Prince Andrew humiliated himself, but the joke is on us

Why should we foot the bill for this heinously overprivileged narcissist?

Joanna Williams
Share

‘My tendency to be too honourable… I’d taken Beatrice to a Pizza Express in Woking… I don’t sweat.’ Whatever his intention, Prince Andrew has provided the internet with a lifetime’s supply of meme-ready content. His BBC interview, broadcast last night, was comedy gold.

Only, as Andrew tried to explain away his friendship with convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein and convince Newsnight’s Emily Maitlis that he hadn’t had sex with the then 17-year-old Virginia Roberts, it became apparent the joke was on us, the British public.

He was known back in the day as ‘Randy Andy’ or ‘Airmiles Andy’, yet we are now expected to believe that photos of His Royal Highness and Roberts are fake. We’re expected to buy the story that Andrew travelled to New York to see Epstein following his release from prison in 2010 simply to break off their friendship. This took four days and at least one dinner party because, well, Andrew is so honourable.

The prince clearly thinks we are so stupid that we will accept that despite his inability to remember almost anything at all about the time he spent with Epstein, he can recall the exact date, time and location of the pizza restaurant he visited when the alleged sexual encounter with Roberts was said to have taken place. This is not just arrogant – it shows that Andrew holds the British public in contempt. To add insult to injury, it is us, British taxpayers, who fund his lavish lifestyle and justify his public position.

The excruciatingly awkward interview was presumably intended to rehabilitate Andrew’s reputation. Andrew stands accused of poor judgement in maintaining his friendship with Epstein even after he had been convicted for procuring an underage girl for prostitution. Worse, Andrew is accused of having had sex with Virginia Roberts on three separate occasions: once in the US when she would have been legally below the age of consent, and twice when Roberts claims she was a victim of trafficking and forced into having sex by Epstein.

Of course, Andrew should be considered innocent until proven guilty. His testimony should be heard under oath. It should be for a jury – not television viewers or social-media commenters – to find him innocent or guilty. The problem is that Andrew used his position, bestowed on him simply by his birth, to secure last night’s high-profile media interview. He has, so far, shown that he would prefer to avoid the American legal system and instead invite the BBC round to Buckingham Palace for a chat. Andrew wants us to absolve him so he can avoid legal scrutiny. This is not an option available to most people, especially not those accused of such a serious crime.

Invited to pass judgment, we find a man so privileged he leads a life unrecognisable to the vast majority of British citizens. A birthday party is apparently not a big affair if it’s just a few friends round for a shooting weekend on the Sandringham Estate. Private jets to private islands are so run-of-the-mill that each trip blurs with the next and none is especially memorable. People in Epstein’s orbit are indistinguishable because they are all assumed to be staff. Appearing as a guest of honour at a dinner party for 10 in Epstein’s New York mansion is no big deal.

The product of all this privilege is a man so unable to see beyond the perceived slights to his own reputation and his own feelings that he was unable – even when prompted repeatedly by Maitlis as to whether there is anything else he would like to say – to express sympathy for the girls Epstein was found guilty of abusing. He has no regrets at having provided a layer of respectability and a potential path back into polite society for the convicted Epstein. It is clear that Andrew’s only concern is himself.

Some are now questioning the extent to which Andrew has damaged the entire institution of the monarchy. Certainly the only members of the royal family likely to be cheering him on will be Harry and Meghan. No one is talking about where they will spend Christmas now. Meanwhile, the rest of us not only have to pay to keep this royal farce on the road, but we are also expected to show deference to this bunch of over-privileged narcissists. We need to do away with this outdated institution once and for all.

Joanna Williams is associate editor at spiked. She is the director of the new think tank, Cieo. Find out more about it here.

Picture by: Getty

No paywall. No subscriptions.
spiked is free for all.

Donate today to keep us fighting.

To enquire about republishing spiked’s content, a right to reply or to request a correction, please contact the managing editor, Viv Regan.

Comments

Dan Under

24th November 2019 at 9:01 pm

“We need to do away with this outdated institution once and for all.”
Indeed we may well be at that point in history. QEII has performed a sound job. Since 2011, Fixed-Term Parliaments Act, the monarch no longer provides a constitutional safety mechanism to dissolve parliament, which should have occurred in the current Brexit parliamentary debacle. This exemplifies the need for a constitutional mechanism capable of dealing with useless politicians and neo-Marxist ideologues

julia Waller

23rd November 2019 at 12:12 pm

I think that the Royal Family have outgrown their use to this country. When the Queen was crowned she vowed to protect the sovereignty of the United Kingdom , but during the last 3 years all she has done is aid & give royal assent to all the fraudulent laws put forward by her corrupt Parliament. She could have taken the advice of her courtiers & done SOMETHING to get rid of her ministers.
The indigenous people of this country have been betrayed & taken for fools – for someone who was once a Royalist I feel a sense of extreme disappointment at the behaviour of 90% of the Royal family. To paraphrase Oliver Cromwell “be gone for all the good that you have done”…..

