Nicholl: QEII should have been more ‘ruthless’ about her ‘favorite’ Prince Andrew

It’s been years now, where we can see the full dichotomy between the Windsors’ treatment of Prince Andrew, a whole rapist and human trafficker, versus how the Windsors treat the Sussexes, a couple who were torn to shreds for existing and working. The British media is currently using the late QEII to bash Harry and Meghan, with people going on and on about how Liz was so disappointed in them, how she thought this or that about Harry. But those same people have to admit that Liz was rock-solid behind Andrew the entire f–king time. That Liz did the most to protect Andrew, that she gave him money to pay off his victim, Virginia Giuffre, and she was still helping him plot his “comeback” even in her last days. My issue is that… the royal reporters don’t seem to have much of a problem with that, and they don’t think it makes Liz look bad at all. Some quotes from Katie Nicholl:

Andrew visited the Queen frequently in her last months: “She saw Andrew very, very regularly right up until her death. They remained incredibly close, and she was very protective of him.”

Her favorite son: “Well, of course, I covered the scandal involving Prince Andrew,” Nicholl explained. “I really wanted to get to the bottom of what the queen really felt about [whom many believed was] her favorite son.”

QEII quizzed Andrew: “My understanding was that she did quiz him [about Epstein]. She asked him about the Epstein allegations and about his relationship with Virginia Giuffre. They had a very honest conversation, and Andrew assured her that he was innocent of those allegations. She believed him. This was her son after all. And she didn’t just believe him. She stood by him.”

The service of thanksgiving: “It was the queen who allowed Andrew to walk her up to her seat at the service of thanksgiving for the Duke of Edinburgh [earlier this year] which, you know, was deemed to be quite controversial.”

Liz should have been more ruthless: According to Nicholl’s book, a close family friend told her Andrew gave his mother his word “on more than one occasion that he was innocent.” But those close to the queen felt she should have been “more ruthless.” “There was a question being asked: Had some of her sharpness softened?” an insider who worked closely with the monarch told Nicholl.

[From Yahoo News]

Yeah, she was perfectly capable of being ruthless when it was about, say, Harry and Meghan. Or should I say, the Queen and her courtiers were perfectly capable. She didn’t want to be ruthless about Andrew because she wanted to protect him. It’s as simple as that. She wanted to protect Andrew and she didn’t want to protect Harry and Meghan. Fundamentally, the Windsors – and the Queen – didn’t have a problem with Andrew or his friendship with Jeffrey Epstein, or the credible claims of rape and sexual abuse. One of the few things Dan Wootton wrote which was 100% accurate was that Andrew is “less of a pariah” in Windsor-world than the Sussexes.

Photos courtesy of Avalon Red, Instar.

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

14 Responses to “Nicholl: QEII should have been more ‘ruthless’ about her ‘favorite’ Prince Andrew”

Comments are Closed

We close comments on older posts to fight comment spam.

  1. TheFarmer'sWife says:

    And that says everything one needs to know about the mindset of this “royal” family. Disturbing, disgusting, disgraceful! Oh, and racist as f*ck.

  2. Slush says:

    “she was perfectly capable of being ruthless when it was about, say, Harry and Meghan”

    Facts. Does anyone have a better understanding than I do about why Harry remained so close to her and defended her through everything? It always seemed to me that while she wasn’t actively briefing against them…the fish rots from the head. She absolutely could have done more to help them, no?

    • kelleybelle says:

      Abso-phuquing-lutely she could have, yes. I think the courtiers and Willy/Charles were running things by then. Queen was just too feeble. They trotted her out when appropriate. She also spoke up after the Epstein fiasco and ordered no photogs around Andy, so she certainly could’ve called the dogs off Meghan and Harry too. Immediately. Especially when she actually spoke out about Boris’ pregnant sidepiece … but not for Meghan. I didn’t think this family could get any more evil, Jesus. Literally they are a bunch of low-end, evil, back-stabbing f*cks.

    • Becks1 says:

      So I think because Harry was Charles’ son, the Queen let him have a great deal of control over him. I think Charles (and William) were calling more of the shots in Harry’s life than the Queen was. And by the end, when the Queen was involved the courtiers ran all over her. It’s clear that they were able to block Harry’s access to the Queen and I doubt they were ever able to block Andrew in the same way. So Andrew was able to get his story into the Queen’s ear much more frequently than Harry.

      I think the courtiers forced the issue of Andrew’s HRH and no more public duties, and that was as far as they could get bc the Queen probably felt after that, it was a family matter and if she wanted to pay his settlement, that was her business.

      I also think at the end of the day the royals didn’t think what Andrew did was that wrong, even if it did all get a bit too messy unfortunately (imagining what they would say about it here.)

      I don’t know. I think sometimes Harry uses the courtiers and the press to give his family a pass, but its clear that he adored his grandmother and respected her in a way that he did not respect his father. It’s also clear when he was able to get directly to her, she responded to him, which was clearly a problem for the courtiers. I think it was a lot easier for Andrew to get directly to her.

    • Slush says:

      @Becks, @kelly- All good points. I guess at the end of the day Harry knows better than any of us why she did or didn’t speak up, so if he wasn’t mad at her there must be a reason, even if it’s not clear to us? Idk. I have a hard time squaring that circle.

  3. Jaded says:

    I’d love it if, after her NDA expires, Virginia Giuffre writes a blow-the-roof off tell-all. This isn’t about how the Queen’s sharpness softened, it’s about how she simply turned off any suspicions or bad feelings about her coddled and cossetted favourite child, likely blamed Virginia for gold-digging, and went about the rest of her life with the royal blinders on.

  4. Emily_C says:

    They don’t see the rest of us as people. You can’t rape an object, and that’s what they think we are.

    So where’s Charles’ ruthlessness regarding Andrew? Nonexistent. I used to think that Andy was protected because he was the queen’s favorite, but now I think it goes far beyond that.

  5. Huckle says:

    I am an outsider looking in so no offense to anyone but I never got the impression that QEII was ever sharp. I’m sure she was intelligent but she didn’t ever do anything extra special or revolutionary or groundbreaking but be rich and travel. I wasn’t around for the early days of her reign but my impression is that she toed the line and that’s about it.

    • kelleybelle says:

      She wasn’t book-smart at all. Hence the reason Margaret wasn’t allowed to further her education, so as not to outshine Liz. Same ol’ shyte: can’t outshine the heir. That institution is too rotten for words.

  6. HeyKay says:

    Getting the feeling that there is so much awfulness still being covered up.
    Face it, wealthy people all feel they are above the law.
    Epstein knew a lot of dirt about a ton of very wealthy people. That is how he made his money, buying and selling people, blackmail, etc.

    Epstein has been dead years. GMaxwell still has not given up any one.
    Scandal, vile crimes, tax evasion, bribery, and I bet a lot more.
    But sex trafficking, dammit. Rot in hell.

    I’m certain there is so much behind the scenes of the BRF that will never come out.

  7. Amy Bee says:

    The Royal Family values loyalty above anything else. That’s why Harry and Meghan are pariahs and Andrew remains a much loved member of the family.

  8. SomeChick says:

    oh, so Katie is criticizing the queen now? my, my. that didn’t take long. it’s very faint criticism to be sure, but still.

  9. TheCrankyFairy says:

    I’m surprised that there hasn’t been a hunting or riding “accident” yet.