The Queen ‘will not help’ Prince Andrew pay for a settlement to Virginia Giuffre

Garden party at Buckingham Palace

We heard this week that Prince Andrew is suddenly “open” to settling out of court with Virginia Giuffre. Shockingly, his openness comes right as Judge Kaplan is likely to rule that Virginia’s lawsuit can proceed to trial, and that Andrew must provide evidence to the court about some of his various claims, like the “no sweating” thing and the “Woking Pizza Express” thing. While I didn’t get into this issue this week, I presumed – as we all did – that any conversation about a potential settlement means that the Queen will be the one who pays. It’s long been known and reported that Queen Elizabeth is paying Andrew’s legal bills, likely from her Duchy of Lancaster funds. Andrew’s legal bills alone could be seven-figures. God knows how much Virginia will get if she settles. Still, after months of reports about how the Queen is paying Andrew’s bills, suddenly the Daily Mail has a curious story about how Andrew is desperate to sell his Swiss chalet so he can pay his own way? Hm.

Prince Andrew is reportedly trying to force through the sale of his £17million Swiss ski chalet to help foot the bill for his spiralling legal costs as he fights sexual abuse allegations made by Virginia Roberts. According to The Mirror, the Duke of York is attempting to speed up the sale of the luxurious property because his mother the Queen will not pay his lawyers’ fees.

Andrew bought the seven-bedroom Chalet Helora, in the luxury Swiss resort of Verbier with his ex-wife Sarah Ferguson in 2014 for £16.6million. It emerged last year that Andrew was selling the property. The Duke is needing to find the funds to pay his team of US lawyers as they battle the claims made by Ms Roberts.

If the case does go to trial and Andrew loses, Ms Roberts could be awarded a settlement which legal experts have predicted could be as much as £3million. It emerged this week that Prince Andrew could settle out of court with Ms Roberts to avoid the case going to trial.

Speaking of the alleged speeding up of the sale of his chalet, a source told The Mirror: ‘It is crunch time for Andrew on several fronts. He is meeting all the costs himself so he needs to raise cash fast to pay bills which are increasing by the day. If there was the potential to settle, well, that is an option, but it is in no doubt that the Queen would not assist him in doing so.’

The newspaper also claimed that the Queen will not help Andrew pay for any future financial settlement which may be paid to Ms Roberts.

[From The Daily Mail]

Lies, damned lies. The Queen has already funded Andrew’s lifestyle and legal bills thus far. Of course she’s still paying, and of course she’s the one who would likely give him the money for any settlement. This is what’s known as closing the barn doors after the horses have bolted. For years, the palace didn’t care who knew that the Queen was paying her favorite child’s legal bills. Now that sh-t is getting real, suddenly the courtiers – and perhaps Andrew – realize that the Queen is about to go down with the HMS York. As for the stuff about the Verbier chalet… that sh-t was always sketchy. We learned last fall that Andrew was hellbent on selling the chalet to pay his own substantial debt (separate from his legal bills) and it’s crazy that they haven’t found a buyer yet. Very weird. Anyway, I can feel the panic coming out of Buckingham Palace. Oh well, you bitches f–ked around and now you’re finding out.

PS… if the case goes to trial and Virginia wins, she’ll likely be awarded a lot more than $3-4 million. If the judge rules the way we expect, her case is very strong and she shouldn’t settle for anything less than eight-figures.

Gabriella Windsor wedding

Photos courtesy of Avalon Red, WENN.

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

91 Responses to “The Queen ‘will not help’ Prince Andrew pay for a settlement to Virginia Giuffre”

Comments are Closed

We close comments on older posts to fight comment spam.

  1. Lili says:

    with all the back lash on twitter of the queen supporting the accused, i think this is them untangling her from this mess and trying to create distance, another case of too little to late, its alredy out there

    • Chloe says:

      Ditto. They are trying to separate her from his mess

    • The Hench says:

      Exactly. There was another snippet this morning about Wills and Charles being “furious” at Andrew and insisting he pays his own legal bills. Once again they are all scrambling to distance themselves. To use Kaiser’s analogy about HMS York sinking – when a big ship goes down it sucks down everything close to it. This is the others frantically attempting to get into lifeboats and paddle away. Methinks it’s a bit late for that.

    • Islandgirl says:

      Agree Lili. I expect that she will buy the Chalet through one of the many offshore accounts she has.
      Next we will be hearing that it is sold and Andrew has money to pay off his debts, the lawyers and any settlement.
      Voila…the Queen cannot be accused of supporting Andrew, paying his legal fees and letting him keep his military honours but removing everything from Harry.
      But…actually the second part won’t change.
      BP what exactly are you going to do about that.