Roy Wall

22nd November 2019 at 1:27 pm

Max Wormhole correctly juxtaposes “psychopathy” and Prince Andrew. The Independent, in 2015, reminded us that “Four years after being filmed performing the Nazi salute with a young Queen Elizabeth, Prince Edward repeated the gesture to Adolf Hitler himself during a visit to Germany.” Taking-after his grandfather, Prince Andrew displays a lack of empathy that is typical of a psychopath like Hitler.

Fred Forsythe

20th November 2019 at 11:07 am

I take this as the first real crack in the armour.
We are usually held in such contempt that explanations are unnecessary.
I can well imagine the preparation, rehearsal and editing that went into this production but I stand amazed at the decision to air it.

michael savell

20th November 2019 at 12:28 am

Michael Lynch,when the Assange case was gathering momentum and a lot of insinuations were flying about, the great british public was screaming at him for not facing the music in Sweden.The usual “if you’ve nothing to hide you have nothing to lose”was echoed by nearly all brits yet,if those people had known the inside story they would probably have been on his side.As it was,Naomi Wolfe defended him,possibly because she has integrity even if she is a radical feminist.i don’t understand why somebody like yourself is being so callous.You know damn well that no defendent has much chance in a courtroom there.What a spectacle it would make and how much would this country lose because of it

Ven Oods

20th November 2019 at 7:58 am

“What a spectacle it would make and how much would this country lose because of it.”

It’s been something of a spectacleso far, especially since that interview. As a ‘royal’, the man’s a liability. Off with his Civil List stipend!

steve moxon

19th November 2019 at 12:22 pm

Exactly. The victim is the accused: the supposed victim is the accuser, who is likely for all sorts of reasons, often trivial ones, not remotely to be telling the truth.
In a ‘believe the victim’ culture all accusers are deemed victims before you start.
When you look into where this stance came from — utter nonsense about supposed oppression by males — then on top of the automatic concern anyway for females, the benefits for females of playing the victim card, the opportunity to cover past embarrassment, in effect to re-establish sexual reputation ….. then expect not the slightest resemblance to reality.
On top of that, we have the ludicrous re-definition of ‘child’ from a individual who is pre-pubertal (today, under 10 / 11) to practically anyone under 45.
If you think we look back on Victorian times as antediluviean, just wait until the palaver re the sexes and the whole ‘identity politics’ / ‘PC’ shtick is history. Our times will be the laughing stock of everyone through the rest of the millennium.

steve moxon

19th November 2019 at 12:23 pm

This was supposed to be a reply to the Lord Anubis!

Lord Anubis

19th November 2019 at 11:20 am

One cant win in situations like this.

If you express sorrow or sympathy for the “Victims” then you are guilty

If you don’t, then you are callous selfish and indifferent.

Like a motor accident, it is best just to leave it to the Lawyers to sort out! :/

steve moxon

19th November 2019 at 12:25 pm

Exactly. The victim is the accused: the supposed victim is the accuser, who is likely for all sorts of reasons, often trivial ones, not remotely to be telling the truth.
In a ‘believe the victim’ culture all accusers are deemed victims before you start.
When you look into where this stance came from — utter nonsense about supposed oppression by males — then on top of the automatic concern anyway for females, the benefits for females of playing the victim card, the opportunity to cover past embarrassment, in effect to re-establish sexual reputation ….. then expect not the slightest resemblance to reality.
On top of that, we have the ludicrous re-definition of ‘child’ from a individual who is pre-pubertal (today, under 10 / 11) to practically anyone under 45.
If you think we look back on Victorian times as antediluviean, just wait until the palaver re the sexes and the whole ‘identity politics’ / ‘PC’ shtick is history. Our times will be the laughing stock of everyone through the rest of the millennium

Michael Lynch

18th November 2019 at 8:18 pm

The man is a f@#king embarrassment. I don’t perceive this 17 year old girl to be a victim in the traditional sense, as I would say a 9 year old white girl who has been gang raped by perverted Pakistanis, but I think it’s disgusting how Andrew thinks we’re going to swallow his bulls@#t over all this. The man has used his privileged position to get away with all sorts over the years. It’s about time he faced up to his misdeeds and took full ownership of them. Get yourself over to America man – if you’ve done no wrong then there’s nothing to answer for is there?

steve moxon

18th November 2019 at 11:59 pm

So she’s not a victim but he’s done wrong.
How do you work that one?
The worst case scenario for ‘Randy Andy’ is that he had a shag with an adult female perfectly capable of choosing whether or not to have sex, which, from the girl’s perspective was a highly paid encounter with a A-lister.
Retrospectively she’s expressing concerns — as if this is unusual for females and sex — the motivation for which may well be to secure yet more money, or some weird form of fame (or both), or that she’s bought me-tooist baloney, or whatever.
Big deal. Not.
If they chuck bull at you, what’s wrong with chucking bull back?
Play ’em at their own game.

