QEII signed off on ‘Queen Consort Camilla’ as part of a blatant quid pro quo

Back in February of this year, two pieces of big royal news came out within nine days. First, Queen Elizabeth released a statement on Accession Day that it was her “sincere wish” that Camilla become “queen consort” when the time comes. Then, nine days later, Prince Andrew reached a private settlement with Virginia Giuffre soon after the American judge said that Giuffre’s lawsuit could proceed to trial, and that Andrew had no argument to throw out the lawsuit. We knew, at the time, that the two things were connected, that there was a blatant quid quo – QEII making the queen consort statement in exchange for Charles signing off on QEII giving Andrew the money for the Giuffre settlement. Well, months later, Christopher Andersen is once again stating it plainly: it was quid pro quo, Charles used his brother’s degeneracy to get a prize for Camilla.

The New York Times bestselling royal journalist and author Christopher Andersen has suggested in a new book that the then-Prince Charles agreed not to object to his mother funding his disgraced brother Prince Andrew’s legal settlement with Jeffrey Epstein victim Virginia Giuffre in return for the monarch’s public endorsement of his wife Camilla as the future queen.

A source familiar with Charles’ thinking immediately hit back at Andersen’s claims, telling The Daily Beast they were “unsourced” and “untrue.”

In his new biography of Charles, entitled simply The King, Andersen reports that after Andrew’s lawyers had, “negotiated a reported settlement of $14 million,“ the question remained of “who was going to pay for it.”

Andrew, whose sources of funding have always been opaque, was clearly not able to and it was obviously not remotely reasonable for such a sum to be funded by the taxpayer. Andersen writes that it became obvious that the queen was going to have to use “some of the half billion dollars in private savings and investments,“ that she had amassed over the years to get her son out of his fix.

As Andersen points out, however, “to all intents and purposes such funds would ultimately be coming out of Charles’ inheritance,” so “Charles would have to, if not actually sign off on the deal, then at least not offer a public objection to it. As distasteful as it was to have a slice of his inheritance go for this purpose, Charles recognized a rare opportunity for some sort of informal quid pro quo. While the question of where the money would come from was still very much on the table, the Prince of Wales suggested privately that February 6, 2020, the 70th anniversary of her father George VI’s death, might be the ideal time to make some sort of statement in support of Camilla becoming queen.”

It had long been claimed by the Palace that when the time came Camilla would be known as “Princess consort” not “Queen consort” (usually now abbreviated to the more catchy “Queen Camilla.”

These were, Andersen writes, the behind-the-scenes maneuverings that led the queen to issue a statement in support of Camilla, saying that it was her “sincere wish that when the time comes, Camilla will be known as Queen consort as she continues her own loyal service.” The queen’s endorsement is believed to have been absolutely pivotal in securing Camilla’s place by Charles’ side as his official consort; overnight polls published the next day showed that half of the British population had become willing to accept Camilla as queen consort.

[From The Daily Beast]

As I said, it was completely obvious back in February. Even before we learned of Andrew’s settlement, I suggested that QEII’s statement was a quid pro quo for something to do with Andrew. I’ve always suspected that QEII’s statement was simply written by Charles or his office and given to QEII to sign. You also have to remember that back in February of this year, Charles and Camilla both got Covid and then they gave it to QEII too. A lot was happening in February, one might even call it the beginning of the end. Looking back on it, I actually find it even more suspicious that QEII caught Covid two weeks after the queen-consort statement. It’s almost like Charles was trying to kill off his mother immediately after securing her blessing for Queen Camilla. Anyway, yeah – of course, QEII only cared about Andrew and Charles only cared about Camilla. They used each other.

Photos courtesy of Avalon Red, Chris Jackson/Buckingham Palace.

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

43 Responses to “QEII signed off on ‘Queen Consort Camilla’ as part of a blatant quid pro quo”

Comments are Closed

We close comments on older posts to fight comment spam.

  1. Sumodo1 says:

    Absolutely disgusting family. SNL had it right when Fred Armisen played TQ as “Brenda” a total sociopath.

    • Josephine says:

      Yup, they’re filth. I don’t understand how anyone sees anything appealing about this family. They are quite literally making clear that they are degenerates and so many keep turning a blind eye.

      • Robert Phillips says:

        The basis of the monarchy is that the strongest and most manipulative became the monarch. It wasn’t really just handed down to the next in line. It was fought for. That stopped somewhere along the line. And has now created this inbred family that isn’t really very smart. If this was the middle ages Elizabeth wouldn’t have made it as Queen. And Charles or William either one would have been killed somehow and someone else taken over. I don’t know where the idea that this particular family was ordained by God to lead the country came from.

      • Margaret says:

        @Robert Phillips: That notion about them being ordained by God to lead the country came from them, of course. They thought it up and promoted the idea as a way of keeping the rest of us mere mortals under control. It’s part of the manipulation. Their old holds over us are disappearing or wearing thin now though and they don’t know what to do.

