I don't particularly like Andrew. Or, for that matter, Harry.
But they are being treated unfairly. Take all that fuss about whether they should be allowed to wear Uniforms at the Queen's funeral. That would be the only 2 living Royals who have actually seen active service during armed conflicts! In my book, that's more important than some ceremonial title where people pretend to be in charge of troops.
Andrew was a Working Royal for the thick end of 40 years. As opposed to certain PMs who barely managed 40 days.
Due to his association with Epstein, he needed to Retire, regardless of whether he wanted to. But he still deserves to be treated with some dignity. Which most certainly does not require £3milly a year.
I don't particularly like Andrew. Or, for that matter, Harry.
But they are being treated unfairly. Take all that fuss about whether they should be allowed to wear Uniforms at the Queen's funeral. That would be the only 2 living Royals who have actually seen active service during armed conflicts! In my book, that's more important than some ceremonial title where people pretend to be in charge of troops.
Andrew was a Working Royal for the thick end of 40 years. As opposed to certain PMs who barely managed 40 days.
Due to his association with Epstein, he needed to Retire, regardless of whether he wanted to. But he still deserves to be treated with some dignity. Which most certainly does not require £3milly a year.
I don't particularly like Andrew. Or, for that matter, Harry.
But they are being treated unfairly. Take all that fuss about whether they should be allowed to wear Uniforms at the Queen's funeral. That would be the only 2 living Royals who have actually seen active service during armed conflicts! In my book, that's more important than some ceremonial title where people pretend to be in charge of troops.
Andrew was a Working Royal for the thick end of 40 years. As opposed to certain PMs who barely managed 40 days.
Due to his association with Epstein, he needed to Retire, regardless of whether he wanted to. But he still deserves to be treated with some dignity. Which most certainly does not require £3milly a year.
I don't particularly like Andrew. Or, for that matter, Harry.
But they are being treated unfairly. Take all that fuss about whether they should be allowed to wear Uniforms at the Queen's funeral. That would be the only 2 living Royals who have actually seen active service during armed conflicts! In my book, that's more important than some ceremonial title where people pretend to be in charge of troops.
Andrew was a Working Royal for the thick end of 40 years. As opposed to certain PMs who barely managed 40 days.
Due to his association with Epstein, he needed to Retire, regardless of whether he wanted to. But he still deserves to be treated with some dignity. Which most certainly does not require £3milly a year.
Again, not a shred of evidence (& no named sources).
If I had to guess, I'd suggest the whole thing has been made up.
Isnt that pots and kettles? What evidence would you have for saying that?
1) Common-sense.
2) It's the Daily Mail & The Sun. Both have similar vendettas, trying to fuel hate, & to "cancel "people.
I accept that nothing can be proved either way. However there have been numerous recent articles about Charles laying the law down regarding his future role in the Royal Family. It seems that his future role will not entitle him to armed police guards. So the only thing left is whether he has got the hump or not. Going on his past conduct, and his inability to grasp reality, I know which side I would be leaning on.
Just to play devil's advocate here, for a minute.
A Royal is always going to be something of an attractive terror target, whether "working royal" or not.
In much the same way as former Prime Ministers. Who are entitled to lifelong round the clock police protection. Regardless of how relevant they may be. Or how much they are liked by the new PM, or the Public.
PS. I suspect the truth lies somewhere between the 2 of you. There will be a kernel of truth in the original story-for example Charles is less fond of Andrew than his Mum was, and Andrew wants continued protection of some sort.
Then the Mail blow it up out of all proportion. As usual.
This one beats The Mail hands down, and has a named source.
‘He’s a self absorbed, obnoxious, horrible little man who is disrespectful to those below him.’
Earlier this year it was revealed the Prince had a collection of stuffed teddy bears on his bed at Buckingham Palace, and would ‘shout and scream’ at staff if they arranged them incorrectly.
‘Maybe they were presents from his daughters or Fergie, but it’s still strange,’ a palace insider told The Sun.
