King Charles believes ‘Andrew is more of a long-term problem than Harry & Meghan’

As the anniversary of QEII’s death approaches, so too does the one-year anniversary of the start of King Charles III’s reign. There are already pieces – commissioned by Buckingham Palace – about the past year and how King Charlie is the most perfect king ever. The palace absolutely wants to wave away the fact that the Windsors grossly miscalculated everything in the last decade of QEII’s life, and now they’re just a sorry lot of old farts and one rage-monster. Still, Charles wants us to know that he “seems very content and happy, having mourned the loss of his mother, he is settled. His destiny has arrived and he has embraced it.” He has been downright ecstatic since QEII died, because of course he was. Some highlights from this Sunday Times piece:

Charles is comfortable: “He seems really happy and comfortable in his own skin, which hasn’t always been the case,” said a friend. “There was understandable caution in terms of how the public would receive him. Would he enjoy the role; would it hinder him in what he wants to do? Even though there were times in his life when he’s wanted more media attention, he had no idea how he’d cope when he had the full blast of it — but the more he sees of the public and the more he sees the public turning out to cheer him and the Queen, he sees there is a will for him to succeed. They are always cheered to be cheered, particularly with the reputational challenges they’ve had over the years.”

He’s still obsessed with Camilla: “I think the red boxes and [extra] duties have come as an unexpected burden on his time. The Queen is absolutely integral. Without her you’d be looking at a very different person, in terms of his happiness, which is vital to the success of the whole mission. He’s got the Queen by his side who can make him laugh like nobody else, who can reassure him things are going well, who can humanise him, particularly at a time of immense stress and strain when he lost his mother and was suddenly sovereign, red boxes overflowing. To have the companion in whom you have complete faith and trust makes that burden a bit lighter.”

A source says that Charles knows he won’t be a change-maker: “When he was younger, he would have been quite a reforming King but he’s taken it on at a fractious time for the nation, with political divisions, economic hardships and uncertain times ahead. The country is struggling on so many fronts and big changes within the monarchy might not chime well with the times. I think Charles realises that the main changemaker will be William, who will have more licence to do it [as monarch] and Charles has decided to be the ‘steady-as-we-go’ monarch, providing the stability and continuity the country needs now.”

A caretaker king: One friend of Charles questions his decision to be cautious, believing the King, who is head of the Commonwealth, is “not moving at enough pace” to establish a meaningful Carolean legacy: “The coronation is months in the rearview mirror — where is the big Commonwealth vision or the momentum on opening up the palaces [to the public]? He needs to be careful he doesn’t end up being just a caretaker king.”

On the Sussex situation: A friend to whom the King turned for advice says: “He has done the right thing to rise above it and carry on with the work of the monarchy, which provides a welcome and stark contrast to what happens on the west coast of America. It’s all very sad, but it also mirrors what happens in a lot of families, so it humanises him. What’s clear is the side the public has come down on, and that’s reassuring to him.”

Andrew is being frozen out: The conundrum remains over what to do about Andrew, already stripped of his official roles and the use of his HRH. Charles has no desire for his brother “to come out of the freezer”, according to aides, but the attempts to remove Andrew from the palatial Royal Lodge and into Frogmore Cottage, the Sussexes’ former home, appear to have been shelved. A royal source believes “Andrew is more of a long-term problem than Harry and Meghan. It feels like more stuff is going to come out on Epstein and there are still unexploded bombs there.”

[From The Sunday Times]

The fact that Charles and his handlers still believe that Andrew is the long-term “problem” and not the Sussexes, tells you everything you need to know about the state of the king’s royal court. While I agree that Andrew is a huge problem, Charles looks absolutely delusional to believe that he can “ostrich” his way out of the biggest shift in the monarchy since his great-uncle abdicated. Charles has spent the first year of his reign openly briefing against his son and daughter-in-law, evicting them from their British home, searching for ways to “punish” them, and then he turns around and demands that Harry show up to the coronation. All of which played out – as Charles intended – for the domestic British audience, in the British tabloids. At the very same time, Charles couldn’t go anywhere without republican, anti-monarchy protesters showing up and booing his ass and throwing eggs at him. This whole palace PR strategy comes across as delusional.

Photos courtesy of Cover Images.

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

58 Responses to “King Charles believes ‘Andrew is more of a long-term problem than Harry & Meghan’”

Comments are Closed

We close comments on older posts to fight comment spam.

