Platell: King Charles made a dire mistake by accepting the scandal-ridden Yorks

In recent days, I’ve expressed my surprise that there seems to be a somewhat authentic outpouring of scorn for Prince Andrew and Sarah Ferguson right now. Andrew and Fergie have been making asses out of themselves for decades, most notably around their relationships with Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell. Those associations have been well-known for a long time, although the extent of the depravity and degeneracy is still being revealed. Which is where we are now: people have just learned that Sarah lied when she said she cut all ties to Epstein in 2011. Sarah was still in contact with him and sending him sycophantic apology emails. This seems to be some kind of breaking point? This is what did it, really? Not Andrew settling out of court with Virginia Giuffre? Not Andrew’s 2019 BBC interview? Wonders never cease. Well, the British tabloids have been on the warpath and something really interesting is happening. King Charles is getting heavily blamed for not taking care of this York situation years ago. An excerpt from Amanda Platell’s Daily Mail column:

In the decades since she married Prince Andrew in 1986, Fergie has committed many legendary missteps but in first befriending a man such as Epstein and then secretly carrying on their friendship when she knew exactly what sort of monster he was is surely the most egregious of them all and one from which she must not be allowed to recover.

The sad thing is that her actions do not just damage her reputation but the reputation of the institution of the monarchy itself. In indulging this reckless loose cannon and her worthless ex-husband for so many decades, King Charles and the rest of the Royal Family have tacitly accepted their outrageous excesses.

Not so the irascible but perceptive Prince Philip who, according to Andrew Lownie – the author of a brilliantly revealing biography of Prince Andrew that was recently serialised in the Daily Mail – questioned Fergie’s motives for marrying Andrew from the start. In Philip’s view, she was a dim-witted ‘girl on the make’. If only Charles had shown even a smidgen of his father’s insight. Instead of side-lining his greedy, scandal-riven brother Andrew in the wake of Epstein’s conviction on sex charges, the forgiving Charles – all too often too kind for his own good – allowed him and his wife to attend and be photographed at family occasions.

Not only were they welcomed back into the fold to the extent that they were included in the traditional walks to church at Christmas and Easter but, only last week, given front row seats at the funeral of the Duchess of Kent, where they proceeded to embarrass William and others.

What Charles doesn’t get is that every time he is pictured with the Yorks his reputation and that of the monarchy is diminished. They have come to represent everything the general public has come to resent: unearned, inherited privilege coupled with a lust for excess. The King should be less worried about breaching ancient royal protocol by banning Andrew and Fergie from ‘family’ events and more concerned with the feelings of his subjects.

At a time when polls are showing that support for the monarchy – not only among the young but even among devout loyalists – is sinking fast it is vital that he looks to the consequences his behaviour is having on his own credibility. Instead of wringing his hands and indulging his worthless parasite of a brother and his serially disgraced ex-wife, Charles should be focusing on the future of the monarchy. It is no exaggeration to say that, in the medium to long term, the very survival of the Windsors as a royal house could be at risk.

In the circumstances, no right-minded person – even a staunch monarchist like myself – will tolerate anything less than the complete removal of the Yorks from public life in perpetuity. Fergie may have been uncharitably christened the ‘Duchess of Pork’ due to her ongoing problems with her weight but now the expression relates to her legendary greed and taste for opulent living. From the very beginning she has been a blue-blood leech sucking the Royal Family dry. Now she is dragging them into a scandal which, in this woke world, I fear the monarchy may never fully recover from – unless action is taken now. The King must rue the day, three months ago, when he gave the duchess a very public display of endorsement at Ascot’s royal enclosure, almost genuflecting as he kissed the Duchess of York’s hand. It’s a picture that may well come back to haunt him.

[From The Daily Mail]

That part about Charles kissing Fergie’s hand is true, I looked up the photo and I’m including it below. Charles also said some nice stuff about Fergie during her cancer battle as well, and I think he genuinely has affection for her. As for the rest of this… I actually have a theory. My theory is that the lack of reaction from Charles and the palace is because they believed everything would blow over, like it’s blown over a million times before in the past 20 years. QEII did the most to protect Andrew in particular, because she believed that she could show the public that they could “forgive” him like she forgave him. It didn’t work out that way, and let’s face it, QEII largely set the stage for what’s happening now. Charles obviously gets some of the blame, but royalists are loath to point out that QEII did the most to protect the Yorks from any consequences of their actions.

