Why was Prince Andrew always regarded as the Queen's favourite child?

[SpaEnjoyer]

I remember that Andrew was often referred to as the Queen's favourite child when she was alive, and before he was managed out of public life for being such an embarrassment to the family. He wasn't her firstborn DC or even her first son. So why did she prefer him to all the others?

Which pop a bit. Graves disease potentially.

My endocrinologist, Sir Richard Bayliss (deceased) was the Royal Physician for many years.

Many of them have protruding eyes. It makes sense. Graves/Thyroid disiease is more common in Eastern Europe (parys of Russia, Poland, Prussia, etc). With the in-breeding, it isn't rocket science.

I think he was more robust and 'manly' than the others. That's why he did his full time in the RN much of it Operational, not admin or easy. As a helicopter pilot he must have had good hearing and good intelligence when he started. Aircraft may have damaged his hearing in later years. I think he di his full 22 years.

A long term lease is more like purchase, how much would it have been to purchase?

Except I bet the term of the least meant he couldn't sell it on.

Definitely a resemblance there

Yes - it’s always trotted out. I was wondering about the evidence.

Exactly. That's why it's called a peppercorn rent. I take it to mean that the agreement was that he paid a lump sum up front and would then have to pay a tiny rent, if any.

He paid £8m up front but there is also talk of him paying millions in up grades and repairs.

IIRC the lease initially cost £1m and he paid some £7m for the renovations which effectively relieved him of future rental obligations.

They all do the bent rent dance though.

Ed scored a similar deal on Bagshot; Harold's capital repayment to the taxpayer included eighteen months invisible rent while releasing him from any further payment obligations thus saving him a packet and C3 bought Highgrove through the Duchy of Cornwall making the Duchy his landlord and effectively recycling his rental payments back into his own pocket as Duchy profit.

I dont suppose any of them will be thanking Mr MW for drawing attention to their cosy deals...

I mean, I dont believe TLQ would have had a child by someone else but it does make sense that he doesn't look anything like his fathers side or his brothers, and if Phil was seemingly completely hands off with him while his mother let him do whatever he wanted.

It could be said that Phillip could be sleazy too, in terms of being a bit of a shagmeister.

He wasn't Edward was

Of course Queenie wouldn’t have had a kid with Porchie! (She may have shagged him
but she’d never have got pregnant by him)

All the chinless twats have a load of common ancestors obviously

🤢🤢🤢🤢🤮🤮🤮🤮🤮

I honestly don't think she'd ever have had sex out of wedlock.
Phil might have but I don't believe she would go against her Christian faith or her wedding vows.

Both the queen and prince philip were descended from Victoria. Probably porchi as well. They are all very inbred.

I wouldn't stake my life on the Queen never having an affair.

I've been struck recently by the fact that there's an entire PR apparatus that comes both from within and outside the Royal institution that is expressly geared to ensure a favourable narrative is told and a benevolent light shone. What we see is often curated. I saw yesterday, a former newspaper editor admit that they would sometimes not print stories that cast the RF in a disreputable or unfavourable light.

Think about it, the RF has been around for centuries, they've survived that long, even managing to thrive amidst a democracy and their PR game is second to none. It is already going into overdrive right now to recast the RF in a good light so they can continue to survive and it is actually working.

The constant narrative of a great love story between QE2 and PP, that she was besotted with him all her life, and relentlessly and totally bound to duty with an iron clad will with absolutely no wavering is very unlikely to be entirely true or just not true at all. We don't actually know what their marriage was like. We don't. There seems to be rumours of PP having multiple sexual dalliances. If true, (and Lownie implies it is and I doubt he would risk his reputation as a historian) assuming the Queen was also a virgin at her marriage and not sexually pedestrian in her outlook, that has to have hurt at some level, Queen or not, at least initially. Later, a hardening might emerge, but I doubt it at first. She's a human first. Realistically the marriage could not have been happy the entire time. And pragmatically, few people's are, let alone with all the weight of Royalty.

So I wouldn't stake my savings on the Queen never having a 'moment'. And one can also make some off choices and not be any less devoted to ones faith. Redemption is sort of a key point of the whole thing.

Of course there's no evidence of her doing any such thing as having someone else's child. But I wouldn't cast it in stone that she didn't.

Most relationships have ups and downs; it would be unusual if theirs didn’t.

Relationships have ups and downs, there might have been times they weren't close but i can't imagine her having a full blown affair with anyone.

Criticism of a small children should be anathema. Particularly condemning that child to the same future as his Great Uncle, whose under the suspicion of horrendous abuse of power.

How many of our small children would behave impeccably in front of the world's media - I saw a small, fidgety child making a few faces, hardly makes him a future criminal. My son (ND) played with Louis at an event & he was nothing but an inquisitive, charming little boy - and very gentle with DS.

The condemning of a child, of whom we know nothing about, is a poor reflection on you.

Oh grow up!