      • Jan90067 says:

        That, or another “mysterious foreign buyer” will show up and pay well over asking for the property, as that one did for Pedo’s first home (the one TQ gave him and Freeloader when they got married). It sat empty, no bites, and then out of the blue, an Eastern European dignitary bought it for about £5M OVER asking. VERY interesting for a property that was dilapidated. It sat, falling into further disrepair for years, until said dignitary finally razed it to the ground.

        Wonder what “mystery buyer” is going to show up for this chalet. I’m with you: I think TQ will have one of her off-shore companies buy it under layers of anonymity. Then, after a suitable time, it’ll get sold off to get her profit.

    • equality says:

      @Island girl Maybe she will sucker somebody who wants an OBE into buying it.

      • Chaine says:

        That was my thought too… someone who wants honors…. Hasn’t David Beckham been angling for knighthood? And he could pay for a ski chalet.

    • Mrs.Krabapple says:

      I said this before, Andrew is selling his chalet so he can “hide” the proceeds before there is any judgment against him. He will claim to be broke, and nobody will be able to find where the money went. “Judgment-proof.” Having the queen SAY that she will not pay his bills or settlement is a way to reinforce Andrew’s position that he has no money (while helping him hide it). But in the end, IF there can be a settlement that includes non-disclosure, I’m sure the queen will be more than willing to fund it. That’s how they roll.

  2. ItReallyIsYouNotMe says:

    I am a lawyer who has negotiated hundreds of settlements in the employment law arena. This smells of Buckingham Palace or Andrew’s team setting up the negotiations to settle at the 3 million mark. As in , don’t hold out for 8 figures Virginia because you’ll never collect blood from the stone that is Andrew’s finances and don’t think that the queen will put in anything.

    • Sunshine says:

      Agreed. This is theatre.

    • ThatsNotOkay says:

      Right. They are trying to suggest that Andrew is the turnip with no blood and make certain that the Queen / Crown won’t be on the hook for an eight figure settlement. Like, Andrew doesn’t make any money so don’t ask for a lot. But he lives high on the hog. And Virginia’s lawyers can force them to show where he gets the funds that fund his non-tax-paying lifestyle and go after that. They’re essentially trying to hide his assists and shield the Queen from being on the hook for anything. I hope no one falls for this and that Virginia takes him and the Queen for so much that SHE becomes the second richest woman in England and wins the lease to Royal Lodge. #Karma

    • whatWHAT? says:

      while you very well may be right, I don’t think the palace has a leg to stand on. and VG holds all the cards, assuming the judge rules in her favor.

      and I don’t think Giuffre cares about the money. This is about holding PA responsible for his actions, and if she gets $ on top of that, it’s just gravy.

      they could offer her $3mil and say “well, that’s all we can offer because QE II isn’t contributing to the payout” and she could very easily say “no problem, let’s go to trial and see if the jury agrees with that amount”. the royals don’t get to decide what amount of money is enough.

      • ItReallyIsYouNotMe says:

        @whatWhat, I think you are right that it’s not about the money for Virginia so she may go to trial just to prove her point and expose the corruption (which also happens) even if she never collects. Also a settlement would likely have confidentiality and non-disclosure agreements (or at least Andrew will ask for them). At this point, Virginia will get more from a book or movie advance than $3 million so they might hold out for trial for that reason alone unless The Queen ponies up 8 figures.

      • Mac says:

        I think Andrew is suddenly open to settling because Epstein only paid her $500,000. Andrew probably thinks he can pay something similarly low.

    • LaraW” says:

      Message to the RF: $3M is peanuts. Better up your offer.

      Trial alone will cost at least $1M. She has no incentive to settle if they’re offering $3M, especially because if she wins, she’ll gets damages AND attorney’s fees covered.

      Btw Andrew— Boies costs $2K per hour. And you’ll be paying for his time.

  3. Chic says:

    Yes, the chickens are coming home to roost.
    What about the Jubilee? Wont Andrew’s situation distract from celebration?

    • The Hench says:

      Quite. Andrew clearly ‘deliberately timed’ this fiasco to overshadow the celebrations…how dare he?

