Prince Andrew arrived in Balmoral last week with ‘flunkies in tow’

Prince Andrew apparently traveled to Scotland last week. Andrew likes it at Balmoral, and since he has absolutely nothing to do these days, he’s probably looking forward to a lengthy stay with his mother. According to Richard Eden’s Eden Confidential column, he arrived last Wednesday:

Barely has the royal standard been raised at Balmoral to mark the Queen’s arrival than Prince Andrew has joined her at the castle. I hear the Duke arrived by car on Wednesday, flunkies in tow. No doubt, his ex-wife will soon follow.

[From Richard Eden’s column]

Which flunkies though? He brought staff? Or is Eden referring to Andrew’s royal protection officers, which Ravec reviewed recently and decided that Andrew should keep? I doubt anyone would refer to Andrew’s royal protection officers as “flunkies,” which means Andrew brought staff to Balmoral. And how does he still have staff?

Meanwhile, as we discussed a few weeks back, there is a book out about Prince Andrew’s infamous 2019 BBC Newsnight interview. The book, Scoop, has already been optioned for a movie. Now it looks like a second movie is going to be made about the same interview? And Andrew is very upset about all of it.

Royal sources have complained of fears that ‘unwelcome’ rival bids to dramatise the duke’s Newsnight interview could bend the truth. Palace staff said the ‘feeding frenzy’ to claim credit for the BBC’s blockbuster scoop in 2019 is set to produce new accounts that may claim ‘dramatic licence’.

Producer Sam McAlister last month published Scoops: Behind the Scenes of the BBC’s Most Shocking Interviews, which in part told the story of how the interview with Prince Andrew was secured and offered details of the day itself. That chapter will become a blockbuster film, titled Scoop, set to film later this year.

Meanwhile Emily Maitlis last week announced her own scripted version of the infamous interview. Blueprint Pictures, the producers behind a Very British Scandal and The Best Exotic Marigold Hotel films, are said to have bought the rights to Maitlis’s story before McAlister teamed up with Moffat.

A friend of the duke told The Times: ‘This latest exploitation for financial gain of a book and now a film of what was, and remains, a very difficult time for the family, is unwelcome. Not least as the account of events leading up to and around the interview appear to have elements of dramatic licence.’

Controversially, sources close to Andrew claim McAlister’s book made a factual error, prompting additional fears about ‘dramatic licence in the retelling’.

In Scoops, McAlister claimed that the Duke was left almost alone by senior staff. She wrote: ‘No lawyers, no other royal staff. I’d expected a swarm of people to oversee it all. A tall white man comes into the room to say hello. He’s introduced as Donal McCabe, “communications secretary to the Queen” … After speaking to a couple of people, he leaves.’

But royal sources told the newspaper McCabe stayed in the room throughout the interview – and even recorded it. Asked about the clashing versions of events, McAlister told The Times: ‘If it’s conceivable that he was there and I didn’t see him, then they are not mutually exclusive.’

[From The Daily Mail]

Imagine Prince Andrew – Air Miles Andy, the BFF of Jeffrey Epstein – getting huffy about “exploitation for financial gain.” Women have literally spoken about how Andrew exploited them. Andrew exploited his own royal status for financial gain throughout his life. As for the whole “dramatic license” BS – I’m not sure the Queen’s staff want to actually own up to how much they knew about the interview as it happened, especially since it was a complete disaster and it took days for the Queen to actually understand that.

Photos courtesy of Instar, BBC screencap.

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

32 Responses to “Prince Andrew arrived in Balmoral last week with ‘flunkies in tow’”

Comments are Closed

We close comments on older posts to fight comment spam.

  1. Lauren42 says:

    Like when Tina Fey did her Sarah Palin SNL character, all the actor playing Andrew will have to do is say his some of his quotes, exactly how he said them, and he’ll look like the narcissistic, grifting, predatory idiot he is. No “dramatic license” will be required.

    • Christine says:

      That is really the crux of the problem for them. The facts that hurt the BRF, and show us what PA truly is, are his actual words. I mean….they can claim license all they want, the bottom line is…the interview.