Photos courtesy of Avalon Red, Backgrid, Cover Images.

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

60 Responses to “Platell: King Charles made a dire mistake by accepting the scandal-ridden Yorks”

  1. lady digby says:

    I am upset at the very different way Andrew and Sarah have been embraced compared to the nastiness meted out to the blameless Harry and Meg.

    • Tessa says:

      I think bringing out fergie and Andrew was a spite ful move by the royals. See they are accepted and sussexes are not.

    • 809Matriarch says:

      @LadyDigby
      I totally agree!

    • Megan says:

      I wonder how the family actually perceives Andrew and Fergie. The fact that they were in the front row at the Duchess of Kent’s funeral meant her family had no objections to their presence. Is the entire clan so entitled that they actually believe Andrew and Fergie are being unfairly targeted because grifting is the official family occupation?

    • KC says:

      Sarah is the quintessential horsey English girl that knows how to suck up, play the game but till know her place. Plus I suspect that with her you get what you see. When she first came in the scene everybody LOVED her. She really was a breath of fresh air.

      Now, subtracting her insane ability to grift and her predilction for sexual predators, I would imagine she is a blast to party with. That alone would entertain the stuck up royals.

  2. Tessa says:

    Most likely the queen was aware what was going on with Andrew but turned a blind eye. She bailed out Andrew by paying off the lawsuit against Andrew. I doubt charles will exile Andrew. Fergie is divorced but the queen let her back in the fold. Fergie and Andrew were on the rebound from serious relationships. His with koo stark and fergie had been living with daddy mcnally.

  3. Eurydice says:

    Yikes, these are some strong words. I notice the pass for William – that he was embarrassed by the Yorks at the funeral.

    • Tessa says:

      William had Andrew walking with his wife and children at a church walk not so long ago. Now peggs is shocked shocked

      • Eurydice says:

        Exactly. But interesting how this and the piece about Harry half-in are direct blows at Charles and bypass William.

      • ABritGuest says:

        This is why I said yesterday that I think these calls to ostracise Fergie and Andrew is directed by KP. The times said on Friday that William’s handling of Trump meant he was equipped to deal with Andrew & Harry. Now the same Mail that was celebrating Fergie being at royal events again especially when she joined the Christmas walk and had a piece just in June loving Charles kissing Fergie’s hand at Ascot, is saying she is damaging to the monarchy & calling for her to be ostracised.

        I don’t care what happens to Fergie & she deserves to be called out but a lot of hypocrisy. Journalists like Amanda & the BRF have devoted much more venom to the Sussexes than they ever have to the Yorks. The palace even briefed that at least the Yorks have been loyal and William briefed the times a few years ago that his main issue with Andrew was being ungrateful! The palace has been making noises about distancing themselves from Andrew since 2019 newsnight disaster whilst then trying to find ways to bring him back as a working royal (remember he took a meeting with a Chinese ambassador & gave a message from Elizabeth in 20201), or since 2022 normalise having him back at public events. William & Kate drove with him to church at Balmoral in 2023.

        I also don’t think the Mail etc actually care about Fergie’s email or Andrew’s alleged criminal claims which Amanda barely touches on here. The Mail is a big campaigning paper & if they wanted could have joined calls for a Met police investigation into Andrew.
        So im inclined to think this piece is more about hitting back at Charles for recent critical articles about William They all suck so may they take each other out.

        I also think William still wants Royal lodge. Most articles I’ve seen have mentioned their needing to downsize and leave RL which is odd as Charles had claimed he stopped giving funding to Andrew so what’s the issue/correlation? Plus I always doubted those reports that Forest lodge was going to be a forever home for the Wales. It’s not grand enough for a monarch & like with Adelaide cottage they’d just claim it’s not big enough& the press would give them cover to move especially if they claim they’d pay for any renovations etc to Royal lodge themselves.

        It’s interesting that Fergie’s friends in the press and maybe in BP are still ensuring some sympathetic coverage for her with even bbc asking if she can make another comeback. Also interesting that Amanda references poor polling for the monarchy.