    • Debbie says:

      Funny how the queen’s much-vaunted jubilee was not mentioned in the except above. I also found it interesting that they were able to write an article about such a salacious subject without a negative title smearing Andrew, then write about Andrew’s legal costs “as he fights sexual abuse allegations” by Virginia Roberts without once using the words “scandal” or “bombshell.” I recall the BM using the word “bombshell” so much about H & M’s interview that for a while I though Oprah Winfrey had changed her first name to “Bombshell Oprah”, as in the “Bombshell Oprah interview.” That’s all they ever called it, but when actual sex abuse allegations against a royal are pending, it’s all measured, neutral language and “Jubilee? What jubilee?”

  4. Scorpion says:

    Look who’s now trying to distance herself from the shit show that is her family. The fish always rots from the head.

    I want a referendum on these carpet baggers once Betty goes.

    • Chloe says:

      As long as the tories remain in power there will never be a referendum on the monarchy

      • BothSidesNow says:

        Maybe it’s time for the Tories to lose their power. I just think that they have f#cked up enough of the lives of the British people.

  5. Amy Bee says:

    At least we got confirmation that Andrew has not sold his chalet yet and that his family is really staying there at the moment. This leak to the Mirror is in response to the outrage many expressed earlier in the week when the case was being heard. A lot of people were complaining about the Queen using taxpayers money to fund Andrew’s legal defence so the Palace has let it be known that she will not be paying his settlement if it comes to that. I agree, this is a lie and that the Queen will pay for the settlement.

    • ABritGuest says:

      Bingo. The times already reported last year that the ski chalet was being sold to settle debt from another lawsuit. Then it was claimed that the queen was paying ANDREW’s bills as he had no discernible income. It also said the queen paying was a way for BP to keep tabs on the case.

      But after the backlash from Andrew’s defence statements this week, including that the law allowing victims of historic abuse to sue was unconstitutional, the Mirror is rehashing the Times report to try and distance the queen & of course make William look like he’s doing something. And I agree that settlement figure is a hint for Virginia & her lawyers. Nothing can overshadow the precious jubilee after all.

      • equality says:

        Didn’t the Queen pay off what he owed on the chalet anyway? So if he sells it to pay the lawsuit, it will still amount to the Queen paying.

      • Jan90067 says:

        I read that the mortgage holder, the woman who sold them the chalet, was suing them for failing to make the last big payment (£6M I believe). It *was* put out at one point that TQ would “personally* pay off the debt to get Pedo out of being dragged to court (shame the Brits got rid of Debtors’ Prison! I’d rather like to see Pedo there! But I digress…ahem!).

        Now, they’re putting out he STILL OWNS/OWES on the chalet and is trying to sell it? Wonder what changed the story???

    • Becks1 says:

      Yeah, of course the Queen is going to pay the settlement. I think this is meant more as a message to Virginia, that she can’t expect to get the whole Duchy of Lancaster or something. but of course she is going to pay.

      I mean, even Andrew selling the chalet and using that money for this is the same as the Queen paying, since she paid off the chalet for him.

  6. Sakura says:

    I hope Virginia and her lawyers take him to the cleaners. God, Andrew is so vile.

  7. Alexandria says:

    Trying to control the narrative huh Queenie? Then open your books! What a rubbish family and brand. #AbolishTheMonarchy

  8. Merricat says:

    Taxpayers, rejoice.

  9. Lily says:

    Also, it’s possible the Queen bought the chalet for him so he could sell it and get the cash, thus making it look like the Queen is not providing for him.

  10. jo73c says:

    Also, wasn’t he being forced to sell the chalet because he’s already broke & was defaulting on the mortgage?

    • Dorothy GIngell says:

      I thought that too. He was meant to be selling it to pay what he owed to the lady he bought it from. She was going to sue until HMQ stepped in to help after he missed a payment deadline. I’m pretty sure she agreed to wait for the balance until it was sold. He can’t sell it twice.

    • MY3CENTS says:

      That’s what I remember as well. I think the seller sued them since they still haven’t paid a large sum of its cost.
      Yeah this is deflection.

    • Ainsley7 says:

      Yep. Andrew is actually broke. Philip was the one who held the purse strings when it came to Andrew. So, he was never getting enough to fund the lifestyle that he wanted. That’s one of the reasons he became the useful idiot of arms dealers, dictators and shady “business men.” He was paid for government secrets, arranged illegal arms deals and all sorts of very illegal things. He is genuinely stupid, easily manipulated, and greedy as hell.

  11. Shawna says:

    What if selling the chalet is more about the history of how he and Fergie “paid” for the chalet? That trail provides more evidence of his dealings with Epstein and other shady businessmen.

