There was ‘consternation’ & ‘dismay’ about Prince Andrew’s role in the memorial

There’s some good news/bad news with yesterday’s service of Thanksgiving for the late Duke of Edinburgh. The good news: the post-service focus is barely on Prince Harry’s absence, even though it’s clear that many people *want* the focus to be on Harry. Another piece of good news: despite all of her preening, keening and sashaying, Duchess Kate is barely being discussed post-service either. All of that peacocking for nought. The bad news: the focus is almost entirely on Prince Andrew and how he escorted his mother into Westminster Abbey. Nearly every British paper put that on their covers today. The Daily Mail’s Becky English got an exclusive straight from Kensington Palace and Clarence House too.

The Royal Family was left ‘dismayed’ by Prince Andrew demanding to take centre stage at his father Philip’s memorial service – amid suggestions The Queen was giving a sign of ‘endorsement’ in her son. The shamed royal insisted on accompanying the Queen from Windsor Castle to the thanksgiving event at Westminster Abbey. But to the shock of many in the congregation he then escorted his mother all the way to her front-row position – in full view of the live broadcast cameras. It had been expected that the Dean of Westminster would take the Queen to her seat, with Andrew behind.

The Daily Mail can reveal that senior royals had ‘reluctantly’ accepted Andrew, 62, would travel with the Queen to London because they live so close to each other. But they had hoped ‘common sense’ would prevail and that Andrew would not seek to play a prominent role in his first public appearance since he struck the out-of-court settlement with Epstein victim Mrs Giuffre, 38.

A family source said that senior royals – including Prince Charles and the Duke of Cambridge – were ‘dismayed’ by events and that Andrew’s decision to put himself ‘front and centre’ of the service had caused ‘consternation’.

‘It would be a great shame if the service was overshadowed by all of this. There is a strong sense of regret that this has happened,’ they said.

Meanwhile, Royal experts suggested The Queen’s decision to give Andrew a front-and-centre role at the service was a sign of ‘endorsement’ in her disgraced son. Former BBC royal correspondent Jennie Bond told The Express: ‘This was her way of quietly showing “OK, he messed up really badly, this was a disgrace, but he is my son”.’

Peter Hunt, another ex-royal correspondent for the broadcaster, said it was a sign of the Queen ‘endorsing’ Andrew, adding: ‘It didn’t happen by chance. He could have sat in the congregation with others, with his relatives, but they actively decided that he would have this role of supporting her. She’s very clearly stating that he has a role at family occasions. It’s one thing to accept that he should attend his father’s memorial service, it’s quite another thing to then give him quite a prominent role so it was an active choice to give him such a prominent role.’

[From The Daily Mail]

I find it curious that there’s all this hand-wringing about it, honestly? People who genuinely follow royal gossip have long understood that the Queen will do anything for her favorite son, including giving him millions of dollars in legal fees and even more millions of dollars to pay off the woman who credibly accused him of raping her when she was a trafficked teenager. What Charles, William and the royal establishment are actually worried about is that more people are noticing that Andrew is still very much “in the fold” with the Queen. They’re only concern is the optics of it, not the actual signal being sent that a human trafficking rapist gets to keep his money, his family position and his giant mansion.

Peter Hunt said on Twitter that William and Charles should have ended this before it even happened, that all of this sh-t after the fact is weaksauce (I’m paraphrasing, obvs). He’s right. But that highlights a different problem. Even though Charles is nominally “in charge,” no one can control the Queen. She doesn’t give a f–k anymore and she’s holding onto the crown with both hands and some duct tape.

Photos courtesy of Instar, Backgrid, Avalon Red.

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

24 Responses to “There was ‘consternation’ & ‘dismay’ about Prince Andrew’s role in the memorial”

Comments are Closed

We close comments on older posts to fight comment spam.

  1. ThatsNotOkay says:

    Consternation. Uproar.

    Charles made a deal with the devil to bail out the nonce. Now the nonce will be the demon that follows him to his grave. How sad.

  2. Cessily says:

    The widow queen made this service “the reintroduction of the man who can not legally deny he raped a trafficked minor(s)” that was her very deliberate choice. She walked proudly down the isle of the church on his arm. I do have to wonder if all the European Royals feel used or did they support this and support him also? I personally think they should have left the service after seeing that, this had nothing to do with the life of Phillip after that entrance.

  3. Jan90067 says:

    “She doesn’t give a f–k anymore and she’s holding onto the crown with both hands and some duct tape.”

    OMG the visual! Lolol.

    I’m picturing her holding a G&T in one hand, the crown in the other, and telling them all to bugger off if they don’t like it 😄

    • Jais says:

      “Holding onto the crown with both hands and some duct tape” LOL, I’m weak.
      And yeah, Jan90067, when she’s not holding the crown, those hands are duck taped to a G&T, actually make that two, she’s double-fisting.