      • jais says:

        Yeah, it definitely feels like there’s a push from KP on this. Conveniently changing the subject from the way the Wales courted Trump. If Charles doesn’t do anything, then we will see if William does anything about the Yorks when he is king. it may be that William wants Charles to do something so that he doesn’t have to. But it may end up falling on William. And what’s he gonna do?

  4. Yes I agree that QEII did the most to protect her favorite son. I also believe before she died that she went to Chuckles to make sure he protected him and Chuckles got her to accept that Horsilla would be called queen consort. Of course Chuckles went further with that by actually insisting she be called queen and she was crowned at his con-a-nation. Still he has protected him for the most part but he has not allowed him at royal duties.

    • bisynaptic says:

      There’s no real historical point to crowning a consort who is not the mother of future monarchs. Camilla’s coronation was Charles’s exercise in gratuitous self-indulgence.

  5. Tessa says:

    Philip kept fergie away for the most part
    She was allowed to events involving her daughter’s. The queen invited her to more events.

  6. Dee(2) says:

    I think it’s fundamentally because they don’t see it as Andrew having done anything really wrong. And all of them cut back room deals for extra money so they definitely don’t see what Fergie is doing as wrong. They all leverage their names and access to them for jobs, sponsorships, etc. I mean why else are the York sisters, Anne’s kids, etc always in the middle east?

    Plus, we have to remember just because they are patrons of organizations about sexual abuse, domestic violence, mental health it doesn’t mean that they’ve done any of the training that people who work in those organizations may have done. They know what public perception is, but it doesn’t mean they’ve internalized consent and coercion, and trafficking issues. And look at how they react to actual mental health issues! So, in their mind Virginia Giuffre was ” old enough to know what she was doing”.

    • TigerMcQueen says:

      I think it’s part they don’t think Andrew has done anything wrong. And also part they have to keep Andrew in the fold (and reasonably happy) because he and Fergie know a lot about the inner workings of the firm. Charles probably thinks it’s best to keep Andrew quiet and under his control. So Andrew keeps the lodge no matter how much Willy tantrums, though his inclusion in church events may be cut off for a while.

      • Robert Wright says:

        IIRC, wasn’t Andrew insinuating he’d write a book if he got pushed out of Royal Lodge after being told he’d have to leave, and then all of a sudden he had the funds to stay? His book would bring down the whole cabal since his would have information regarding the Queen?

      • Jaded says:

        IKR? It’s the old “boys will be boys” club of which Philip was a founding member. And Fergie goes right along with it, she of the rambunctious Horsey set bouncing around like an annoying puppy wanting to play along with the big boys. Marrying her was one of Andrew’s biggest mistakes, they’re both much too alike. Childish, uncontrollable, entitled, embarrassing grifters.

    • Becks1 says:

      They definitely don’t think andrew did anything wrong. I mean I’m sure the Queen was like “well of course young women are going to throw themselves at him!” and how many people have defended Andrew by arguing the age of consent? (which is meaningless when someone is trafficked…..)

      I’m sure they think his interview was embarrassing and that his name being tied to epstein’s is embarrassing since Epstein is such a pariah even in death, and I’m sure they think Fergie was tacky for how she went about getting money from him, but I don’t think they think the actions themselves are wrong.

      and that’s how they can still accept him at christmas and easter and family funerals and the like.

  7. MSJ says:

    They’re all shady and greedy. Charles, William, Andrew, the whole lot of them. They should look into William’s foundation, Earthshot and Homewards. They’re all set up like money laundering schemes designed to benefit them, their ‘friends and acquaintances’ (take look at the network trustees and staff they hire for those schemes) – peddling money and influence. The royal titles are peddle on a daily basis. Look behind the curtains of all of them, not just the Yorks. The UK probably has more charities and foundations per capital than any other country. If one takes a close look they’ll likely see it’s a system used to peddle influence and launder money.

    • Gemini says:

      Earthshot is a carbon copy of Andrew’s Pitch At The Palace.

      • MSJ says:

        @Gemini – I agree.

        They use the Royal titles and influence to meet within palace walls and socialize with prospects for financial gain and align with powerful ‘entities’. They then make deals the public is not aware of until many many years later when there is a scandal.