  12. Izzy says:

    I guess the taxpayers are a little pissed at the idea of funding a legal settlement for this pervert so they men in gray are trying to make it sound like the suit AND possible settlement won’t come from the Queen’s pockets, as if we didn’t already know the truth.

  13. OriginalLala says:

    The thought that any of my tax dollars has gone to help this rapist makes me sick. When do we overthrow these assh*oles?????

    • Alexandria says:

      Curious…is the republican movement growing bigger recently?

      • Deedee says:

        I always see comments that it would take years of legislation to get rid of the monarchy. My answer is this: Cut the funding. You don’t have to undo all the laws if you take away the funding. If being a royal isn’t lucrative, they’ll eventually leave on their own.

      • OriginalLaLa says:

        or, if they are hell-bent on having a monarch – fund only the monarch. no one else, let the rest of them get friggin’ jobs and pay mortgages.

  14. Talie says:

    I’m not entirely convinced Virginia would just settle. I think she wants her day in court that she was denied with Epstein and even Maxwell. The victims deserve compensation, but many just want to be heard.

    As for the The Queen. I mean, is this woman privately a billionaire or not? We always hear about how rich she is, but it sounds like she never dips into her own finances! It’s always odd to me that her kids and grandkids all don’t have massive trust funds set up to spare her any embarrassment of them going out and making fools of themselves to get money. I always think of this when I see the antics Peter and Zara get involved in. Like, you couldn’t have just given them some money to live quietly?!

    • Deering24 says:

      Money equals control. By doling it out to her family, the Queen keeps them in line. Them living independently would be the true “embarrassment.” Look how rabid the BM and royalists still are over Harry going out on his own.

    • equality says:

      If the money goes from monarch to next monarch, taxes are avoided.

      • Lula says:

        @Equality Fascinating! No death taxes, then, eh? Isn’t that a nice like perk. Who, technically speaking, holds the royals financially accountable? Anyone? Bueller?

    • Athena says:

      Virginia has been heard and I don’t see Andrew turning over millions when she only received $500k from Epstein. But at the end we will never know what the final settlement is.

      I never understood either why there’s no trust fund for the children and grandchildren of the monarch. Phillip grew up poor and the queen grew up during the war so I can see why they tended to be frugal with their own funds but some of the embarrassment the monarchy faced had to do with family members scrounging for money.

  15. Veda says:

    According to this article, it was the Queen who funded the purchase of the ski-chalet in the first place-

    After settlement of their multitude of debt and taxes, how much would actually remain for legal fees and settlement? And will Andrew return the amount the Queen funded from the sale?

    How stupid does BP think the public is? It’s just the left hand feeding the right hand.

    • The Hench says:

      Problem is that the Royals have been shovelling taxpayers’ money into their pockets at a hell of a rate for generations and nobody has ever tried to stop them. They are geniuses at dodgy financing and bending the laws to suit themselves. Why would they think that anyone would do anything now?

      If you want to enrage yourself try reading “And What Do You do?” – a book all about the royals and their set up by an ex Labour MP and insider. It’s genuinely jaw dropping. The Windsors make the Mafia look small time.

      • Veda says:

        Thank you for the suggestion The Hench! I’m going to order it right away.

      • The Hench says:

        My pleasure. I read it as a result of a recommendation from a fellow CBer originally!

      • Becks1 says:

        @Hench, yes, that book was EXCELLENT! He really exposed so much about the royals. ArtHistorian on here was the one who originally suggested it I believe.

  16. Concern Fae says:

    If you want a monarchy, you have to pay for it. Crazy how many people seem to think that isn’t true. Including Charles. He seems to expect all these relatives are going to be able to support themselves when he cuts them off.

    He doesn’t see that the answer to what happens is more Epsteins and shady Saudis, not the rest of his family living quietly in shabby homes on royal estates, leaving only for ribbon cuttings and other dull events.

    I mean, obviously fvck Andrew with a flaming pitchfork. But you can’t say that this mess isn’t an obvious consequence of raising a bunch of entitled, titled idiots and then expecting them to somehow support their very expensive lifestyles without financial support from their family.

    • Ainsley7 says:

      He’s cutting off the next generation. Everyone who is currently dependent on the monarchy will remain that way. It’s Beatrice and Eugenie’s generation that he cut off. He doesn’t plan to cut off the Gloucesters and Kent’s and such.

      • Concern Fae says:

        I don’t know. I keep hearing about royals from TQ’s generation being expected to start paying rent on their residences. Look at Prince Michael of Kent getting himself caught up in shady money dealings with Russians.

