroom home at Royal Lodge.”

      • Emma says:

        That’s true. I shouldn’t have said “only thirty” as that’s still a ridiculously giant property and no doubt has a giant carbon footprint.

    • Lorelei says:

      @Cessily, 76 bathrooms? For the love of god. They picked apart and priced out every. single. thing. in Meghan’s office on her birthday, down to her file folders or whatever, yet the rest of them have literal jewel-encrusted crowns and gold pianos in their numerous PALACES but that’s totally cool and not worth questioning at all.

      • Cessily says:

        I misread the bathrooms, it is Buckingham Palace that has 78 bathrooms. I am sure the property under the Royal Lodge has a obscene number also. As long as I am not responsible for cleaning them I truthfully could care less how many bathrooms people have.

  12. Amy Bee says:

    It’s interesting that someone at Balmoral told the Daily Mail this tidbit. The Queen banned photos of the family on the estate so someone leaked a story about how many cars Andrew had there. We might get some more leaks about others’ movements at Balmoral in the coming days.

  13. Scorpion says:

    I’m late but @Kaiser, there are 76 bathrooms at the Royal Lodge according to a poster from a few weeks back. The Royal Lodge is a Grade II listed building.

  14. Over it says:

    Andy has always struck me as an arrogant asshole. Glad to see I have been completely correct. I can’t with him and his mummy dearest and the fact that they both live in the river denial. The more I read about all the things she does for him, the more I see just how much she refuses to do for Harry and his family. And no the excuse Charles is in charge is not good enough for me

  15. Seraphina says:

    Maybe he decided to start a used highend car business.

  16. Merricat says:

    I do think that Andrew’s continuing protection is the British version of “Let them eat cake.”

  17. Harper says:

    It’s Fergie, y’all. All those heavy tweeds and woolen sweaters and wellies she had to lug up to Balmoral for TEN days of outfit changes required at least two Range Rovers. Combine that with Andrew’s sporting wear and yes, two royals + Scotland = three Range Rovers.

  18. Reia says:

    Andrew is in for an awakening if this trial proceeds with him.

  19. Athena says:

    I suspect when it comes to H&M the trolls objection is not so much about the environment but the “private jet”. Most people do not have a private jet or know someone who does, but these same people have cars and will get in the car to run an errand they could very well have walked to, so they won’t come down hard on someone about a car.
    What has struck me in these recent articles is that Andrew has a lot more money than has been reported. I believe his private wealth is estimated at $30M, but for a man with no visible mean of income he’s living large. So maybe just maybe Epstein did help him with investment which have paid off handsomely, hence the loyalty to Epstein.
    It’s also possible that Phillip left a lot more to his heirs than the press has guessed at.

  20. Athena says:

    I suspect when it comes to H&M the trolls objection is not so much about the environment but the “private jet”. Most people do not have a private jet or know someone who does, but these same people have cars and will get in the car to run an errand they could very well have walked to, so they won’t come down hard on someone about a car.
    What has struck me in these recent articles is that Andrew has a lot more money than has been reported. I believe his private wealth is estimated at $30M, but for a man with no visible mean of income he’s living large. So maybe just maybe Epstein did help him with investment which have paid off handsomely, hence the loyalty to Epstein.
    It’s also possible that Phillip left a lot more to his heirs than the press has guessed at.