Michael Lynch

20th November 2019 at 11:14 am

Fair point. But how many men of our generation go running round screwing young girls and getting away with it by using their privileged status? I don’t know any friend that has done this and the vast majority of us would be repulsed by the idea of dallying with girls of a tender age. Although she consented as an adult she was only 17! Where have our morals gone if we condone this type of behavior, even though he may not have broken the law? I couldn’t stomach watching him explain himself away and he has made a bad situation far worse. He is an embarrassment to the Queen and a gift for the anti monarchists.

steve moxon

20th November 2019 at 11:36 am

Isn’t that just naked anti-male prejudice, Michael?
Ask yourself what is the basis of your gut reaction here.
There are deep biological reasons for it. It is natural prejudice in the service of controlling male sexual access. Being a biological imperative, it overshoots in cultural elaboration.
High-status males are by their very high status always afforded far greater sexual access. Who’s doing the allowing / choosing just who gets this access: females.

Ven Oods

18th November 2019 at 7:13 pm

“Why should we foot the bill for this heinously overprivileged narcissist?”
One theory is that we were all very wicked in a previous life, so we deserve him.
(I would be greatly heartened if, next time he sets foot in the US, he’s taken in for questioning by the FBI.)

michael savell

18th November 2019 at 5:33 pm

I really find it difficult to believe in all this “sex slave”business.Having sex with a prince would be a feather in the cap for most girls and it must be remembered that he was much younger then.No doubt the girls were all paid and lived there for nothing.A girl of 17 can look 22 at a stroke and I doubt Epstein would have mentioned the fact in others hearing.If you know better the you could be a star witness and,if Islam has anything to do with it the age will be reduced to 12.Doesn’t make him a nice guy particularly but how many “celebs” are still around Andrews age who are not “. fessing up”.Where and who are all the people listed as having visited Epstein at any of his retreats?Andrew is stupid for talking to the media because he is known for being a randy goat but,what was seen as fun those days is now the most heinous crime according to the woke british public.How is the inquiry into the death of Epstein going?,or is that water under the bridge now?
Yes,it’s probably time to dispense with royalty,certainly the tax dispensation given by Churchill to the monarch with regard to tax liability should be repealed but then,the bankers who still rob us are not short of a few bob and,no doubt there are many more Epsteins around.The whole country,together with the usa are rich peoples playgrounds and not very nice people at that so please,let us all know where is integrity based?

antoni orgill

18th November 2019 at 6:36 pm

If you find it difficult to believe [that the super-rich are capable of using commoners like chattel] then do a bit of research until the truth or otherwise of the ‘allegations’ becomes clear … there’s plenty enough disingenuous t&^%s objecting to His Highness’ villification on sundry grounds …

steve moxon

19th November 2019 at 12:08 am

So what about females exploiting for money the universal male desire for number of sexual partners? And then expressing their ‘regret’ afterwards either when it’s caused them some embarrasment, or when they spot a way of making yet more money out of it, or have bought some ideo-cranky victim mularcky? How come that doesn’t come under treating folk as ‘chattel’, eh? Not in the prejudiced ideological nut-job scheme of things, of course.

Jeremy Bonington-Jagworth

25th November 2019 at 12:39 pm

Which particular “tax dispensation given by Churchill to the monarch with regard to tax liability should be repealed” exactly.

As I understand it the “Civil List” or whatever it’s currently called is actually a fraction of the Royals’ own income from their own estates that are managed by the state and which the state generously allows them to draw for maintaining historic palaces, paying Royal employees, etc.

And they voluntarily pay full tax on any income from any assets not managed by the Crown Estates.

So, contrary to popular belief (and media and political scandal-mongering), they are NOT taxpayer funded!