  1. EllenOlenska says:

    Wow KCIII…took you long enough…how many years ago did the first news about Andrew break? And better yet, Stop letting your buddies in the media mention andrew in Harry in the same breath as though their “crimes” were remotely equivalent (one screwed underage girls. One told you your family was dumb and peace’d out with his wife and kids) Read the room.

    • Tessa says:

      I agree harry is happily married to Meghan they live each other and are parents of two children. Comparing them to someone who associated with two traffickers is just atrocious.

    • Wannabefarmer says:

      Agreed.

      This constant attempt to link H&M to andrew really p**ses me off. It is disgusting. It reminds me of an article someone wrote about how Meghan might be called to testify in andrew’s case, like wtaf (sorry); Meghan didnt even know who he was, when she met the Q, she asked Harry who that assistant was, the one carrying the Q’s purse. Kate has been in that family for eons and thus longer exposure to andrew but sure, try to link him to M to sully her.

      H&M are NOT a problem. At the risk of sounding like a broken record, they’ve been gone for 3 years and are not coming back, they are living their lives free of abuse from that lot and all that lot needs to do is keep their names out of their dmn mouths. And BTW, good on andy for telling charles to take a hike, I’m not moving. Let Frogmore sit there and rot. I hope H&M got their money back as part of H’s agreement to go to that shiny hat party.

  2. Tessa says:

    The media Comparing harry and Meghan to Andrew even putting them in the same category is wrong on many levels. Harry should have been allowed to continue to wear uniform at royal events. I doubt Charles will do anything to punish Andrew. U doubt Andrew will move out of royal lodge. And he did get to wear garter robes at the coronation the article is not flattering to Charles making him seem helpless. Camilla has kept her residence so it us doubtful she us there all the time with him.

  3. Wait I thought there was just an article about Andrew and Fergie having been invited to Balmoral and were his first visitors? So is he being frozen out or accepted back. Or is this just the tabloids letting Chuckles know that Andrew is bad for the monarchy.

    • Wannabefarmer says:

      The latter. Like it could get any worse. Funny how the rags dont see that they are the ones making their lords look bad.

  4. Flowerlake says:

    Andrew should always have been the problem.

    The irony is that if they had treated H&M nicely, a part of those now monarchy hating people wouldn’t have been against him as much.

  5. Brit says:

    I believe this. The people obsessed with Harry and Meghan are KP and the stalker ex boyfriend British press. Charles is shrewder than William. He’s not innocent at all in any of this but he’s more level headed than William, at least publicly minus the Diana and Camilla nonsense. I’ll give him that.

    • Tessa says:

      Charles could have done something to prevent this by reining in william. I don’t think he’s shewd. Charles did not even allow harrys wreath to be placed at a memorial to veterans service

    • Kokiri says:

      You don’t have to give him anything.
      He’s a user, a grifter, he lives in unmeasurable wealth & privilege on the backs of centuries of murdering & stealing.
      Seriously. You don’t have to give him a thing.
      Also what? Diana nonsense? They abused her. They killed her. What is wrong with you Brit?

      • EBS says:

        I am no fan of the royals, but they didn’t kill Diana. She was driven by a drunk driver and she wasn’t wearing her seat belt.

      • Tessa says:

        E b s Diana’s sisters wondered about the seatbelts since they know Diana always buckled up. Also why did the now amnesiac security guard not check the seatbelts and let the allegedly drunk paul take the wheel. Diana did not get to a hospital in time to save her. The ambulance driver bypassed a hospital 10 minutes away.

      • EBS says:

        @Tessa, this has been investigated quite a lot, not least by Mohammed Al Fayed, Dodi’s father. There is no way on earth that the royals would choose to murder a person in France as opposed to the UK, and/or to take a rich, well-connected person with them. You think they bribed French emergency services workers and none of them talked? Paul was the driver, that was his job, not that of the security guard. Paul thought they were done for the night, went to the bar and got drunk, with tragic consequences.

      • Tessa says:

        E b s even if there was no murder Diana’s medical care was slipshod. She should have beeb taken to the nearest hospital she was doomed when it took all that time to get her to a hospital
        And all those motorcycles lined up to go speeding after the car. Why did not the police get involved and ordered them to disperse. If paul were that drink Rees Jones the bodyguard should have stopped him from driving. Rees Jones has amnesia and can’t remember why he let paul take the wheel and why he did not check the seatbelts. At the very least the way Diana was treated that night was slipshod. She always buckled up according to her sisters.

