No-Longer-Prince Andrew

[attyfan]

I petition to rename this thread "The Artist Formerly Known as Prince Andrew."

I was thinking, "The Andrew Formerly Known as Prince" as a suggestion.

 

[canbelto]

I was thinking, "The Andrew Formerly Known as Prince" as a suggestion.

I like that too!

 

[MsZem]

I read that William is considering ousting Beatrice & Eugenia from the family. Sins of the father..... William comes off (to me) to be a petty & jealous person.

It's Eugenie. William has no power to remove anyone from the line of succession and they're not working royals and never have been. So I'm not sure what such a move would entail exactly - no Christmas at Sandringham?

The princesses seem to be decent people despite their parents' behavior, but this would be an understandable move - for PR reasons at the very least. They're human and didn't cut off their father as soon as they might have, and sadly that does reflect on them.

I was thinking, "The Andrew Formerly Known as Prince" as a suggestion.

This is better. Andrew was never an artist, only a creep.

 

[Jenny]

I read that William is considering ousting Beatrice & Eugenia from the family. Sins of the father..... William comes off (to me) to be a petty & jealous person. It's like he can't stand for any other family member to get more attention than he &/or Kate. Their family is so small now that they could use the cousins for appearances whenever they are in the UK. But no...... If William is that strait-laced he needs to look at his own father who publically committed adultery for years & had a somewhat checked past in other ways.

And where exactly did you read this nonsense that has given you yet another reason to trash William and the King?

 

[MsZem]

And where exactly did you read this nonsense that has given you yet another reason to trash William and the King?

I thought it was random social media garbage too, but a search revealed loads of reports from the last few days. The story appears to have originated from that bastion of fine journalism, the Daily Mail.

 

[Vagabond]

I was thinking, "The Andrew Formerly Known as Prince" as a suggestion.

That was the replacement title I suggested to @SHARPIE , but she had other ideas.

 

[Jenny]

I thought it was random social media garbage too, but a search revealed loads of reports from the last few days. The story appears to have originated from that bastion of fine journalism, the Daily Mail.

Thanks, and you're right, all the stories say "as reported in the Daily Mail," which (again) quotes Richard Fitzwilliams, who styles himself as a royal expert but has no actual connections that I can see.

At this point any of us here on this thread are about as qualified as he is to comment on the Royal Family!

 

[Winnipeg]

The whole thing is so bad but I am glad to hear that at least the UK is investigating the matter.

I can't even imagine how a mother could introduce her daughters to a sex offender but then we are talking Fergie who has never, IMHO, shown any sense, propriety, intelligence, tact etc the list could go on..........she is a flake and always has been but maybe flake is too nice a word.

Notwithstanding, the girls could have declined the invite?

 

[Karen-W]

There is plenty of reporting out there that indicates William is keenly aware of the impact of being seen with or publicly associating with anyone who has brought dishonor to the monarchy. Before these last two rounds of revelations about Andrew (in Oct/Nov and now), it seemed like he was inclined to have Eugenie & Beatrice acting in a similar support role capacity as Peter and Zara/Mike - showing up at the Garden Parties to mix & mingle - possibly a bit more for a few years until George, Charlotte & Louis were old enough to step into a more public role.

After the Oct/Nov revelations, the reports I was reading & hearing regarding Bea & Eug were that he wanted a thorough investigation of their finances & bank accounts to ensure there wasn't anything questionable - not so much because he believed they were necessarily complicit but because he didn't trust Andrew & Sarah to not have used & convinced their daughters that these sort of things were all perfectly normal, fine & legal. Who knows what came of that or whether their views have changed on doing a thorough investigation of everything their parents ever told them was a-okay and fine.

They were both still fairly young - early 20s if not younger - when Sarah & Andrew were having them escort business partners of Epstein around Buckingham Palace. Given the close relationship they've always had with their parents, I can cut them a degree of slack for going along with those requests or not necessarily realizing just how sketchy these financial transactions were. What needs to be known now is at what point did they become aware enough to put an end to all that?