You can argue they shouldn’t be entitled to own their assets as they only do so because they were robbed from the people, but that’s another issue entirely, and you’d surely have to use the same argument for aristocrats, other historically wealthy people, bankers, anyone whose family have owned a farm since time immemorial who can’t prove it wasn’t originally robbed from someone else, and even if they can, what right did they have to monopolise the land……

steve moxon

18th November 2019 at 3:08 pm

No, Joanna Williamson, what’s ridiculous is that an adult of 17 paid lots of money is seen somehow as a victim. She is no such thing. At 17 she was about seven years post puberty and therefore fully adult. She got paid a fortune, allegedly for shagging an A-list bod. She well knew what she was doing and profited immensely from it. It’s utter lunacy to conceive of this as any sort of a scandal.
And no, Joanna Williamson, his interview was no car crash: the stupid anti-male prejudicial hounding deserves any amount of contempt, not excluding talking any amount of baloney in defence.
Who cares whether or not he lied? It’s not the real issue here.

antoni orgill

18th November 2019 at 6:18 pm

How do you look at your own face in the mirror and keep your stomach contents where a good little boy should ..? Your ridiculousness is almost beyond explanation but … people will keep on trying to understand why you are such a lowlife apologist for grotesque venality. Or, you could spare us the effort and explain your own shit-headedness in your own turds …

steve moxon

18th November 2019 at 7:02 pm

I’m not an extreme-ideological putrid foul-mouthed idiot like you. That’s how.
The rabid nonsense about the sexes is not long for this world. soon enough people are going to get real.

Jerry Owen

18th November 2019 at 1:57 pm

Such a shame that the same concern for under age sex victims doesn’t extend to places such Rotherham, Telford Oxford etc where certain cultures deem this behaviour quite acceptable, indeed the police and politicians have also deemed it acceptable by their refusal to challenge it.

steve moxon

18th November 2019 at 8:19 pm

Indeed, but there’s no comparison: 17 (the age of the supposed ‘victim’ of ‘Randy Andy’ art the time) is not ‘under-age’: it’s on average seven years post-puberty. The ‘grooming’ by Pakistanis in UK cities was / is of often very young girls. And they were often gang-raped by their ‘groomers’, who had pretended to be (potential) boyfriends. They didn’t get paid oodles of money by a ‘sugar daddy’.
A 17-year-old is fully capable of declining sex if she doesn’t want to engage in it. If she’s in A-list company, with an A-list potential partner, and is getting paid a fortune, a 17-year-old may well choose at least to go along with it. She may regret it afterwards, but there is hardly anyone alive who hasn’t regretted a bout of sex, if not several or very many. It’s a long way to go on to start talking about a ‘victim’. The issue is that this is the default, when it should be anything but.

Jeremy Bonington-Jagworth

25th November 2019 at 12:45 pm

“She may regret it afterwards, but there is hardly anyone alive who hasn’t regretted a bout of sex, if not several or very many. It’s a long way to go on to start talking about a ‘victim’.”

Every man when they’ve woken in the morning and the beer-goggles ~@^@…::::::: have fallen off!

Do we all get to cry #MeToo too?!?!

Mike Ellwood

18th November 2019 at 1:35 pm

Anyone else think that Randy might be taking one for the Tory team, to distract the media and the proles from the car-crash that is the Tory election campaign?

I mean, how much would it take to bribe Randy? A gold-plated pension for Fergie?
A hat allowance for the girls?
A sweetener to keep Virginia Roberts quiet (with none-too subtle hints about what might happen to her if she didn’t keep quiet….after all, they are called Her Majesty’s Secret Service aren’t they….? ).

I know, this is just conspiracy theory rambling….

steve moxon

18th November 2019 at 8:30 pm

?! Where’s the car crash chez Bowis?
Chez Jerwammy and, certainly, chez Jo Swiz, it’s a pile-up.
Swiz’s Glib Dems appear to lose a percentage point every time she’s on telly, and despite this and the BrexitP vote naturally being squeezed, Jerwammy’s Momentous Liebore tosspots have gone up … a single point, leaving them 15 points — FIFTEEN — adrift of Bowis’ Tawdries.
The big car crash campaigns are evidently by Jerwammy (where do you start?) and Jo Swiz — her vote seems not to be being squeezed but simply disappearing to ‘not voting’.

Fred Forsythe

20th November 2019 at 11:38 am

Now, now fellas, let’s put the world right.
Scrap royalty and confiscate our money from their vaults.
Get out of the toxic EU sponge, sell them Gibraltar for a few trillion, sod them off from our fisheries, sue Merkel for our money back and pay for a rehabilitation stay for Juncker.
Stop immigration to the point of reversal.
Make MPs and media personalities and owners personally liable for the damage they cause.
Tell Trump and Hilary to go do an Epstein.
Kiss and make up with Vlad if it is profitable and peacemaking to do so.
Make me your next king, chief justice, religious adviser and your party personality of the decade.