  2. Becks1 says:

    Okay, so of course it was a quid pro quo, we knew that at the time, but I appreciate that people are still reminding others of that fact. Maybe QEII liked Camilla, maybe she did want her to be queen consort – but the timing cannot be ignored, and it just makes sense that it was part of a deal reached between QE and Charles and Andrew.

    That said….am I supposed to feel sorry for charles that he lost 12 million of his inheritance as a result of this deal? Am I supposed to feel sorry for QEII that she had to reach into her private funds of “half a billion pounds in private savings and investments” to pay for this? Because I do not. not at all.

    But again thanks for reminding us of how much money Charles inherited without having to pay inheritance tax.

    • DK says:

      Also….isn’t an inheritance something you get when the person who currently owns it dies?

      As in, that money was the Queen’s to use however she liked, and not Charles’ until she died. Suggesting he had to sign off on 12 million pounds of the Queen’s money, not actually his, when that’s (for them, not for us regular humans) a drop in the bucket of what he was to inherit, seems absurd?

      (Also, I’ve thought this many times since the Queen passed, but wow, the fact that not only does Chucky get to be King but he gets basically *everything* his parents owned and his siblings get nothing, is a pretty sh*tty deal for the sibs. He is actually lucky Anne and Edward are at least pretty loyal and willing to play for him. And how can they be shocked Harry didn’t want this “you’re worth nothing” deal either?)

      • Becks1 says:

        Yeah I think the system is incredibly sh!tty. I mean of course Anne and Edward have privileged lives and get SG funding and all of that, so I don’t feel too sorry for them. But it is a messed up system that just seems to keep the toxicity going in that family. the queen absolutely could have parceled out some of her enormous wealth over the past two decades (I think anything gifted more than 7 years before someone dies is not subject to inheritance tax, like a trust or something.) Now maybe she did and we just don’t know, but its still messed up.

        And YES that was why I thought the inheritance talk was so icky. Like okay maybe you’re going to get it all Charles but she’s still living so its still her money. Unless there were cognitive issues or the like (which they’ve denied AFAIK) then she was in control. Do you know how much say my siblings and I have over my parents spending? None. now they’re in their early 70s and are still very with it mentally, but if my mom wants to give one of my brothers financial help for whatever reason that’s up to her.

        This isn’t even framed as “Charles was worried that Andrew was taking advantage of his aging mother” or something (which would be a better take on it from a PR standpoint IMO.) No, its about how Charles was worried about his inheritance.

      • equality says:

        I wonder if she didn’t privately support some of the grandchildren. She dies and suddenly Zara and Mike are upping the endorsement deals and going on reality TV. Eugenie and Jack seemed to be getting their ducks in a row for better jobs and Bea bought private property. They all seemed to be preparing to be unwelcome and unsupported.

    • Cindyloowho says:

      I think that, while he is on the right track, he didn’t get the whole story. I think the trade-off was not kicking Andrew out of Royal Lodge and cutting him off and exiling him after her death. Charles could not have opposed the settlement. Taking care of Andrew after her death was the only thing he could offer.

  3. Nicole says:

    Not to be overly critical, but YIKES that book cover! Easy there photoshop. He looks like a CGI image. It’s kind of creepy.

    • KASalvy says:

      The royals use more photoshop than celebrities do. Even that “Fab Four” photo of Charles/Camilla/Kate/Will is photoshopped! Those are two different photos merged together and it irritates me so much that the press ignored that

    • Kristin says:

      And he has his hand in his pocket! Didn’t the royal reporters tear Meghan to shreds for showing “total disrepect”, “failure to follow protocol”, etc., because she was photographed at a royal event with her hands in her pockets? Once again, something that is only a crime when Meghan does it…

    • JackieJacks says:

      The photoshopping of that hair lol he’s never had hair like that with that volume

      • Margaret says:

        It’s laughable. Poor sod has no idea how obvious it is and how much we are laughing at him.

  4. Well Wisher says:

    It was so obvious. Finally some one in the press said it out loud.
    Remember Harry’s reply when he was asked about the Queen in the interview with ABC network.

    • SarahCS says:

      That was my reaction, it was said here at the time (it was SO obvious) and it’s nice to have that acknowledged more publicly.

  5. MsIam says:

    So basically Charles strong armed his mama into endorsing Camilla as QC so things could go smoothly for Andrew’s payout. Typical Charles, so used to bullying his way in. No wonder he wouldn’t step in and help Harry against William. Bullying is the Windsor way.

  6. Nicki says:

    No matter how often I see the words King Charles, it doesn’t ring true. My brain immediately adds a big set of quotation marks. As for Queen Camilla, lol. She can wear all of the crowns all at once and she’ll still just be the horsey side piece.

    • Josephine says:

      wasn’t she married too? i’m wondering whether adultress side-piece is the more accurate description.

      • Jaded says:

        She carried on an affair with Charles basically all her adult life and while she was married to Andrew Parker-Bowles, including when he was wooing Diana, after they got engaged and all during their marriage. Rumour has it he had a romp in the hay with Camilla the night before he and Diana got married. Sick…just sick.

