Prince Andrew ‘will not have a ceremonial role’ during the coronation

Prince Andrew was included in the Windsors’ Christmas at Sandringham. He was even allowed to walk to church with the family, in full view of the public and photographers. Andrew was also included fully in all of his mother’s funeral events. The only change King Charles made was refusing to allow Andrew to wear his military uniform for the actual funeral and procession. My point is that Charles is actually making a point of including Andrew at royal events, so I wouldn’t be surprised to see Andrew feature prominently at the coronation. Now, however, royal sources are insisting that Andrew will NOT have a “ceremonial role” during the proceedings. A distinction without a difference? Because they’re not saying that Charles is ordering his brother to stay away.

The Duke of York will have no ceremonial role at the Coronation because he is not a working member of the Royal family, The Mail on Sunday understands. Discussions are taking place behind the scenes about what role – if any – Prince Andrew might perform during the Coronation. The King is said to feel it would not be appropriate to include him in an official position.

Andrew is still a Knight of the Garter, the ancient order of chivalry dating back to 1348, and, traditionally, Garter Knights have performed significant roles during Coronation ceremonies. When the late Queen was crowned in 1953, four Knights of the Garter were chosen to support her majesty by standing at the four corners of the Coronation Chair during the anointing. Some have suggested that Prince William and the King’s three siblings – Anne, Andrew and Edward – could perform the job.

But last night sources close to the Palace dismissed the idea that Andrew could play such a symbolic part. Nor will he be invited to stand on the balcony at Buckingham Palace with other members of the family during the Coronation celebrations.

It is unclear whether Andrew will even be permitted to wear his garter robes for the Coronation. Despite remaining a Garter Knight, Andrew was banned from last year’s annual public procession. Instead, he joined other Garter Knights for the private part of the day. His private office did not reply to a request for comment, and Buckingham Palace declined to comment.

[From The Daily Mail]

Again, no one is saying that Andrew will be banned from the Clowning. He will absolutely be there. What they’re arguing about behind-the-scenes is what he’ll wear and whether he’ll be allowed to participate in any of the symbolic ring-kissing bullsh-t. Surely the answer is pretty simple, right? Just ban him from the ceremony. I don’t get why the Windsors can’t figure that out. Andrew shouldn’t be there – he’s a global embarrassment, he’s still wanted by the FBI for questioning, he literally paid off the woman he raped. If and when Andrew turns up at the Chubbly in whatever feathered, velvet-caped ensemble, just know that his family is totally fine with that visual.

Photos courtesy of Avalon Red, Cover Images.

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

23 Responses to “Prince Andrew ‘will not have a ceremonial role’ during the coronation”

Comments are Closed

We close comments on older posts to fight comment spam.

  1. Tessa says:

    And yet the media or some rarely even write about Andrew. Charles should worry about what a bad look it is to have Andrew in garter robes .

    • Anance says:

      He’s more worried about whatever tell-all book Andrew may write. Chuck is doing everything short of reinstating him to placate him.

      Sadly Chuck probably does not think Andrew did anything wrong. However, if he reinstates Andrew, the hard line he took against Harry will bite him. So — he’s between two huge stolen diamonds.

  2. Noki says:

    Which makes me wonder why Andrew didn’t wait until after the Chubbly to ignite his plans for Victoria. Does he not care if he gets banished from the ceromonies?

    • Tacky says:

      It’s to ensure he is part of the ceremonies. He is so divorced from reality, he thinks he can reverse the settlement, get an apology, and prance into the Chubbly in fancy robes.

  3. K8erade says:

    Andrew is a parasite and should be the poster child for why the UK should become a republic.

    • JoJo says:

      What happened to ‘no public appearances’. This farce of an event is a public one not a private family one. He should not be there. I don’t know a single person who wants to see his smug, lying, arrogant face.

      The more they write about the arrangements and details of this coronation the more disgusted with them all I become.

      • etso says:

        He thinks that he can claim to be an associate of Epstein so that Virginia can’t sue . . . but he’d be self-identifying as an associate of Epstein, so . . .