Marvin Jones

18th November 2019 at 12:05 pm

The time has come where as Islam is incompatible with the 21st century western world, and will always be, so is the this cabal of ultra privileged goons who are worshipped like gods by the illiterate, naïve and ignorant.

James E Shaw

18th November 2019 at 12:15 pm

Snob.

Ven Oods

18th November 2019 at 7:27 pm

?

James E Shaw

18th November 2019 at 11:49 am

“We need to do away with this outdated institution (the Crown) once and for all.”

Because as France proved after 1792, along with Germany after 1918, Russia after 1917, South Africa after 1961, Spain after 1931, Iran after 1979 and Iraq after 1958, societies always become more progressive when they ditch their monarchies don’t they?

And as the US proves, elected heads of state are much more in touch with their people aren’t they? Narcists, liars and crooks never reach the highest office in the land as Nixon, Clinton and Trump have proved.

Contributor ZENOBIA PALMYRA states “there can be no rational justification for the continuance of this absurd, outmoded, unjust and indefensible system of unearned privilege and social engineering, which stretches down into the so-called ‘public’ schools and unelected House of Frauds. America has had its 1776. Now it’s time for ours.”

There is.

The fact is being a constitutional monarchy has ensured we have historically been one of the most progressive nations on earth. France and America have been very good at talking the talk when it comes to advancing liberty but when it comes to walking the walk it is surely no coincidence that it has been in constitutional monarchies that are the ones that walk the walk. The first democracy to enfranchise women? Top marks to New Zealand in 1893. The first countries to end slavery? Top marks to us and Portugal.

The American revolution did not end slavery, it persisted in many states right up until 1865, by which point it had ended not just in Britain but in it empire. In France it was briefly abolished after the French revolution but was reintroduced by Napoleon, and was not abolished until the 1830s, by which point it had been outlawed in Britain for over 20 years.

The French revolution may have proclaimed libertie, egalite, fraternite, but by the time they finally got round to enfranchising women it was in 1944, a full 26 years after most British women got the vote and a full 16 after they were fully enfranchised. The woman who would become Britain’s first woman PM had by that point reached early adulthood; the woman who would become the country’s second woman PM was -13.

Being a constitutional monarchy makes us a more progressive society on Spiked’s own terms.

Ven Oods

18th November 2019 at 7:19 pm

Your point about constitutional monarchy may be true, but why not limit it to the monarch and spouse and let the rest of these parasites make their own way in life?

Jeremy Bonington-Jagworth

25th November 2019 at 12:52 pm

But Royalty are parasites on their own money.

Contrary to republican and media scandal -mongering they don’t get anything from the taxpayer.

The Civil List is a fraction of the income from the Queen’s Crown Estates (and they pay full tax on any other income, including from assets held abroad, even in tax havens).

T Zazoo

19th November 2019 at 2:48 am

Also interesting to note that the Scandinavian countries which so many fawn over as the best social democracies are all….monarchies…

Eric Praline

19th November 2019 at 12:46 pm

It’s irrelevant whether they do any good, there’s just no justification for them.

Lord Anubis

20th November 2019 at 8:20 am

Surely the justification is a pragmatic one. Monarchy’s tend to function quite well constitutionally and countries tend to function somewhat less well constitutionally should they get rid of them.

Do you actually need any other justification?

Fred Forsythe

20th November 2019 at 11:47 am

Yup! We enfranchised women.
Hilary, Omar, Pelosi, Warren, Golda Meir, Merkel, Abbott, Sourbry, Lagarde, Winnie Mandela, Sturgeon, Jackie Smith, Marcos, —————————————————————————–

Ho Leephuc

18th November 2019 at 10:30 am

All great comedy for us peasants but no problem for the Firm. If they can terminate Dodi and Di with extreme prejudice and no repercussion then this is yet another mere bagatelle to them.

Chester Minnit

18th November 2019 at 8:41 am

OK they may be clueless but they live in a bowl. How are they supposed to know how the rest of us think? I blame the advisers not the RF. And before you talk about abolishing the monarchy just think about the billions they bring in and the jobs they facilitate, including your own Ms Williams.

Eric Praline

19th November 2019 at 12:50 pm

How do they “facilitate” her job?

Fred Forsythe

20th November 2019 at 11:52 am

If you are referring to ‘tourism’ why not stuff the Palace with the contents of Madame Tussaud’s and save the expenses?

Jeremy Bonington-Jagworth

25th November 2019 at 12:56 pm

Yes, stuffing the Palace with the contents of Madame Tussaud’s will keep the tabloids, magazines, and Royal reporters in work, won’t it?!