      • EBS says:

        I have no knowledge of the French health care system, but it is a long way from criticising that to accusing people of murder. For whatever reason Diana didn’t wear her seat belt, she didn’t. It’s also not particularly surprising that the only survivor of a car crash in which the other three occupants of the car died can’t remember much of the events. (He was also the only one who wore his seat belt).

      • Tessa says:

        The seat belt reportedly malfunctioned. The car was deployed at the last minute. I am saying Diana’s care post accident was slipshod. Also why did the security guard only care to make sure he was buckled up. He could have seen to the other passengers first. It was like every man for himself. Diana also buckled up. If the car started speeding away if the seat belts worked Diana would have put that seat belt in place pronto. The amnesiac security guard cannot remember possible blunders he made. Diana would have buckled up if those seatbelts worked.

    • Jais says:

      Yeah, like the other commenters, I don’t think I agree that Charles is shrewder. He seems like an idiot but maybe less obvious about it. Like he gets the press to write that he wants peace and misses his grandchildren but frogmore disproves that. Being shrewd would have had him actually allowing the Sussexes to keep frogmore and visit sometimes, making the press happy while he pretended to visit them for more than 5m at most.

      • Wannabefarmer says:

        It was said of his namesake, never said a bad thing, never did a wise one either. Captures him perfectly.

      • Mary Pester says:

        @Jais, I laughed out loud when I read this rubbish. What planet do they live on? Charles isn’t shrewd (unless they are talking about his being married to one). If he was shrewd and he saw the paedophile as more of a problem than prince harry and his family, WHY has he invited Andrew to Balmoral? It seems they just can’t get their acts together when the are briefing their tame paps. Good god there is even a petition in Scotland to get Andrews Inverness title removed! So having the sick little man at Balmoral is a real slap in the face for the Scotts. Charlie will go down in history as “Charles the last”. The man who broke the crown and I hope that there is no monarchy by the time William gets to try and sit on the throne. It will be worthless by then

    • notasugarhere says:

      I agree. Charles is no peach but he’s not the one running a one-sided war against the Montecito Royals. That’s coming straight from W&K.

      • Tessa says:

        Yes that is true but Charles allowed and perhaps condones William s behavior to harry and Meghan
        Charles is a bad father

      • notasugarhere says:

        I agree Charles is a bad father, but I don’t think he has control over William. He hasn’t for two decades if not longer since William has been a terror since he was a toddler. Even less control now that William has the Duchy money all to himself.

        If he had control over William, William would have been working 500 engagements a year since he was 25. There would be no separate KP spin machine. W&K wouldn’t have made such a show of stealing the spotlight at the ConAThon with their late arrival and video.

        William has the same whiplash, out of control temperament as Diana. Charles (and QEII) had absolutely no idea how to deal with William. I wouldn’t be surprised if Charles was afraid (physically) of him.

      • SURE says:

        I never saw D’s “whiplash, out of control temperament” but I did see KFC behave like that at the ascension ceremony and at the coronation.

      • Tessa says:

        NotAsugar I think william is now more like his father. William idled away his twenties and was cosseted and protected. His mother was deceased then and Charles parenting was bad. He let william scapegoat harry . If charles could not handle it he could have asked the queen to give William work that he had to complete. Charles is a weak person if he can’t control his son. Charles priorty was Camilla. Charles and William share their thinking they are special more special and have sense of entitlement. And Charles and William both have bossy fits

      • Tessa says:

        Meant to say h I s s y fits and both have the same trait of not taking responsibility for their own actions. Charles and William share the same temperament

      • notasugarhere says:

        Diana shoved her stepmother down the stairs and boasted of the accomplishment. She cut people out of her life for petty, petty things and never forgave them. William does the same thing.

        Diana had multiple emotional issues and control issues before she met Charles. William inherited the worst of both parents, including the worst parts of both their temperaments.

  6. Geegee says:

    I just seeth evey time they call cowmila the queen. She is not the queen. She is the consort.

    • MinorityReport says:

      Literally every consort has just been called “Queen,” it’s her title because she’s his wife and it follows tradition. Queen Mary, Queen Elizabeth (later the Queen Mother). This is how it’s always been done.

