Andrew. Again.

[MrsLeonFarrell]

BBC News - Questions over Andrew's judgement and finances raised again
www.bbc.com/news/articles/cx26q9d42g1o

At this point I think we really have to ask when he has ever displayed good judgement. Thank goodness he isn't a working royal anymore.

The crowds at Xmas are small. It’s different if it’s a large crowd, where booing can be masked by those around you. So it would be very unlikely to have anyone boo.

However, I can’t believe anyone, even those that class themselves as monarchists, would want Andrew there.

NO ONE LIKES HIM

NO ONE DEFENDS HIM

NO ONE BELIEVES HE SHOULD HAVE ANY PUBLIC ROLE WITH HIS FAMILY

Theres no gotcha moment that Meghan n Harry fans can put upon the rest of us. He’s a fucking disgrace and he’s been called out by all sides.

And let’s be clear, this is what’s going on here. There are some posters on this thread who are ardent Meghan fans- look at the POLO and ARO threads but are trying to disguise this as an exercise in the virtues of a republic.

Those of us that are regulars can see straight through it.

Or even that he will make allegations whether true or not, and mud sticks.

I am sure there was press out there at one point, that he might write a book, supposedly about his naval career, but maybe that put the wind up the rest of the family worrying what else he might say

I've often wondered if the reason Andrew hasn't been brought to heel is that he's got too much dirt on others

I've said the same many a time, @Honeycrisp - after all he's been among them for a lifetime and I'd be amazed if he didn't have stories to tell if he wished to do so

No defence of Andrew however I also remember him as the dashing war hero and women throwing themselves at him. Also some saying he’d make a better king than Charles as he was the oh so handsome one. Ridiculous when you think about it.

We’ve learnt more about him over the years and I wonder whether the adulation he got when younger just made him think he could do no wrong. Whatever he thinks he’s a liability and the RF need to take heed.

isn't it a coincidence that once these people have the palace PR removed they appear to be deeply unpleasant people with very dodgy dealings?
One may almost think that's what they're all like whilst putting out their fluffy pr messages

Andrew would go anywhere for money. His Business Envoy role suited him as it's tit for tat.
Same reason he cultivated a relationship with Epstein. He wasn't in New York for the women but handouts. When he visited and was offered sex, he could hardly say, "no thanks, I'm only here for the cash."

Yes, but of course, he'd need to have the brain to remember any such stories, and the wits to tell them in a convincing and compelling way, lest he become known as an unreliable narrator, or "curator" of dodgy recollections...

Fair point, hepsitemiz
That said I wouldn't trust the "narration" of any of them - it's just that some still have whipping boys advisers to blame when it all goes wrong and some don't

One may almost think that's what they're all like whilst putting out their fluffy pr messages

As mentioned above "one" already does wonder that, Notmoog, which is why I also query how much W&K's image owes to reality as opposed to PR.
I suppose there's a chance that Catherine's apparently very respectable upbringing may have lent a little decency, but as ever I'm assuming nothing

I hope Andrew will be told not to walk to church on Christmas Day. If he had any sense of shame and sort of lurked at the back looking unconfortable I'd maybe feel differently. However his behaviour after the Queen died (grabbing the microphone at every chance) and at the service for the ex King of Greece shows that he is keen to push himself forward.

I've seen families struggle to cope with criminal relatives like Andrew and I can understand why the Royal family is no different, particularly as both Harry and the Duke of Windsor wrote books after they left, who wouldn't want to avoid an Andrew book? I suspect tolerance is at an all time low at the moment though, quite rightly.

On a completely different note, I agree with the PP who wrote about the fact that Epstein, Andrew and Gisele should not be the only famous people who are prosecuted for what they did.

First of all, this is a free access public forum, and anyone is allowed to post anything they like within Mumsnet guidelines. That’s how a discussion forum tends to work. But I hope you and your fellow “regulars” are very happy together 😀 but the last time I looked it was Mumsnet HQ who set the rules.

Second, the late Queen very much defended Andrew and had him sitting right next to her in the car at the height of the Virgina Giuffre scandal.

Most recently, Prince Andrew was allowed to wear his Garter robes for his brother’s Coronation on 6th May, although he did not have a formal role in the event. He also appeared alongside other senior royals at the annual Easter Service at St George’s Chapel in Windsor Castle this year. All of which looks like support to me.

Third, I don’t know what Meghan and Harry have to do with the King’s brother’s ten year friendship with a Chinese spy, but actually the subject of this thread does constitute a good argument for Republicanism, because an elected Head of State doesn’t have a load of family members carrying out official roles on their behalf. The public purse does not have to contribute to all of their accommodation costs either.

Also, an elected President would have to be more accountable in their actions and financially; as there wouldn’t be all of these grey areas between private v public. And if an elected President had done something similar to what Andrew has done, it would be possible to vote them out.