    • C-Shell says:

      This is very well put. That interview was sufficiently and alarmingly dramatic without any help from the producers. I look forward to these films!

    • sunny says:

      Well-said! I am still shocked that BP didn’t shut that interview down. Gives credence to the idea that these people do not hear themselves talking at all.

  2. The Hench says:

    Can’t be letting Mummy get away from his influence for too many days.

    But seriously, his permitted, almost constant presence in the Queen’s life only underscores what the Royal Family – and the Queen herself – consider acceptable in the Family firm. Namely, as long as you continue to stay inside the Royal circle, anything goes. Literally anything. Palming suitcases of cash? Check. Brokering shady arms deals for backhanders? Check. Raping trafficked teenagers? Check. Selling your house for £3m over the asking price to a despot’s son? Check.

    • The Hench says:

      Amusingly the other day I googled ‘Prince Andrew shirt logo’ to try and work out what Royal insignia he was parading around whilst riding his horse the other day. I didn’t find out that but I did come across a whole range of ‘Prince Andrew Nonce’ T-shirts…

    • Gabby says:

      @The Hench, you hit the nail on the head. Prince Andrew is the most honest and accurate advertisement for what the BRF really is. No need to worry about Andrew dragging the BRF down to his level, because guess what? They are already there.

  3. girl_ninja says:

    That family is just so out of touch. Their refusal to see the mess they’ve made or even care about it is truly sad. But they have no trouble playing the victims.

    • KFG says:

      Petty Betty and the Nonce are so disgusting. Her constantly walking around with him shows she doesn’t have a problem that he’s a nonce.

  4. Miranda says:

    He’s a paedophile who raped a child sex trafficking victim. What “dramatic license” could possibly make him look worse than the vile, entitled, sniveling, mummy’s boy shit that he really is?

    • Julia K says:

      Prince Andrew allegedly raped a 17 year old sex trafficked victim. That does not fit the description of a pedophile, who are sexually attracted to children, defined as prepubescent, or 13 and under. Let’s stick to the correct definitions, which doesn’t at all take away from his deplorable actions and behavior.

      • HufflepuffLizLemon says:

        Technically there are 3 terms for being attracted to children: pedophilia (pre-pubescent children), hebephilia (young, 11-14ish), and ephebofilia (teenagers 15-17). However, the colloquial use of pedophilia has stuck in the public consciousness, especially RE: Epstain (typo and it stays) and his bestie Paedo Andy, so I am totally fine with going with the colloquial terms.

      • SpankyB says:

        He can be called Epho Andy instead of Pedo Prince.

      • Miranda says:

        While I understand the different, proper terminology, I would disagree that using it doesn’t take away from the heinousness of his actions. Perhaps to people like us it doesn’t, but there are many others (including much of the RF, I’d wager) who believe that 16 or 17 is “old enough to know better”, as if a birthday magically confers good judgment or negates grooming.

      • MrsBanjo says:

        Yes and language isn’t static. Technical terms are not always the default for standard speech. He raped children, regardless of whether or not they were pre-pubescent. The common usage for that is “paedo” and it’s not going to change.

  5. equality says:

    No palace objections when “dramatic license” is used all over the place about H&M. Shut up about PA. I’d say, in his case, they are more afraid the truth will be told.

    • Both Sides Nowt says:

      Well said @ equality!! They are freely changing the narratives of many but when it comes to the BRF, their constant go-to of being the actual victims is revolting. The entire family is nothing but a stilted, archaic, money laundering, criminal enterprise. Their constant refusal to see how badly their actions are on the international stage is revolting. Their sole desire is to keep their grifting, criminal scheme running as long as possible.

  6. Amy Bee says:

    According to Roya Nikkhah, royal correspondent for the Sunday Times, the Royal Family thought after they paid off Virginia a line would be drawn under the story. Meaning they thought the story would go away. I think they have the cooperation of the Royal rota on this but there’s nothing to stop non royal press from exploiting it. I’m all for it. If Andrew doesn’t want to face the law then this is what he deserves and for the Royal Family to be concerned or dismayed about this is highly ridiculous. They should have encouraged Andrew to talk to the FBI.