Philip Humphrey

18th November 2019 at 7:40 am

Seems that Spiked is not quite being consistent. While Prince Andrew may be an unsympathetic character because of his privilege, am I the only one who feels a certain amount of distaste about the way he is being hounded by the media, the feminists and the usual suspects? If it were anyone else, would we be so comfortable about it? A mob is an unpleasant sight, no matter who it is going after, and there is a principle of innocent until proven otherwise.

steve moxon

18th November 2019 at 3:09 pm

Well said.
Exactly the main point, that Joanna Williams is ignoring.

Chester Minnit

19th November 2019 at 9:57 am

Here here.

terence patrick hewett

17th November 2019 at 11:50 pm

What amazes me is that they never learn that you do not, whatever your station in life, feed the media dragon. The shallow, trivial, degenerate society which they promote should be shunned for the fatal disease which it is.

Patiently Waiting

17th November 2019 at 11:33 pm

The Monarchy is headed for an overhaul; and the BRF would be wise to carry it out themselves; rather than wait for it to be imposed upon them by the public. Let’s face facts: The only members of the BRF who carry out their duties with grace and decorum include the Queen, Charles and William.

It’s time to strip the rest of the grifters of their royal titles and privileges…and this includes Andrew and Harry and Meghan Markles. It’s blatantly obvious that Andrew has behaved disgracefully for years– and he no longer maintains the respect of the British people. And neither do Harry, a dim-witted, arrogant imbecile, who shows up to events incl./to OnSide Awards at the Royal Albert Hall looking like a degenerate slob. He’s a bloody disgrace– and his performance in South Africa, having spent days amongst the poorest amongst us– and then howling in that host country– that he and his obnoxious wife are “miserable and unhappy”, was a bloody disgrace.

One could write a book about Meghan Markle: a low-class z-lister– with a shady past. There needs to be investigation into her own connections with the SoHo House; yacht-owners; Markus Anderson…and corrupt politicos incl./the Obama, Hillary Clinton: a criminal traitor; and other repugnant thugs and goons, incl./Jefferey Epstein. In point of fact, Meghan Markle’s is a narcissist and worst: Anybody with a modicum of empathy for other people– having been given a life of luxury beyond the imagination of most human beings– was able to visit South Africa: where she treated the poorest amongst us like props– and then, proceeded to complain that people don’t ask her if she’s “OKAY”– instead of bearing witness to human misery, and coming away feeling grateful for how lucky she is: as she is nearing 40 years old– her sordid & squalid career was coming to an end with the mediocre soap-opera-ish “Suits”– and she was NO Judi Dench; NO Helen Mirren; and NOT even a Grace Kelly– NOT by any stretch of the imagination.

Meghan Markle announced that she was desperate to marry a rich Brit… and she bagged the dumbest man who happens to hold a title. The Queen granted her an obscenely lavish wedding– and she’s been moaning about how tough life is, ever since. She hired a PR firm called Sunshine Sachs & Sarah Latham who worked for the venal Hillary Clinton; and she established the Sussex Foundation extortion racket– in AZ, USA, where NO public audits are required– based upon the model of the Clinton Foundation money-laundering scheme– and the charities will be lucky if they see 3% of donations– because the rest of the money will be squirreled away by MM-“H””.

Thus, here we stand: A Monarchy that is disgraced by Andrew, Harry and Meghan Markle– all of whom should be stripped of their royal titles and privileges before it is too late. Already, MM-“H” are attacking William and Kate– of whom they are jealous. The demented MM believes that she should be Queen and she’s convinced the dolt, “H”, that he should be King. The BRF need to take care of the heirs who are able to carry out the public duties with decorum: and it’s NOT and NEVER will be Andrew, Meghan and Harry. It’s time to protect the Queen, Charles and William– from the fallout from these disgraced, selfish and toxic users: Fire WIlliam, Meghan and Harry NOW!!!

Patiently Waiting

20th November 2019 at 2:28 pm

Correction: Fire Andrew, Meghan and Harry NOW!!! … Apologies.