That's the real issue for both Beatrice & Eugenie. Just how recent is their exposure & intentional was their involvement with whatever shady or illegal shenanigans their parents got themselves up to? At this point in time, there just isn't enough information to know the answers to those questions and until those answers are known, they cannot be involved with the public duties of the monarchy because the public does have every right to ask those uncomfortable questions. And if they don't want to open their own records & finances up to investigation by either King Charles or the Prince of Wales, then the only option is to sideline them entirely.

That's not the same as cutting them out of the family - and I haven't read or seen any reliable reporting that indicates either Charles or William want to do anything so drastic, but there are ways of managing public optics even at private, family gatherings, that would exclude Bea & Eug from the public eye and we may see that play out in coming months.

 

[taf2002]

I'm confused. William isn't King so why would he have this power?

He has been campaigning to oust both Andrew & Harry from the family so apparently he has or thinks he has the power. King Charles keeps saying no so far. (about Harry)

Thanks, and you're right, all the stories say "as reported in the Daily Mail," which (again) quotes Richard Fitzwilliams, who styles himself as a royal expert but has no actual connections that I can see.

At this point any of us here on this thread are about as qualified as he is to comment on the Royal Family!

In that case why do you keep attacking what I post? I'm as qualified as anyone. Why don't you just read or don't read what I say & just move on?

 

[MsZem]

He has been campaigning to oust both Andrew & Harry from the family so apparently he has or thinks he has the power. King Charles keeps saying no so far. (about Harry)

He certainly wan't wrong in advocating that.

As for Harry - says who? QE2 and Charles told Harry he couldn't have it both ways back when he and Meghan stepped away from the BRF. William is not making decisions about armed security. He is allowed to have opinions and share them with his father.

(not that Harry's situation is relevant here; he's neither a criminal nor, to the best of my knowledge, a creep)

 

[overedge]

The whole thing is so bad but I am glad to hear that at least the UK is investigating the matter.

I can't even imagine how a mother could introduce her daughters to a sex offender but then we are talking Fergie who has never, IMHO, shown any sense, propriety, intelligence, tact etc the list could go on..........she is a flake and always has been but maybe flake is too nice a word.

Notwithstanding, the girls could have declined the invite?

I think the word you're looking for is "grifter". Epstein gave her free trips, accommodation, networking, etc, and she accepted all of it without asking any questions.

If you were a tween and one of your parents invited you along on a free trip to a luxury house on a private tropical island, you probably wouldn't say no. And with Fergie's grifting ways, I wouldn't be surprised if there was some pressure from her for them to go, e.g "Oh, this is Mummy's friend, he's a lovely man, he will be hurt if you don't come along, and it will be such a treat for all of us to have some time together" and the like.

 

[Winnipeg]

Good points.

 

[Jenny]

That's the real issue for both Beatrice & Eugenie. Just how recent is their exposure & intentional was their involvement with whatever shady or illegal shenanigans their parents got themselves up to? At this point in time, there just isn't enough information to know the answers to those questions and until those answers are known, they cannot be involved with the public duties of the monarchy because the public does have every right to ask those uncomfortable questions. And if they don't want to open their own records & finances up to investigation by either King Charles or the Prince of Wales, then the only option is to sideline them entirely.

I can see this. I agree that children often trust their parents, and if they never witnessed anything inappropriate, and if they perhaps choose not to read the press on their family (wouldn't blame them), then OK they are innocent bystanders.

However, some timelines are emerging. This BBC article from a few weeks ago is a good roundup of what is known and not known about Fergie's relationship with Epstein, and it also mentions Beatrice and Eugenie quite a bit. I had read elsewhere that one email from Fergie to Epstein or one of his associates gave the impression that she was taking her daughter's advice on managing the PR around this. And from this article, it also seems quite clear that Fergie and both her daughters had lunch with Epstein in July 2009 - the month he secured early release on charges he plead guilty to that included prostitution of persons under 18. Again, maybe they believed their mother who from other emails seemed rather enraptured by Epstein, but at the same time, at that lunch, they were adults who one would hope could say "he's your friend mum, I'd rather not go" - they were 21 and 23 at the time.