      • Nicki says:

        @Josephine — excellent update. 🙂

    • Bettyrose says:

      The phrase King Charles doesn’t sound right. Not sure it ever will. But he is king so why would he have needed TQ to approve QC Cam? If that’s the monarch’s right, couldn’t Charles have done it himself? Why this shady deal?

      • Kingston says:

        I dont think any of Charles’ advisors would have advised him to be the one to name his side-piece as ‘queen.’ The snickering and derision would prevail throughout his reign, if he were to have done that.

        Rmbr, these pretentious twats live and breathe by “optics.” Image………as M said, “theyre more concerned with how things look than how it feels”…..is what they live and die by.

        And lets face it, its a much more powerful gesture coming from betty than from charles. It wd be seen by the public as one of betty’s dying wishes…..and you know that in virtually every culture, a person’s dying wish is sacrosanct. So the story behind the image wd be, betty finally and at last, embraced the idea that camilla has earned her rightful place as queeeeen.

        Its not surprising to me that charles wd find the right opportunity to blackmail his mummy into this move. And no one can convince me otherwise that he and/or camilla didnt ensure that betty got one more dose of covid which, on top of her previous infection and with her age, wd do the trick.

        These people got away with doing in Diana who, by the way, knew they would do her in when she said they were planning for her to have a car accident.

        And I have no doubt that H knew his wife and kids werent safe within palace walls.
        “If you knew what I knew…..”

        Without. A. Trace (of evidence.)

      • Lusaka mummy says:

        Bettyrose

        I think it’s because if it comes (came) from the Queen, it carries more weight being that the Queen was more revered and respected than Charles will ever be. And also generally, just to show the world that the queen accepts Camilla. You know how these people saw the Queen like she was a god.

        If it was Charles bestowing the Queen Consort title on Camilla, i think people could just say it is one of those things and wouldn’t take the title with much seriousness. And maybe they could have been a bit of resistance from the public… since it is the Queen that approved of the title there has been no outrage from the public.

      • SarahCS says:

        He could have but she was the person people respected so it carried far more weight.

      • bettyrose says:

        LOLZ! So, what I’m hearing is, Charles just doesn’t command that kinda respect?

      • Tessa says:

        I think the queens approval did not matter much. The queen made some blunders in the past so I don’t think it made people who did not care for c and c change their minds

    • Mrs.Krabapple says:

      I refuse to call any of them by their titles, as none of the titles are earned. They are just garbage people who happened to be born (or married) to a certain family. Big deal.

  7. Ollie says:

    I can absolutely see it if the quid pro quo was Charles’s agreement to fund Andrew for the rest of Andrew’s life (or Charles’s life) but I don’t understand why the Queen would have needed Charles’s agreement or approval to pay for the Epstein/Giuffre settlement while she was still alive— it was HER money and her decision to make. Charles was never going to PUBLICLY object or disagree with her choice on how to spend her money.

  8. Mel says:

    That book cover is horrifying…….

  9. lleepar says:

    Everything that family does seems to be transactional. So most observers automatically were looking for the quid pro quo when EIIR suddenly had thoughts on Camilla’s future title. It was difficult not to presume a connection when days later we learned that Charles’s inheritance just got a few million lighter.

    • Lauren says:

      Right, like are we really supposed to believe that the Queen cared what title Camilla would eventually have.
      No one in the Royal Family gives a sh** about Camilla except for Charles

  10. Tessa says:

    I do not like Andersen books he keeps putting in fake story of Hewitt being Harry’s father. I have no use for Andersen

    • MaryContrary says:

      Yeah, I have to say also there is an assumption here that anything remotely critical written about Meghan is “false” so I find it hard to believe that every negative story about the royal family is gospel either. Bit of a double standard.

  11. Beech says:

    Re: the cover, those bare trees, the wintery light, oh dear.

    • Brassy Rebel says:

      It’s not even a current photo of Charles. But then a current photo of a very old man looking like he needs a haircut wouldn’t have sold many books. Not sure this one will either, but he looks better than he does now.

  12. tamsin says:

    Maybe she also had to agree to her horse racing operation to be shut down as part of the agreement. It would make up for some of the capital loss. Or part of the proceeds is going to support Andrew. It would be the Queen looking after Andrew for the rest of his life- not Charles. I just have to observe how the Queen looked after her children no matter how rotten they were as human beings. Charles seems to have done not much for either of his sons in terms of support. The parental gene seems to have been missing in Charles.

  13. Lili says:

    Basically Charles and his missus subjected the Brenda to a long slow death due to their actions, that’s my takeaway from that .

  14. MY3CENTS says:

    Good thing The Crown isn’t going to cover all the s**t that has gone down recent years. Saves us all the crocodile tears.

  15. The Recluse says:

    This is all building up on the proverbial camel’s back and one day….snap.
    Good riddance to all of these entitled wastrels.

  16. My opinion says:

    Say what you want about the Mistress, she’s worth 12 mil, must be one jolly romper🤔

  17. Zelka says:

    I do believe the Queen would have been able to pay for Andrews hush money on her own without needing to work out a deal with her oldest son.