Winston Stanley

17th November 2019 at 11:19 pm

Busted.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7695233/Videos-Prince-Andrew-partying-nightclubs-beautiful-young-women-French-Riviera.html

> Prince ‘I-didn’t-party-or-do-PDAs’ Andrew is pictured doing plenty of both at wild parties on the French Riviera in 2007 (and he looks a wee bit sweaty too)

Filmed during Prince Andrew’s ‘mid-life crisis’ period, the video clip (left) show him letting loose at wild parties on the French Riviera and being openly affectionate with beautiful young women, while looking sweaty and dishevelled. It comes just hours after his ‘car crash’ interview with the BBC. The Prince insisted in his sit-down with Emily Maitlis that he did not sweat or indulge in public displays of affection while defending himself against claims he slept with Jeffrey Epstein’s sex slave Virginia Roberts. His comments seemed to cast doubts on the authenticity of a photo which shows him with his arm around Ms Roberts’ waist. However, the newly-discovered footage, published exclusively by the MailOnline, shows Andrew looking dishevelled and sweaty as he wanders around several raucous parties on the Riviera. Photos also show him embracing a string of beautiful women publicly (right), appearing not to care about the cameras tracking his every move. In one photo, taken in July 2007 the Prince looks wild-eyed as he parties with American socialite Chris Von Aspen, who licks him (centre). Prince Andrew is seen accompanied by Canadian socialite Pascale Bourbeau at a party in Saint-Tropez, France, in July 2007 in another photo (right).

Jeremy Bonington-Jagworth

25th November 2019 at 1:11 pm

Apart from the fact that he didn’t say he’s never sweated:

Where’s the sweat?!

Jim Lawrie

17th November 2019 at 10:36 pm

The not being able to sweat story sounds like a desperate attempt to allay suspicion that he had taken Ecstasy.

Brandy Cluster

17th November 2019 at 10:06 pm

This whole episode illustrates what happens to people who have inherited wealth and privilege through no actions of their own. Not just the British Royal Family but most very wealthy families and their insufferable, entitled offspring. It’s the cause of what I call “cultural malaise” which results in these types adopting fashionable Left wing causes with absolutely zero material cost to themselves.

Somebody like Anderson Cooper (from the Vanderbilt family) who can posture and pontificate on CNN knowing that whatever he’s advocating or activist about isn’t going to affect him in the least.

Marvin Jones

18th November 2019 at 12:01 pm

It is nigh impossible to value and respect money if one has never experienced not having enough to pay one’s rent or bills in their early life of struggles. I am totally baffled about how people who scream that they are in poverty, when they and their offspring have I-Phones and 50inch TVs. How do migrants in Calais pay for their I-phones?

Fred Forsythe

20th November 2019 at 11:59 am

“How do migrants in Calais pay for their I-phones?”
Same way they get the 20 grand required to get to Calais.

Max Wormhole

17th November 2019 at 8:23 pm

The royal family are the same as any other mafia control dynasty. By social convention, we are urged to accept the proposition that Elizabeth Windsor owns the land, the church, the banks and the military. They live in palaces and make appearances in war displays. Their ancestors killed off everyone who disagreed with them, and rewarded a pyramid of greedy sycophants underneath them with titles, land and privilege. But let me be the flip side of Andrew Windsor’s calamity for a moment; I’ll suggest that he’s actually being brave. His obvious guilt and squirming complacency outed him as a narcissist, a compulsive liar and his body language betrayed psychopathy. He outed himself. In his own way, he lifted the veil and showed us what a sickening grift the monarchy is. I believe he is, in his own tortured way, a WHISTLEBLOWER. My prediction? He will hide behind a plea of mental illness while the whole Tory/Brexit/Trump/ shiftiest goes into meltdown. Meanwhile, away from the drama of royal lies, election crime is happening. Right now. They are rigging the game as you are reading this.

antoni orgill

18th November 2019 at 6:29 pm

So, one interesting problem to be reckoned with is how the LP will react to this. It’s bound to fuel the Republican sentiment but will that make any real difference in the medium term? This could become a crisis from which the Royals never recover. But, it will take courage to push things forward. Any time they show a weakness we should try to bury them with every word we utter, every sentence written, every opportunity that presents itself. This sickening little example of His Sordorness’ vileness is just the tip of an obscenely ugly iceberg … let us hope we can melt it with the breath of our contempt …

Fred Forsythe

20th November 2019 at 12:05 pm

AND still the dumbed down drones sing GS the Q at every English sporting event instead of ‘Jerusalem’

ZENOBIA PALMYRA

17th November 2019 at 7:24 pm

Yet another argument, were it needed, for the total abolition of the monarchy and its replacement, for the first time in British history, with a libertarian Republican Constitution. How can any British person claim to live in a democracy when this corrupt family of bourgeois freeloaders ‘reign’ over us. There can be no rational justification for the continuance of this absurd, outmoded, unjust and indefensible system of unearned privilege and social engineering, which stretches down into the so-called ‘public’ schools and unelected House of Frauds. America has had its 1776. Now it’s time for ours.

LIVE FREE OR DIE

Max Wormhole

17th November 2019 at 8:36 pm

How is that working out for America? Did escaping the monarchy fix it?