  4. Cessily says:

    Charles and the Royal family embrace the pedophiles and rapists in their inner circle. That fact can not be disputed, the worse they are the closer to the crown they are allowed to get. Lets you know they have no moral compass whatsoever. The fact that they are the head the Church of England is such a joke. Jimmy Savile, Jeffery Epstein, G Maxwell, are just some of the most recent. It sure makes one wonder just how involved the Royals are in sex trafficking and crimes of rape.

    https://la.indymedia.org/js/?v=cont&url=/news/2015/02/267367.json

    • Peanut Butter says:

      Cessily, that’s quite the list of predation and assault. So much damage caused by these awful people

    • Brassy Rebel says:

      Cessily, if even half the things in that link are true, this family is even more deeply disturbed than I ever imagined.

    • Truthiness says:

      On that list Jimmy Saville and Sir Laurens van der Post were especially close to Charles. If Andrew isn’t kept close, he’ll release plenty via surrogates. I wonder why some of the time (Christmas) Andrew’s been snapped looking haunted (sunken dark eyes, looking back at peripheries, insecure poses). Maybe it’s just random but I hope he is feeling haunted/hunted in the most Shakespearian way possible.

    • Jaded says:

      Not included in the list is former Church of England bishop Peter Ball, a close friend of Charles, who was convicted in 2015 of sexually abusing 18 teens and young men. https://www.insider.com/prince-charles-history-with-pedophile-priest-peter-ball-2020-1

  5. Layla says:

    Not gonna talk about the paedophile because he’s a pos but thinking about all the fantasising about the chubbly from the rota and I’ve been thinking… is it possible that Harry would have a much better chance/opportunity of getting Chuck to hear his point without lady Macbeth (Camilla) and Lord Farquad (William) whispering in his ears? Because for all the screeching about how H&M have trashed the family, Charles and the Queen came out the best out of all of them. Yes he cut off their security and that definitely gives him the worst dad of the year award but from what we’ve read in the memoir as well as what we’ve heard in the documentary, Charles generally liked Meghan (the financial element does get me though because racism) but they’ve both been depicted as having a good relationship (the wedding, meetings bts, Meghan being the ONLY one to curtsy to Charles as pow). Idk but to me, Farquad is a real thorn in the side and I’m curious as to what everyone else thinks about this? If you guys disagree with my point I’m okay with that too but I’m curious

  6. UNCDancer says:

    So the cost of living crisis is over in the UK, right? Everybody is fine they can heat their homes feed their children, yeah? That has to be the case because I can’t understand why the UK would go through with this massive display of ostentatious wealth if their people were still struggling. /sarcasm

  7. HeyKay says:

    All these comments are so correct.

  8. Mary Pester says:

    Excuse me, but what the fk is wrong with this family.? How the hell is he even still part of the “garter”idiots when it is supposed to be about chivalry!!!! Have they any idea what” CHIVALRY “actually means. Christ they get more sickening and hypocritical every sodding day

    • kelleybelle says:

      Yep, Andrew should’ve been put out to pasture a long time ago but they insist on featuring this idiot with everything they do … except when they know it will look especially bad, and then they say he has covid. Gag me. They’re murderous bastards.

    • Lady D says:

      It’s the chivalry part that makes me gag, too. Cannot fathom why he was allowed to join in the first place.

  9. Mabs A'Mabbin says:

    Lmao @ that get-up.

  10. ThatsNotOkay says:

    Andrew thinks it should be he who is to be crowned king. Charles should keep Andrew at arm’s length and far away from himself, and even William and Harry. He’d then position himself as regent to George. Conniving, evil lot.

  11. Blue Nails Betty says:

    Andrew is a sex trafficking rapist and William is constantly incandescent with rage and tried to push his Black sister-in-law into dying by suicide.

    Please, tell me again about this royal group of “ ancient order of chivalry”.

  12. QuiteContrary says:

    The cosplaying of these organizations is ridiculous. (I feel the same way about the Knights of Columbus.)

  13. Bisynaptic says:

    Andrew hasn’t done anything that countless other royals/aristocrats haven’t done—and they all know it. Banning him, based on his behavior, would not only be the height of hypocrisy, but it would undermine the very rationale for inherited status.