Again, not a shred of evidence (& no named sources).
If I had to guess, I'd suggest the whole thing has been made up.
Isnt that pots and kettles? What evidence would you have for saying that?
1) Common-sense.
2) It's the Daily Mail & The Sun. Both have similar vendettas, trying to fuel hate, & to "cancel "people.
I accept that nothing can be proved either way. However there have been numerous recent articles about Charles laying the law down regarding his future role in the Royal Family. It seems that his future role will not entitle him to armed police guards. So the only thing left is whether he has got the hump or not. Going on his past conduct, and his inability to grasp reality, I know which side I would be leaning on.
Just to play devil's advocate here, for a minute.
A Royal is always going to be something of an attractive terror target, whether "working royal" or not.
In much the same way as former Prime Ministers. Who are entitled to lifelong round the clock police protection. Regardless of how relevant they may be. Or how much they are liked by the new PM, or the Public.
PS. I suspect the truth lies somewhere between the 2 of you. There will be a kernel of truth in the original story-for example Charles is less fond of Andrew than his Mum was, and Andrew wants continued protection of some sort.
Then the Mail blow it up out of all proportion. As usual.
This one beats The Mail hands down, and has a named source.
‘He’s a self absorbed, obnoxious, horrible little man who is disrespectful to those below him.’
Earlier this year it was revealed the Prince had a collection of stuffed teddy bears on his bed at Buckingham Palace, and would ‘shout and scream’ at staff if they arranged them incorrectly.
‘Maybe they were presents from his daughters or Fergie, but it’s still strange,’ a palace insider told The Sun.
Paul Page, a former armed protection officer who served the Royal Family for six years, claimed Andrew was a ‘horrible little man’ who has ‘questions to answer’ about his friendship with Epstein and convicted sex trafficker Ghislaine Maxwell.
Speaking to The Sun earlier this year, Mr Page said: ‘Andrew has questions to answer – but I don’t think he will ever be in a position where he will have to answer them because of who he is.
Comments
But they are being treated unfairly. Take all that fuss about whether they should be allowed to wear Uniforms at the Queen's funeral. That would be the only 2 living Royals who have actually seen active service during armed conflicts! In my book, that's more important than some ceremonial title where people pretend to be in charge of troops.
Andrew was a Working Royal for the thick end of 40 years. As opposed to certain PMs who barely managed 40 days.
Due to his association with Epstein, he needed to Retire, regardless of whether he wanted to. But he still deserves to be treated with some dignity. Which most certainly does not require £3milly a year.
@Essexphil
Very good post.
We can safely ignore the views of @HAYSIE due to his age.
‘He’s a self absorbed, obnoxious, horrible little man who is disrespectful to those below him.’
Earlier this year it was revealed the Prince had a collection of stuffed teddy bears on his bed at Buckingham Palace, and would ‘shout and scream’ at staff if they arranged them incorrectly.
‘Maybe they were presents from his daughters or Fergie, but it’s still strange,’ a palace insider told The Sun.
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/world/prince-andrew-furious-at-losing-taxpayer-funded-bodyguards/ar-AA14BSGn?ocid=msedgntp&cvid=2c7112973ba54736afe35c434f2d52e2
Speaking to The Sun earlier this year, Mr Page said: ‘Andrew has questions to answer – but I don’t think he will ever be in a position where he will have to answer them because of who he is.
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/world/prince-andrew-furious-at-losing-taxpayer-funded-bodyguards/ar-AA14BSGn?ocid=msedgntp&cvid=2c7112973ba54736afe35c434f2d52e2
I'll get my coat.
I'm not saying the Head of the family firm should not help out. What I am saying is it is his choice.
And running to the Press and sniping behind his back doesn't seem like a smart move to me.
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/money/other/king-charles-evicts-andrew-and-his-72-teddy-bears-from-buckingham-palace/ss-AA17zTH1?ocid=msedgntp&cvid=a89ea7559a1b4fd0b0c8b01fd61f6e95#image=3