Brandy Cluster

17th November 2019 at 10:01 pm

It’s a very valid question, worthy of an answer!!

brent mckeon

18th November 2019 at 7:27 am

Guess one can assess a countries success by how many people move heaven and earth to live there. By that standard the USA is very successful, millions of immigrants the past 150+ years, not to mention the millions battering down the borders to get in now. If Trump’s America is so racist/bad etc why are millions trying to move to America, guess success is the attraction?

Joe Scibiorski

18th November 2019 at 8:11 am

The difference is that, in the USA, you can vote out the current leader if you don’t like him. In the UK you’re stuck with the current royal family. You can’t get rid of them short of changing the system.
Accidents of birth, which god you believe in, and what sort of genitals you’ve got between your legs (until recently) are not good bases for selecting heads of state irrespective of whether they have executive power or are merely symbolic.

Ven Oods

18th November 2019 at 7:22 pm

“and what sort of genitals you’ve got between your legs (until recently)”
Excellent! Gave me a genuine chuckle.

Jenny Clarke

18th November 2019 at 11:45 am

Zenobia, We did this in 1649 (after a bloody civil war which culminated in executing the monarch) under the Commonwealth Protectorate, and found that kings, ultimately, were more controllable than presidents. You clearly do not understand how the UK Constitution works.

James E Shaw

18th November 2019 at 12:38 pm

Because as America proved after 1776, countries that ditch their links with monarchy become more progressive and enlightened.

Oh, except that 90 years later the country degenerated into a bitter civil war and slavery was not abolished until 1865, by which point Britain had not only outlawed slavery but in its own empire as well.

Jenny Clarke

19th November 2019 at 8:38 am

Pity the US did not ditch its connection with monarchy, then. Or are US citizens unaware that what they have (like the French) is an elective monarchy?

antoni orgill

18th November 2019 at 6:30 pm

cool

Neil McCaughan

17th November 2019 at 5:58 pm

Brenda will be wishing that Hillary didn’t stop at Epstein.

ZENOBIA PALMYRA

17th November 2019 at 7:27 pm

Brenda has done nothing but wave her hand at her docile ‘subjects’ through bulletproof glass for 67 years. The ‘royal’ family is, and always was, state-sponsored theft.

Jenny Clarke

19th November 2019 at 8:43 am

Zenobia, do you know what the Crown Estate is? It is the estate held by the sovereign. It is administered to the benefit of the UK – 85% of its proceeds goes to the state, 15% pays for the Queen etc. The monarchy costs each citizen a minute amount of money per year – mainly on security. The monarchy brings in trade (that’s the purpose of all those foreign trips), tourism and the Queen in her own person generates far more respect for the country than say Blair, Brown or Cameron – as does her eldest son, and his sons and daughters-in-law.

Jim Lawrie

17th November 2019 at 5:11 pm

Never trust a creep who hides behind his children.
And then a disability brought on by heroic military service.

One thing we can be sure of – he has never sweated from a day’s work, although he might do at the thought of it.

He’ll hide behind diplomatic immunity.

Brandy Cluster

17th November 2019 at 10:02 pm

Your first two lines could describe any welfare cheat in any of our countries. I agree.

Jenny Clarke

19th November 2019 at 8:45 am

You are clearly not acquainted with any welfare cheats. Pizza Express in Woking? Never.

Jenny Clarke

19th November 2019 at 8:44 am

Have to agree about Andrew. Once a creep always a creep.

farkennel smith

24th November 2019 at 6:51 am

Once a false rape accuser,always a scum sucking sub human piece of acid bait.

Vivien Johnson

22nd November 2019 at 12:00 am

Whether you respect it or not Andrew’s military service is a fact. Lack of sweating awaits an authoritative medical opinion, and the naked envy and rage of all the would-be anti Monarchists is well screeched here.
Joanna ? Williams’s diatribe against the monarchy is a tired tub-thump and the transparent attempt to link the crimes of Epstein seamlessly with Andrew would not pass a junior high debater.

Jeremy Bonington-Jagworth

25th November 2019 at 1:22 pm

I take it that when you said “And then a disability brought on by heroic military service” you were being sarcastic.

There’s one thing we can be sure of – you’ve never sweated from the kind of days’ and nights’ work that got him sweating, although you might do at the thought of it:

His “job” in the Falklands wasn’t risking being “shot at” with bullets:

It was flying over near Antarctic seas as a decoy to distract anti-ship missiles from their targets!

Mark Lambert

17th November 2019 at 4:12 pm

Now we probably know why Her Maj hangs on to the top job.
Although we have had plenty of examples of that over the years.

Leave a comment

You must be logged in to comment. Log in or Register now.