  4. Amy Bee says:

    I’m not buying that there’s dismay and consternation about Andrew’s role. As Kaiser says they’re worried about the optics especially after William and Kate’s disastrous tour. The Palace wanted the story to be about Harry’s non-appearance at the memorial and Andrew just hijacked the narrative. A prime example of this is an interview with Sun photographer Arthur Edwards where he was asked about Andrew escorting the Queen and he launched into a tirade about Harry. I couldn’t be happier that the story is about Andrew and not Harry.

    • Christine says:

      I agree. This family has been put on blast, Willnot and Cannot’s tour proved that. And yet, no one in this family took charge and said, “Hey, we look like complete idiots, to the entire world, maybe no Pedophile escorting the Queen a few days later?”

      They’ve shown themselves for who they are.

      • michyk says:

        i don’t know if i’m misreading something, but it almost sounds to me like they didn’t know until they saw it happen in the church? like they knew andrew would arrive with the queen, but thought the priest (?) would walk her down with andrew behind. so it was all figured out in the car ride over?

        none of that excused anything. like you said, they’ve shown us a million times by now who they all really are. as so many have said, they don’t care about the actual action so much as the optics around it.

  5. SnarcasmQueen says:

    This woman’s legacy is one of longevity, nothing more, similar to the 75th wedding anniversary of a couple after decades of domestic abuse.

    It’s a rancid institution, dedicated to preserving their status, the visual of a long surviving royal family and all the trappings that come with hereditary position.

    The throne will not survive Charles if he doesn’t make major changes when Betty finally shuffles off. Andrew must be removed from all public spaces and the Keens must be made to meaningfully work.

    • TigerMcQueen says:

      I think her ‘legacy’ is one of longevity and, frankly, having become queen as a young, attractive, female newlywed who grew up with the world’s eyes on them during World War II.

      There was (and is) a lot of affection for her, affection I don’t think a male might have garnered. I don’t think the same depth of affection would be there if her father had lived longer. If she’d have become queen at 35 or even in her 40s, she’d still have had a long AF reign, but she wouldn’t have had that same story, and that story definitely fed into public opinion.

      But I actually think the longer she lives and clings to the throne, the worse her legacy becomes. The institution is indeed rancid. And she’s the cause of it, ultimately.

    • Tessa says:

      Even if Edward VIII had not abdicated, she would have ended up Queen in all probability. The Duke of Windsor lived 20 years longer than George VI. She would have been older but she would have eventually ended up as Queen. It was said in biographies that Wallis and/or Edward could not have children.

  6. Becks1 says:

    I don’t know what’s actually happening behind the scenes, but I am SURE the royals or the men in gray or whoever are not happy about those cover stories. “The pain and the stain”?? Yikes. Even if they were fine with Andrew escorting the Queen, i think someone realizes they have to scramble to NOT look fine with it.

    • Christine says:

      I expect what I read on blind gossip 30 minutes ago explains exactly what they are doing, to deflect from being completely unable to react appropriately. There is a blind that clearly points to Harry and Meghan. Hmmmm. I wonder why?

      Harry and Meghan haven’t made so much as a tiny peep, in weeks, and here we are again, reading about poor Harry being a hostage to his belligerent wife. Good luck with that, “royal family”, you only have the idiots who comment on that site in your corner.

  7. Crowhood says:

    “Never complain, be a stain” or whatever Betty always says

  8. Rapunzel says:

    All this bad press… for a stupid 40 minute memorial they didn’t need to hold. Now we know where the Cambridges get their lack of clear thinking.

  9. MerlinsMom1018 says:

    Edward summed it up rather nicely with his expression and leaning as far away from Andy as possible. I thought he (Edward) was gonna fall over at one point

    • Andrea says:

      Definitely a get my brother away from me…I cannot believe I have to sit next to this guy pose. Good on him to be as disgusted as the rest of us.

  10. Bluecat says:

    Sometimes I wonder if the queen advisers aren’t setting her family up for fail or something like that, cause I can’t even no one say that it won’t look good.

    The English should protest and abolish this criminal family.

  11. Veda says:

    I think the FK and FFK gave Betty a lot of grief over her support to Andrew. This is her showing them who the Queen is- literally. It’s a FU from her to Charles and Wills.

  12. Saucy&Sassy says:

    Has TQ ever been seen with tears in her eyes before? I’m asking because if she hasn’t then I wonder what this says about her state of mind? If her health is bad, she’s probably feeling vulnerable. I have to wonder about dementia, too. I found the tears surprising from the woman who wouldn’t use a wheelchair because she wants to appear strong.

  13. LadySwampwitchGivsNeauFux says:

    Little known fact, Prince Charles was also in Epstein’s little black book. Not sure why its not been revealed but its a fact.

  14. one of the marys says:

    Nice sleight of hand when they describe Virginia as Epstein’s victim, like why oh why did Andrew have to pay someone else’s victim hmmmm?

  15. Yonati says:

    Apparently QE2 was beside herself with grief when her sister died.