        Charles picked up that frugality is a virtue somewhere along the way. But he doesn’t realize that it’s a good thing to not overspend, but just taking away everyone else’s money doesn’t count. It will just cause all sorts of problems as they try to keep their lives going. People don’t disappear just because someone else decides they are inconvenient.

      • equality says:

        @Concern Fae Not to be crass, but the older ones will start “disappearing”. The other “homeless” ones, Will can put up in the Duchy of Cornwall.

      • Ainsley7 says:

        Charles isn’t being frugal and doesn’t believe in frugality. He knows that he won’t be given any more money and isn’t keen on sharing. Working royals get free housing. The Duke of Gloucester and Duke of Kent don’t pay rent and aren’t expected to. They have both been put in smaller apartments fairly recently. Which frees up the larger apartments for rental. These people do have some money. They don’t seem to receive much on top of their free housing. If they’ve been able to support themselves so far, I assume they’ll be able to continue. Their kids also seem well off. So, they won’t starve whatever the outcome. Prince Michael already pays rent because he’s not a working Royal.

  17. BayTampaBay says:

    Depending on the daily exchange rate, £3million BPS is about $4.5-5 million USD.

  18. Guest says:

    Well, this should be interesting. Let’s see how Andy and Company spin this new tale.

    I have an observation. It seems that the British media rehashes and amplifies gossip from one tabloid to another. One tabloid will write an article and then the others repeat the same article in their own reporting. Eventually, because the same gossip/ lie is being reported by multiple disreputable gossip rags and is eventually picked up by so called legitimate news sources, the gossip/lie becomes validated.

  19. That figure sounds inflated. 1 Million seems high to me. She got 500k from Epstein. I don’t see Andrew paying more. If anyone with legal data can advice, let’s get another opinion.

    • MsIam says:

      She’s got a good lawyer this time. And the Epstein story is much better known now. So Andy is going to pay. Other men may be paying too, whether its to Virginia or other women.

    • Chaine says:

      @MyOwnWorstEnemy I think the same. A large part of what Andrew would have been paying for had he settled these claims years ago would have been her silence, that she not talk or give any more interviews about him so that it all go away. In fact, he could have paid her so much she would agree not to reveal there had ever been a settlement. Now there have been years of coverage down to the tiniest detail of his crimes and there’s nothing to pay her to keep silent about, is there? Unless I misunderstood how the law works, he can’t be prosecuted for anything now anyway due to statute of limitations. And I don’t have much faith that a jury would award her much money because I think while the public in general gets that there was sex trafficking happening, they are going to look at her story and say “so the guy had sex with her a few times, she seems fine now.” That’s not MY viewpoint, but just think about the average person on the street and the terrible way American juries disregard sex crimes…

    • Lizzie says:

      With my degree from Dick Wolf University I am confident in saying that it’s all timing. Maxwell was just convicted by a jury (even if it gets thrown out). Everyone saying she was 17 so he did nothing wrong has been shot down by the trafficking conviction. Virginia’s case is stronger with Epstein’s suicide and Maxwell’s conviction.

    • MonieInTheMiddle says:

      I also have a theory that the ‘any other defendants’ was a catch-all to cover other men who paid under the table, but whom did not want to be named.

      Essentially a ‘gentlemans agreement’ to try and ensure VG’s silence.

      However with the recent Epstein and Maxwell cases, that may have made her rethink that aspect.

      Not sure what the US law is on that Esptein deal surviving his death?

  20. Marcel says:

    Maybe she won’t pay it? Maybe Queen Elizabeth is only comfortable paying Andrew the Pedo’s legal fees if he’s claiming innocence.
    She’s also in 90s and I’m not convinced that she’s still mentally sharp. *However* Andrew visited Epstein after he was convicted by the FBI (from memory. Sorry if I’m wrong, don’t wanna give myself enraged by fact checking). And literally no one in the BRF cared enough to do anything about then.
    I wouldn’t be surprised if the Queen, Charles et al don’t care about Andrew’s victims or can see how damaging his choices are. (because based on the evidence I don’t think Virginia is his only victim. I just think she’s in a position to fight for justice.).
    Like the BRF couldn’t even admit they maybe enabled or ignored the racist press attacks against Meghan and her children. Let alone take accountability. I sincerely doubt that they’re equipped to deal with an issue of this magnitude. Andrew still has his honorary military titles and Harry has none. Which tells me everything I need to know about how toxic that family & institution is.
    Sending Virginia all the love and support. She’s a warrior putting herself on the line to see justice served.

