Hugo Vickers’ new royal book about Queen Elizabeth II is full of ridiculous and offensive stories about Prince Harry and Meghan. Vickers was so eager to slam Harry and Meghan, he made QEII sound absolutely ghastly, like a bigoted, controlling old fart who tried to convince Harry to hold off marrying Meghan. According to Vickers, QEII also made a crack about the Sussexes’ move to California, saying that Harry left royal work to “be a carer for Archie.” As in, Harry chose fatherhood over… allowing his family to harm and exile his wife? Well, after the initial rush of anti-Sussex stories, finally there are some excerpts about Prince Andrew. You know, Jeffrey Epstein’s BFF and recipient of dozens of trafficking victims. According to Vickers, while QEII had such strong opinions about Harry and Meghan’s 24-7 awfulness, the situation with Andrew elicited little more than a shrug.

Queen Elizabeth II did not believe her disgraced son Andrew “had behaved improperly” — despite all evidence to the contrary, a new book claims. Until her 2022 death, the monarch continued to cling to the image of her favorite son as he was described by the photographer Cecil Beaton, dating back to when Andrew was just four years old: “Cheerful and polite and willing to please.”

“While others did not share this impression, certainly in later life, it is almost certainly that polite little boy who was fixed in the queen’s head,” royal writer Hugo Vickers states in his new book, “Queen Elizabeth II: A Personal History.”

According to multiple reports, the queen is believed to helped her favorite son fund the reported $12 million settlement in his 2022 civil sex abuse case with Virginia Giuffre, a victim of billionaire pedophile Jeffrey Epstein.

Vickers writes that “she did not believe he had behaved improperly.”

Still, Andrew’s “problems caused her considerable distress in the last years of her life. She was deeply concerned about his future.”

So much so that “one idea, developed in the last year of her life, [was] to set up a foundation that he could administer.

This consideration came after Andrew’s disastrous on-camera BBC interview in November 2019, when he was taken to task about his friendship with Epstein — which led to the then-prince being stripped of his military titles and patronages by the queen. Andrew had “deluded” himself the interview had gone well, Vickers writes. But “within the week he was asked to step down from public life, and from that day onwards the only events he took part in publicly were family funerals, and he sometimes joined the Royal Family for Christmas and Easter services.”

The queen, however, seemingly tuned out much of the public criticism of her son.

“Following the interview he could do no right,” said Vickers of public opinion. “There was even criticism when he escorted his mother into Westminster Abbey for Prince Philip’s memorial service in March 2022, both having travelled from Windsor in the same car.

“It is fortunate that she did not live to witness the dénouement” — referring to her son, now known as Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor, having been stripped of his “Prince” and “Duke of York” titles by his brother King Charles last October, and his February arrest over allegations he leaked trade secrets to Epstein.

[From Page Six]

Let’s just get this straight. At the same time frame in which QEII was constantly bitching about Harry and Meghan and ranting about their move to California, QEII was also “distressed” about what would happen to her poor p3dophile son, the one who had to borrow $12 million to pay off his trafficking victim. Vickers is supposedly sympathetic to Queen Elizabeth, and the book is supposedly about how she could do no wrong and her instincts were correct about everyone and everything. So a QEII defender is arguing that Harry and Meghan basically contributed to QEII’s death because they were financially supporting themselves, and yet in her last months, QEII wanted to throw millions of dollars/pounds into a half-assed “foundation” so that Andrew would have a cash flow. I don’t know, you guys. Maybe Vickers IS right. Maybe QEII really was a huge a–hole. That seems to be the only conclusion.

Photos courtesy of Avalon Red, Instar, Cover Images, Backgrid.