Posted on 11/08/2025 2:29:44 PM PST by CondoleezzaProtege
Even as the Epstein scandal engulfed the royals, the Queen “never changed her stance on Andrew.”
“The late Queen, of course, adored her second son and continued to support him after his disgrace,” Jobson wrote, adding, “In her final days she kept him close, shielding him as Palace insiders continued to push for his total exile.” “She confided her support to a trusted confidant,” Jobson wrote.
“‘You have to remember, he is my son.’”
But while the Queen’s loyalty was unwavering, her eldest son had to take the difficult route. Following Mountbatten Windsor’s disastrous 2019 Newsnight interview, it was Charles, not his mother, who pressed for decisive action. According to Jobson, the then-Prince of Wales was the one who insisted his brother “step down from royal life and be cut adrift.”
The Queen, ever the soft touch when Mountbatten Windsor was concerned, tried to cushion the fall. As the lawsuit brought by Epstein accuser Virginia Giuffre loomed, she reportedly planned a “private one-to-one meeting” with the former Prince to break the news that his military titles and patronages were being taken away. But senior courtiers intervened, insisting they be present to witness the conversation. Jobson says Mountbatten Windsor was 'blindsided' by the 'painful' exchange.
And for that, Charles had to pay the price.
Writing for The Sunday Times, Roya Nikkhah claimed a family source said, “It seems to me that Queen Elizabeth has quite a lot to answer for. It’s as if she left an unexploded bomb for Charles. The thing about the Queen was that everyone always said she was so dutiful, and she was — but this was a terrible dereliction of duty. She indulged Andrew all the time and always avoided confrontation.”
(Excerpt) Read more at theroyalobserver.com ...
Pretty much the entire family is twisted.
“”Mountbatten Windsor””
There must be a reason the writer chose to not call him by the name he was always known as....WHY???
Britain is literally falling apart, every tea swilling one of them who can get out is getting out( and coming here) and the ''royals'' carry on like a bad "Monty Python'' sketch.
Because that is now his official title.
Who here knows what it’s like to be “cut adrift” ?
I liked QE2, but in the matter of her family, she did not raise them well nor did she choose a spouse who could do this one job well. As a result they are left with Andrew and Charles. They got a bit luckier with Ann and Edward.
Charles = Beau?
Andrew = Hunter?
Just saying.
Epstein = Deep State
I guess Edward was actually her favorite.
Apparently, the Queen believed that children should be seen and not heard — and maybe not even seen.
I’m not so sure that history will treat Elizabeth so well.
The Monarch has very limited political power. No one expected her to run parliament, make laws, conduct foreign affairs or management the actions of government. Those are not her roles.
The Monarch does have some responsibilities, and I think managing the royal family is one of them. Her sister was wayward, her son and heir were wayward, Diana was wayward, Andrew, Fergie, just about everyone fell short. And why? Prior to about 1953 the royal family was largely hidden away and private. Problems such as Edward VIII’s abdication could not be hidden, but much of the rest of the family business was all handled behind closed doors, prior to Elizabeth’s reign.
Elizabeth seems to have been the one who wanted everyone to be some sort of celebrity to make the royal family a popular attraction like a Disney ride. Well, the wheels came off that rollercoaster in all sorts of ways.
the article is terribly inconsistent
it refers to Charles as “the then-Prince of Wales” but does not refer to Andrew as “the then-Prince of York” or “the then-Prince Andrew”
If you refer to Andrew as Mountbatten Windsor then you should refer to Charles as King even though the events occurred before he became King.
I vote for using “the then-Prince of York” throughout
Not for nothing Prince Andrew served honorably in the Falkland war. It can be argued that the Diana vs Charles fiasco hurt the royal family’s standing more than Andrew. King Charles is taking revenge on Andrew because mother liked him better.
There once was a prince, Sir Lancealot,
Who liked to sing and dance a lot.
When he happened to pass
A presentable lass,
The front of his pants would advance a lot.
All the royals are spoiled......IMHO of course..
The Yorks have been and continue to be a national security threat.
And they are not alone.
Should Princess Catherine need refuge I am willing to offer my home!
And a reminder....Diana was 16 and Charles was 29 when they met.
No....they didn't meet on an island....
Formerly "House of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha."
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.