        I wouldn’t be surprised to learn at some point in the future that the reported private meeting between the Wales and Trumps had some personal benefit for both attached with it. They’re all shady and greedy.

        Melania is producing a docu-series for a deal she has with Amazon so maybe she recorded some content with the Wales at the castle during that ‘private meeting’. Heaven knows the Wales are now very interested in appearing on commercial films. They’ve been eager to perform for the cameras to compete with the Sussexes since the Sussexes signed with Netflix and produced successful Netflix content. I wonder if the Wales get paid for any of the content they have appeared in and how much. We’ll likely never know, shady stand greedy. They have the Duchy money and taxpayer funding, yet they are greedy for more. As I said, they’re all very much like the Yorks, shady and greedy.

        Thankfully the Sussexes are far away from that toxic institution and the dysfunctional, greedy ‘mafia’ family where they are safe and financially independent.

  8. Miranda says:

    Their reluctance to cut off Paedrew and Fergie would actually be somewhat understandable if this was a normal family. Many families have members who have disgraced themselves and even committed crimes, but are still treated kindly. But the Windsors are a business. They’re colleagues, not family. They rather openly dislike and constantly brief against each other, and it’s clear there’s little love lost between them. That’s why it’s suspicious as hell that they’re not embracing this chance to humble the most problematic members once and for all.

  9. Maxine Branch says:

    With the Windsor’s there is always more at play. These text messages did not suddenly resurface. Not interested enough to look farther but this all sounds suspicious to me. Just happy the Sussexes are no where near this stench.

    • MsIam says:

      Someone on here said that Bloomberg News had/has the emails. BN is 88% owned by Michael Bloomberg, backer of Earthshit. So, I’m sure it’s just a coincidence that Charles is taking all of the heat and no one is talking about William’s strange behavior and laziness anymore. Charlie’s was the hero in the Harry reunion saga and William was the villain. Now it’s all been reversed. Just a coincidence.

  10. SarahCS says:

    The difference is Andrew is a man and blood royal, Fergie is a woman and married in so unless the powers that be REALLY want to protect her (and clearly they don’t to a high enough degree) it’s open season.

    I also agree that the palace thought this would blow over given that everything else involving the Yorks has eventually.

  11. Mads says:

    This is a palace (KP) sanctioned attack. William was livid having to stand next to Andrew at the Duchess of Kent’s funeral. He’s been briefing like crazy about how he thinks his father is weak for not fully exiling the Yorks, and to be called out on social media for acknowledging him in a brief exchange of words enraged him.

    This being exposed now suits William, it’s a distraction from him being pictured next to Andrew and allows him to get the narrative back to Charles being weak.

    Can you imagine the stories that William knows are sitting in the media vaults that never see the light of day? No wonder they’re petrified of the press.

  12. Julie says:

    All I want to say is that I am glad the Sussexes are far far away. Otherwise they would have find a way to blame them.

  13. Geegee says:

    I love the way the press conveniently forget all the times charles has associated with this sort.

  14. Penny says:

    I think andrew and fergie knows where skeleton are buried. I also think this is coming from william camp to take heat of him. I also think Philip might be fergie father and Andrew is not his son. We know andrew doesnt look like Philip at all and no signs of balding with dyslexia in yorks where lord porchester have the same.

    Also william is using this to get royal lodge for him and his family.

  15. Gemini says:

    Fergie and Andrew’s dealings and association with Epstein require a police investigation and a prosecution follow through. Yet all the press demands is family banishment as punishment as if that can ever replace a lawful punishment. If they faced the law properly, then the royal family might have had an excuse to stand by them.

    The royals knew everything all along and someone decided to pull the trigger because Wills was photographed talking to a smiling Andrew at the funeral.