      I know we all hate Camilla, but wanting to be called something no other monarch’s wife has is silly. Everyone knows she’s not Queen Regnant.

      • Laura D says:

        @MinorityReport – I know what you’re saying is correct BUT I’m with @Geegee on this one! I know that if she had been given the title Queen Consort we would all have gone ahead and called her Queen Camilla anyway. We saw it with Diana. Her correct title was “Diana, Princess of Wales” but, most of us called her Princess Diana or Princess Di (I still call her Lady Di!)

        Why I find it irksome is because when Camilla married Charles we were told that she wouldn’t become queen she would be Princess Consort. Then we were told that the REAL queen agreed to her becoming Queen Consort. I personally wasn’t too happy with the announcement as I felt that Charles and Camilla had gone back on their word to the British people. I was apocalyptic when we told that the consort was going to be dropped. QEII was still warm in her grave and they went against her wishes. With those few small actions Charles and Camilla showed us that they cannot be trusted to keep their word.

      • notasugarhere says:

        If people chose to believe something Charles said nearly 20 years ago? That’s what they chose to believe. The people had the chance to change the laws to make the title Prince/Princess Consort. Especially in 2012/3 when the royal laws were being overhauled. It doesn’t matter what Charles said or didn’t say; the People didn’t change the law.

  7. Brassy Rebel says:

    Except for the part about Andrew, I just had to side-eye this whole thing. Like every sentence. It seems like they’ve upped the ante on 🐂💩.

  8. MinorityReport says:

    Just off the headline: do you fucking think?! 🤦🏾‍♀️

  9. ML says:

    “It feels like more stuff is going to come out on Epstein and there are still unexploded bombs there.”

    Is this their way of saying that there’s stuff about to drop?

    • Concern Fae says:

      He has to know what the 12M settlement paid for, so Chuck has to know at least some of what hasn’t come out yet.

    • Shawna says:

      It feels like that sentence was the real point of the whole article. Bread crumbs.

    • Wannabefarmer says:

      @ML

      Wasnt there a one-year ban on Virginia Giuffre talking about her experience with him? I think that time is up and maybe they fear she’s going to start talking?

  10. ThatsNotOkay says:

    Articles telling you what the king probably thinks. So dumb.

  11. MinorityReport says:

    He was overwhelmed by the duties and red boxes? Dude had 73 years to prepare for the top job and was basically doing it for the last several years. Is he also going to be forever learning like the Waleses?

  12. Amy Bee says:

    Charles didn’t rise above the situation with Harry and Meghan. He responded by smearing them after the Queen died, kicking them out of Frogmore, leaking the contents of a letter he wrote to Meghan and her response to his letter and he refusing to acknowledge his grandchildren as Prince and Princess until he was forced to by Harry and Meghan. Charles and the Palace are delusional.

  13. Jais says:

    So I know I’m overly invested in this but what is going to happen to frogmore??? Andrew living there has been shelved so it’s sitting there empty. It’s just that I distinctly remember a clip of Camilla Tominey on this morning saying that of course they can’t just let that house sit empty with the Sussexes only using it once a year. And now no one is in it. Unless, people are in it and we just don’t know about it.

    • Libra says:

      @jais, I think you’re correct about Frogmore; someone is staying there and my guess is that it is rented out at market rate. Where does that rent money go?

    • Becks1 says:

      Maybe that’s where William is living now in Windsor.

      • Jais says:

        I have literally been wondering exactly this. It’s modern and well-renovated, better than staying at Windsor castle. It’s private. So if he doesn’t take the helicopter to KP, he can stay there. I feel like it would honestly give William pleasure knowing he’s staying in the house Meghan and Harry were evicted from. Separated in Windsor. Private with 2 separate houses. Best William and Kate can get at this point if they can’t have royal lodge. The whole Andrew is moving into frogmore has just been a cover for the fact that William actually moved into frogmore. It’s a theory anyways.

      • MipMip says:

        I could see this. We know he’s not staying at Adelaide when he’s at Windsor. He would enjoy using the recently-appropriated home of his brother.

      • Becks1 says:

        @Jais yeah….it just weirdly fits, right? Charles kicked Harry out because he was being a petty vindictive b after Spare. But maybe it wasn’t entirely because of that, or maybe the timing worked out well for William. Pretty much as soon (simultaneously?) as Charles kicked H out, we started hearing that Andrew was going to move there and the Waleses were going to get Royal Lodge (presumably big enough they could live almost totally separate lives, which they can’t do at Adelaide, hence the helicopter to KP every night.)