As for William/Charles possibly wanting to sort out their financials, I can see that too. It's clear that Fergie was financially involved with Epstein, and if that relationship extended to Beatrice and Eugenie, that's a problem for the Royal Family.

Elsewhere there is new reporting that police want to question Andrew's bodyguards to see how much they knew. Again I could see William/Charles/anyone in the family being very concerned that employees knew what was happening, and potentially facilitated Andrew's behaviour.

 

[MacMadame]

I've been reading articles about Epstein and have read many justifications for associated with him.

They ranged from "I was told he changed," and "I never saw anything bad," and "his original conviction was politically motivated by his enemies," and "I was just associated with him to get funding/donations for my charity."

I can see E and B being told things like that if they even knew anything about Epstein.

 

[Karen-W]

I think the word you're looking for is "grifter". Epstein gave her free trips, accommodation, networking, etc, and she accepted all of it without asking any questions.

If you were a tween and one of your parents invited you along on a free trip to a luxury house on a private tropical island, you probably wouldn't say no. And with Fergie's grifting ways, I wouldn't be surprised if there was some pressure from her for them to go, e.g "Oh, this is Mummy's friend, he's a lovely man, he will be hurt if you don't come along, and it will be such a treat for all of us to have some time together" and the like.

Even a teenager or a woman in her early 20s with a close relationship to Mummy & Daddy may not have enough wherewithal to step back and question the people they were bringing into her life. There's just not enough life experience, and certainly not enough good judgment from the grifter parents to recognize the risk and future liability of associating with these people. I question whether or not they were even aware of Epstein's conviction - I don't think it's something that really hit my consciousness until sometime in the past 10 years and I'm a good 15-18 years older than both of them.

 

[Sparks]

Where is Fergie now? Is she still in hiding?

 

[Karen-W]

I can see this. I agree that children often trust their parents, and if they never witnessed anything inappropriate, and if they perhaps choose not to read the press on their family (wouldn't blame them), then OK they are innocent bystanders.

However, some timelines are emerging. This BBC article from a few weeks ago is a good roundup of what is known and not known about Fergie's relationship with Epstein, and it also mentions Beatrice and Eugenie quite a bit. I had read elsewhere that one email from Fergie to Epstein or one of his associates gave the impression that she was taking her daughter's advice on managing the PR around this. And from this article, it also seems quite clear that Fergie and both her daughters had lunch with Epstein in July 2009 - the month he secured early release on charges he plead guilty to that included prostitution of persons under 18. Again, maybe they believed their mother who from other emails seemed rather enraptured by Epstein, but at the same time, at that lunch, they were adults who one would hope could say "he's your friend mum, I'd rather not go" - they were 21 and 23 at the time.

In 2009 - Beatrice would have been 21 and Eugenie would have been 19 (Bea was born in 1988 & Eug was born in 1990) - and that's still really young. Beyond that, we don't know what Sarah was telling the girls as far as what sort of person Epstein was. I haven't followed enough of the current email revelations to know if Sarah sprang the lunch guest on the girls or if they went willingly knowing Epstein would be there. Sarah is such an unreliable narrator even in emails because we know she was working so hard at the grift.

If they were a few years older - say 24 & 26 - then, sure, they should have had the agency to find a polite excuse to avoid those sort of situations, but I'm not convinced just because Sarah said something was so in an email that she provided Bea & Eug with all the pertinent information and they willingly jumped in to help advise her on managing the PR around it. Definitely not Eug, but maybe Bea seeing as she was the one who did convince Andrew to do that disastrous BBC interview in 2019.

 

[Jenny]

My bad on the ages! So many sources to cross reference, so many holes in the narrative/timelines (ie the number of times where it's not known if someone responded, or if planned meetings actually happened is crazy).

Didn't know it was Beatrice who wanted Andrew to do the 2019 interview - but that may actually be evidence of her innocence in all this, that she was even then convinced that her father hadn't done anything wrong and therefore had nothing to lose and everything to gain by speaking for himself.