  16. ParkRunMum says:

    this reminds me of *so much* unfinished business in the UK, where the default setting in reaction to any real boondoggle is, get up, brush yourself off, turn the page, it will blow over, chin up, etc…. In the best vein, this is bracing and life-affirming. In the worst vein, it enables really rank characters to continue to prey on the unsuspecting public. There is *so much* corruption here that is couched in terms of, “I can vouch for him, he’s a friend, great guy,” etc….. like the mafia. But with public school ties. It came out when Boris Johnson was in office, after his parties, and his crony contracts, awarding millions of pounds in public money to his mates, then celebrating whilst everyone else was in lockdown. It’s always one rule for the well-connected, another for everyone else. The UK is different in that way from the Continent, there is more hypocrisy and more keeping up appearances. I think it’s because, after WWII, so much “high society” and government on the Continent was seen having collaborated with Nazi occupation regimes, or simply having profited from them, there was an Augean stables clean out. Here, the opposite happened: the war gave all those circles a new lease on life, albeit the UK embraced Socialism a few decades before the European Community did. But this was another reason why the Continent was so stringent about rules that applied to everyone, on a level playing field: they were building a market. It took them longer to pivot to the social model. The UK embraced the welfare state earlier, with more gusto, as a moral crusade, not an economic system, which ironically gave aristocrats a new lease on life, with the noblesse oblige patronages and performance of public virtue. And they were not “commercial,” so, not taboo, as, say, middle class people are, here. Still.

  17. Blujfly says:

    Charles has done nothing but continue the Queen’s “policies.” In fact he actually allegedly tried to get him out of Royal lodge which the Queen certainly didn’t do.

  18. Zapp Brannigan says:

    In my opinion a couple of things are happening here. A&F are not being protected due to them being family, but due to the fact it’s safer to have then inside the tent peeing out rather than outside peeing in.

    This recent “revelation” feels like it’s coming from KP and William to distract from the lazy accusations, the comparisons to Harry in achievement, and those photos comparing his meeting Trump with Hitler meeting E&W.

    Also Sarah as the former married in will be thrown to the wolves to protect not Andrew, but Charles involvement with child abusers, see Jimmy Saville, Bishop Bell and Williams godfather, Laurens Van Der Post sa a friends teen daughter resulting in a pregnancy.

    This family have a long history of close involvement with CSA, going back to Mountbatten and Kincora that we know of, at least.

    • Brassy Rebel says:

      This is my theory of the case. Charles doesn’t tolerate the Yorks because he’s too kind for his own good. Ask his gardeners and other staff how kind he is. Charles handles this York situation very gingerly because of his own sordid history of which his brother is, no doubt, keenly aware.

      • MsIam says:

        Charles tolerates the Yorks because that’s what these people do. Everything is swept under the rug, people are paid off, no one is held accountable and it’s business as usual. William knows full and well he would do the same thing as Charles if he were king, just like Charles is doing the same thing as his mother. William just needs the heat taken off of him because people were commenting about his strange behavior and laziness. Fergie was the scapegoat this time instead of Harry or Meghan.

    • AOC says:

      Precisely, the whole nest of vipers have a despicable history of associating with and involvement with paedophiles. Mountbatten was a prolific abuser of young male children. The Kincora scandal was hushed up but the dogs in the street knew and also knew that because of Mountbatten’s involvement nothing would be done about it.
      Andrew is a sleaze but he knows where the bodies are buried and Lizzie and Charlie are terrified he will uncoVer those skeletons.

  19. Amy Bee says:

    My question is why is the press coming down on Fergie now? And why aren’t they as hard on Andrew who has been identified as a perpetrator? Plus they constantly equate Harry with Andrew. I can’t take the press seriously on this matter.

    • Eurydice says:

      They’re coming down on her now because they thought her story with Epstein was over. Now they find she sent him loving emails like some prison groupie. She has lied so many times about so many things, she’s spent millions and millions and somehow keeps getting bailed out, and she’s played “poor little me” the whole time. She’s a thoroughly appalling creature.

      As for Andrew, they’re coming down on him through criticism of Charles. He’s been protecting Andrew and it’s his responsibility to do something about him.

    • Truejune55 says:

      That build up about a big royal story – then this? It’s likely this has been known for years. Sounds a bit like kp feeding fergie to the wolves to cover up whatever the real big royal story was going to be. Fergie is awful and clueless but so? There’s a lot worse in the rf. I want to know what the real story was going to be.

    • Amy Bee says:

      My point is that the press made excuses for Andrew and Fergie being associated with Epstein for years. There has always been a difference in tone and scrutiny when the press talked about the Yorks compared to how they dealt with Harry and Meghan. For the press to be outraged now when they weren’t when the accusations first came out is ridiculous. A few years ago the Telegraph came out in in defense of Andrew and that was after he did the BBC interview. There was absolutely no outrage when he settle with Virginia.