    • Ainsley7 says:

      I’ve always thought that she believed him. She can be mentally sharp and still in denial. She wouldn’t be the first mother to refuse to believe her son is innocent despite overwhelming evidence. I think she is refusing to pay for a settlement. I mean, his argument has always been that she’s an opportunistic girl looking for money. He shot himself in the foot with that argument because it means that the Queen would never agree to a settlement. She’d want Andrew to prove he is innocent because settling would set a bad precedent.

  21. Lady Digby says:

    Andrew is Queenie golden child so obviously she is going to continue paying and she must have a will leaving him a good wedge. However what happens should she slip away suddenly? Charles is unlikely to fund the defense and/ or settlement so will PA suddenly cave in and agree a settlement and/ or fund his legal fees from his inheritance? Fergie won’t like that if they both , gulp, have to economise?

    • Athena says:

      What’s clear is that the queen doesn’t have much time left and Andrew needs to settle this ASAP while she’s still alive to foot the bill.
      It’s my understanding that if they don’t settle and this goes to trial even with a default judgement, the courts can’t enforce it in the UK, meaning she may not get a penny from the judgement. So what’s his incentive to give her millions now , if, if she wins she won’t be able to collect anyway? I’m not convinced she going to get the settlement size that people here thinks she will get.

  22. KBeth says:

    I sincerely doubt Andrew cares about making his own way, paying his own bills.

  23. aquarius64 says:

    With that chalet’s history a murder house will be sold faster.

  24. Heat says:

    Genuine question here: Can the British Parliament decree that the Queen is not allowed to pay for Andrew’s legal fees? I would think that they should have some say in how taxpayers’ dollars are spent.

    • Lady Digby says:

      Honey now you got this tax payer sweating!! I have been told, gulp, by the newspapers that Queenie is paying for everything from own private fortune (if things get tight keep an eye onEbay for a tiara or two if Ms Kelly has to flog things to raise a little extra?)

  25. jferber says:

    I was reading The Daily Mail comments from Brit subscribers and all of them were irate that the queen would pay Andrew’s legal bills and settlement with taxpayer money. Of course she will! So, of course, to calm the native beasts (and source of wealth for this useless family) it’s now all over the news that, no, the queen will NOT pay any of Andrew’s legal or settlement bills. The constant lies and propaganda from that government will be believed, no doubt.

  26. Charfromdarock says:

    Virginia should take the route she wishes too. If she wants to settle, she should settle.

    I do hope this goes to trial and it ALLL comes out. His actions, the finance trail, who facilitated the abuse, who covered it up.

    Every single person who allowed this to happen should be held accountable – I know that’s wishful thinking – but I would love to see true justice for her and all the other survivors.

  27. Jaded says:

    My guess is the chalet is still for sale but he’s getting bargain-basement offers on it because that’s what buyers do when it’s a “stress” sale, i.e. divorce, bankruptcy, or in Andrew’s case facing lengthy and expensive legal problems. I’m sure mummy will come through with some kind of buy-out and let him and his bottom-feeder of an ex-wife use it. I’m looking forward to hearing about the stink William will create over Royal Lodge.

  28. Agreatreckoning says:

    The legal team must find great comfort that legal scholar Sarah Ferguson is in the room.

  29. Blujfly says:

    The Queen’s frugality is an utter myth, propped by the right wing and patriotic English press in return for her and her advisors feeding the press gossip, innuendo, and truths about her family, particularly her son, the heir. She participates in on of the world’s most expensive, useless hobbies – horse racing – at its absolute highest levels, along with Sultans and Saudi princes.

  30. Agreatreckoning says:

    Any sentence involving the Queen not helping Andrew pay for anything is a lie.

  31. RMP says:

    I hate how rich people avoid jail by “settling”. It’s just another way of saying buying your way out of trouble. I hope Virginia drags him through the courts and goes for a criminal conviction.

    • SomeChick says:

      Virginia’s case is a civil case, not criminal.

      a criminal trial is one brought by the state, and that’s where jail time comes into play.

      a civil case is brought by an individual, has different standards of proof, and jail is not on the table.

  32. TeeMajor says:

    I hope she takes him (them the Queen) to the cleaners, of course his mumm will pay..she always has.

    He is disgusting.

  33. Athena says:

    Title to the Chalet probably got transferred to his daughters.

  34. Maarti says:

    BS, ofcourse public money is gonna pay for this circus. It always does

    And people dont believe in yt privilege, lolzz

  35. MangoAngelesque says:

    But how many bathrooms does the chalet have??