        Now Andrew is staying put in Royal Lodge, and Frogmore sits empty. What if the bit about Andrew moving from Royal Lodge was put forward yet AGAIN by the Waleses, thinking it would force Charles’ hand, and instead it ended up making Charles look really bad (kicking out one son for the sexual predator of an uncle). Charles’ response was to give William Frogmore Cottage. We know he’s still going back to KP regularly, but maybe Frogmore is where he stays when its his night with the kids, or when he’s doing the school run in the AM, or whatever. It’s on the Windsor estate so highly unlikely anyone would find out about the separate residences from the outside.

        IDK. Just a random theory but it kind of works.

      • Jais says:

        It really does work when you lay it out like that @becks1. Either way, it makes me eagle-eye anything about frogmore that comes up in the press. Can’t imagine Jack and Eugenie are still there. Good for them if they are but it seems doubtful. So why not William? All he needs is the keys really. But who knows? Maybe it really is just sitting there empty.

  14. Eurydice says:

    What is happening here? A whole slew of articles that aren’t outright bashing Harry and Meghan? Just admitting Andrew is a bigger “problem” than H&M is kind of huge compared to all the briefing in the past 5+ years. Is everyone really moving on? It’s hard not to feel suspicious.

    • Becks1 says:

      It’s very weird, right? I mean of course Andrew is the bigger problem, he’s a HUGE problem, but for the BM to actually be admitting it??

  15. MsIam says:

    I just find it interesting that these articles go on and on about how vital Camilla is to Charles and Kate is William’s “strength” but Meghan’s support of Harry makes him weak and her a manipulator. I’m so over these cheap rags and their racist hacks! I remember the Diana years when the British royal family seemed somewhat glamorous and interesting but now its all so dreary.

  16. Krista says:

    Duh.

  17. Selene says:

    William a game changer? Sure, he may be king for a longer time (no one knows how long he’ll live) but I can definitely foresee him being power-drunk and an overall shitty king. Charles is more well rounded -by all his faults- more intellectual, curious and hardworking.

  18. Lala11_7 says:

    That Charles thinks that a non-mofo FACTOR like ANDREW is a bigger problem than his YOUNGEST Son & Wife…who has SNATCHED ALL the goodwill…charm…beauty…freshness & decency from that rotten family & exported it to the United States…IS HILARIOUS 🤣

  19. QuiteContrary says:

    This article is very focused on Charles’ happiness … “cheered to be cheered”… at having Camilla by his side to make him laugh.

    Shouldn’t the monarch be focused on the happiness of the British people? That’s the twisted patriarchal bargain of monarchy — the king is supposed to care about the well-being of his “subjects.” Charles can’t even do that, so everyone around him is obsessed with his happiness.

    As always, it’s all about Charles.

    As for the constant mentions of H&M in the same breath as Andrew, it’s just gross. Andrew is a disgusting perv. Of course he’s the monarchy’s biggest problem.

  20. jferber says:

    Really, Charles? You figured that out all by yourself? Amazing!

  21. ⁷Tree says:

    Andrew isn’t being frozen out. I don’t even blame Charles. I bet mother QE2 made a he’ll of a deal. Making Camilla queen consort was a huge ask. You know Charles wants to ship him and Edward off. Anne can stick around since her and chuck have different interest. Elizabeth gave them long leases and tried to give them their own houses because she knew Charles.
    Andrew still seems to be at all the big event and wearing robes. He just can’t speak.

    • notasugarhere says:

      Camilla was always going to be Queen Consort no matter what Charles said publicly. The laws were never changed, even when the idea was on the table in 2012. The People are at fault for Camilla’s title, not some secret deal between Charles and QEII.

      As for Andrew? If you grab a tiger by the ears, what do you do next?

      Harry and Meghan are not a problem, nor are they a danger to the monarchy. They can earn their own living and do not want a royal life.

      Andrew? If Charles doesn’t keep Andrew close, Andrew is an extreme danger. Charles has to keep him secured in a royal property and fund him the rest of his life, for fear of what more trouble Andrew might get into. More oligarch friends, having his life paid by Saudi royals. Who knows what else Andrew might get up to if Charles doesn’t keep him on a short leash.