    • C-Shell says:

      This is, seriously, very funny and yet more proof — as if we needed it — that the BRF is completely out of touch with reality.

    • SarahCS says:

      It does underline what a warped bubble they live in doesn’t it?

      • Both Sides Nowt says:

        It does. Why they think that they are not to be subjected to the same rules as everyone else is astonishing.

        May they all go down with the fallacy that they have created.

    • TigerMcQueen says:

      The rota rats might stop writing stories, and other news outlets too, but the internet will never let Pedrew off the hook. For of it’s ills, social media does have its advantages. It’s insane that the RF doesn’t get this.

    • Shawna says:

      Oh yes! We’ll have popcorn on tap….

  7. Harper says:

    It’s a good moment in time to make a movie out of as there is so much to work with. There is smug and arrogant Andrew remaining smug and arrogant as his world falls apart around him. Head in the sand Queen nodding ‘Yes, my dear boy’ on a loop. Fergie scrambling to make sure her cash flow keeps churning. Eugenie and Beatrice simultaneously supporting and avoiding their father. Charles summoning Andrew to cuss him out and Camilla listening in at the keyhole. I hope we get a cameo of William stomping his fist/feet and Kate grinning in the background. Meanwhile, the men in grey trying to remind the world that Meghan made Kate cry.

    • Laura D says:

      Your post made me 😆

      Loved “Camilla listening at the keyhole”. 😆

      And the final line ” Meanwhile, the men in grey trying to remind the world that Meghan made Kate cry.” *Chef’s kiss*

  8. Eurydice says:

    So much shade – flunky is not a nice way to refer to staff, and “No doubt, his ex-wife will soon follow.” Like Fergie is some kind of nameless remora feeding off Andrew’s crumbs.

    Yes, my first question was why does Andrew even have staff, but then I thought he and Fergie can’t possibly dress themselves or feed themselves – so, maybe he brought a manservant and a dresser. Who knows? Maybe a cook to handle his delicate digestive requirements?

    And the palace staff is worried about a feeding frenzy? They haven’t been worried about the 5-year feeding frenzy they themselves have been causing by leaking stories about H&M. No need for dramatic license when the palace admits the Queen’s communication secretary recorded the whole interview as it happened – it actually adds an extra layer of stupidity to the story.

    • Both Sides Nowt says:

      @ Eurydice, thank you for pointing out the obvious.

      They are facing the slightest bit of exposure of their blaring stupidity but expect full protection from the glaring truth. On top of this bit of how upsetting this book and film will cause TQ is ludicrous.

      My, my how the cries of victimhood are expressed when the tables have turned.

  9. susan says:

    one of the “flunkies” is obviously the person who has the awesome responsibility of ARRANGING THE TEDDY BEARS on the royal bed.

  10. BeanieBean says:

    Dumb as a box of rocks, the lot of them. As though whether or not this one fellow was present throughout the interview makes a difference. Andy said what he said. On camera. For the world to see.

    • Eurydice says:

      I know, it’s hilarious, isn’t it? Like, “dude, the interview is everywhere and you’re worried about whether they got the background details right?”

  11. Jay says:

    What I’m noticing here is that Eden is taking a possible (unlikely) error in “Scoop” and using it to try to object to Emily Maitlis telling her own story about interviewing Andrew in her own words. They’ve got nothing on Maitlis, so they are trying to tar her with a perceived error in somebody else’s book. Honestly, I’d be worried, too – I took another CB poster’s advice and found Maitlis’ podcast on the BBC which describes the lead up and actual interview, and it’s very compelling!

    As for the nitpick about whether or not Donal McCabe “communications secretary to the Queen” was or wasn’t in the room during the interview, it kind of overlooks the biggest question for me: You’re telling me that an actual, honest to goodness communications professional employed by the palace was IN that room and not only failed to stop the trainwreck entirely, but also didn’t demand that the producers go back and add some more carefully worded responses or recollections before they put it on the air? Nah. I don’t buy it. Or he’s spectacularly bad at his job. As per usual, this is not the spectacular own they think it is.