      • Eurydice says:

        That was when Elizabeth was alive, but times change. Andrew isn’t the favorite anymore, just someone to be tolerated, if that. And I don’t know that the relationship between the BM and the royals is as solid as it used to be. It seems more fractured with the rivalry between BP and KP.

  20. Plums says:

    They haven’t been cut off because the kind of dark shit and degeneracy they’re involved in is generally common in their social sphere and they don’t see anything wrong with it. It’s only us plebs who are disgusted by pedophiles and the sex trafficking of tween and teenage girls.

    The criticism is all a farce they feel they have to put on because people who are revolted by that kind of evil outnumber them. But the Windsors are awash in that sewage and have been for generations. Imo, everyone who reaches that level of wealth and social power is susceptible to being corrupted and jaded to the most horrific shit humans are capable of.

    • MaisiesMom says:

      I mean, QEII and Philip started exchanging letters when she was 13. Of course they were not doing anything physical as far as we know, but technically their courtship began when she was barely more than a child and he was what? 18? Also a teen but technically an adult and old enough to serve in the military. I know things were different then but…..yikes. I’m not judging her for that. It was her father who allowed it, after all. She was an impressionable girl. I’m just saying that she had an antiquated and even warped view of how much teenage girls should be shielded from romantic or sexual contact with older men.

      • Tessa says:

        Mountbatten his Uncle encouraged the match. Her parents were not entirely happy with Philip so they insisted Philip and Elizabeth wait a year before getting engaged and married. The couple wanted the wedding to be in 1946 but the engagement was postponed until 1947. Elizabeth also went with her parents and Margaret on a royal tour in 1946

      • bisynaptic says:

        She WAS a child.

      • Tessa says:

        Yes and she was very sheltered.

  21. QuiteContrary says:

    Charles isn’t “too kind” for his own good — he’s transactional. As others have noted, he keeps Pedrew close because Pedrew could spill a lot of royal tea on Charles and other royals.

    Charles took back the Sussexes’ only safe home in the UK because he needed to appear to punish Harry after Harry revealed his truth in “Spare” and on “Oprah.” That wasn’t kind — again, that was transactional. Harry had broken the deal: safety for silence. Now, Charles seems to want to reconcile with Harry, not out of the kindness of his heart, but because it will yield him a better legacy.

    Charles has no moral core. He doesn’t care if someone’s a pedo.

  22. therese says:

    There are only certain things that are considered unforgiveable in the Windsor family. Telling on each other is one of them. Not pedophilia. Having an Oprah interview and writing a book is treason and unforgiveable. Not hurting children.

  23. LynZ says:

    I think everyone in the RF and BM purposely cater to the Yorks because in truth they don’t think they have done anything wrong. The entire RF is filled with perverts and pedophiles. They (including themselves) embrace and surround themselves with all kinds of deviants and grifters. No wonder they are incapable of understanding good people like Harry and Meghan.

  24. bisynaptic says:

    “In Philip’s view, she was a dim-witted ‘girl on the make’.”
    — LOL, what kind of “girl” did they think would be willing to marry Andrew?

    LThey have come to represent everything the general public has come to resent: unearned, inherited privilege coupled with a lust for excess.“
    — You don’t say…

Commenting Guidelines

Read the article before commenting.

We aim to be a friendly, welcoming site where people can discuss entertainment stories and current events in a lighthearted, safe environment without fear of harassment, excessive negativity, or bullying. Different opinions, backgrounds, ages, and nationalities are welcome here - hatred and bigotry are not. If you make racist or bigoted remarks, comment under multiple names, or wish death on anyone you will be banned. There are no second chances if you violate one of these basic rules.

By commenting you agree to our comment policy and our privacy policy

Do not engage with trolls, contrarians or rude people. Comment "troll" and we will see it.

Please e-mail the moderators at cbcomments at gmail.com to delete a comment if it's offensive or spam. If your comment disappears, it may have been eaten by the spam filter. Please email us to get it retrieved.

You can sign up to get an image next to your name at Gravatar.com Thank you!

Leave a comment after you have read the article

Save my name and email in this browser for the next time I comment