I’ve not seen him defended in those terms.

The most I’ve seen is antipathy towards the use of the term paedophile (as VG was clearly not prepubescent)

I think one of the reasons the H&M bullying stuff got buried by the palace is probably because a lot of the 'principals' behave in a manner that wouldn't be tolerated or acceptable in other organisations. I mean - we all saw how rude Charles was about his pen not working during the coronation stuff and that was with cameras on him.

It is interesting that I don't think Andrew has ever been at Kate's carol service has he??

The late Queen very much defended Andrew and had him sitting right next to her in the car at the height of the Virgina Giuffre scandal

It was also at the time of the Epstein revelations that she awarded him the Knight Grand Cross of the Royal Victorian Order, the highest personal gift which doesn't involve the government's recommendations

Two fingers again you see ...

I have said it before but the Queen should have retired a loooong time before she sadly passed away.

Her decision making was definitely not great in her last years with regards to her family.

The pen thing I can sort of let go. I did all manner of mad stuff when my dad died. Grief is a strange emotion and added to having to perform in front of so many people would have driven me mad.

I don't think it was a constitutional requirement that he sign that document in public was it? It could have been done in the same room with just the requisite number of witnesses present and recorded and edited for the news channels. But then we wouldn't have the pageantry of a live melt down either.

One thing I do recall about that incident is the look of sheer terror in his wife's eyes when he lost the plot. I thought to myself "aha, she has seen his temper before!"

One thing I do recall about that incident is the look of sheer terror in (Camilla's) eyes when he lost the plot. I thought to myself "aha, she has seen his temper before!"

You're not alone, @Havalona, but then I also recall an anecdote about Charles kicking furniture around in a tantrum before guests and Camilla mewling about how "honoured" they were to be trusted with such an insight, when it would normally be reserved for behind closed doors

Not having been there I can't say how true this was, but Charles's pettishness and extreme entitlement is hardly a secret, as also seen with tthe inkwell which some oik was thoughtless enough to have placed inappropriately

I wouldn't give Charles a pass on that - being rude to someone in front of cameras is just totally unacceptable.

But I suspect that there is a lot of that that has gone on in the past with the RF hence the reluctance to go too deep into the bullying allegations. I imagine they knew that Harry would just reply with a whole list of stuff that others had done if the report was published.

I was coming to say that - there was one poster who was very particular about the use of paedophile - which looked like a defense of Andrew’s behaviour to some but was more about the language use, I think.

This is why I prefer to call him a nonce instead of a paedophile.

He's not a paedophile. VG was (I think) 17 at the time, which makes his behaviour abhorrent, but not illegal, by the laws of this country.

It's the curse of the second royal son. They have no official role, little accountability and everyone in the family appears to indulge, cover up and excuse their obnoxious, boorish behaviour, because poor little lambkins aren't going to be king one day. All together now: "Ahhh diddums!". And it creates monsters. Andrew is clearly a thick, entitled, self-centred monster with an gigantic ego, that's been stroked and nurtured his whole life, and Harry is just the same. I think William and Catherine are trying very hard not to make the same mistakes and I'm sure it helps that Catherine grew up as a commoner herself. But this is all ammunition for republicans and tbh those of us, like myself, who don't have any strong feelings one way or the other. The RF, if they are to be figureheads for this country, cannot be seen to be greedy grifters. They are public servants and they only hold that position for as long as the public tolerates them. Look at what happened in France in 1789!

'because an elected Head of State doesn’t have a load of family members carrying out official roles on their behalf. The public purse does not have to contribute to all of their accommodation costs either.'

https://eu.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2024/12/11/trump-taps-in-laws-to-serve-administration/76918688007/

This is what Ghislaine Maxwell was sentenced for, and what Andrew is allegedly implicated in:

conspiracy to entice minors to travel to engage in illegal sex acts, conspiracy to transport minors to participate in illegal sex acts, transporting a minor to participate in illegal sex acts, sex trafficking conspiracy, and sex trafficking of a minor.

So yes, Andrew is implicated in illegal acts irrespective of anyone's age because of the human trafficking element, which is illegal in the US and the UK, and it's also immoral and fucking disgusting. QEII, as monarch and head of the anglican church, really went down in my estimation over the whole debacle, and I'm not too sure that Charles will show some backbone either.

Epstein, Andrew's friend, was of course a convicted felon and in prison awaiting further trial when he was killed either by his own hand or by another's.

What a mess the royal family have made of this.

www.justice.gov/usao-sdny/pr/ghislaine-maxwell-sentenced-20-years-prison-conspiring-jeffrey-epstein-sexually-abuse

@Gorgonemilezola was just going to reference the Trump presidency and its roles for family members.
And remind people about the young woman in Boris Johnson's circle who was mysteriously elevated to the House of Lords.