Open Letter to King Charles: Enough is Enough
The time has long past for King Charles to handle Andrew's long-standing associations with Jeffrey Epstein
Happy New Year, Dear Readers!
The start of a new year brings the hope of turning over a new leaf and looking forward. Unfortunately for the British Royal Family, Prince Andrew, the proverbial festering, quivering boil on the Royal Family’s caboose, and his sins have resurfaced once again to plague the Royal Family.
In August, I wrote about how the family’s continued association with him opened them up just criticism. The past 48 hours have shown just how true this is. Something needs to be done about Andrew.
On Thursday 4 January, documents relating to a deposition were released after being unsealed by a judge weeks prior. It’s unsurprising that we have the most details about Andrew from what are being dubbed the “Epstein files” since the documents are from a defamation suit filed by Virginia Guiffre (Andrew’s accuser/victim) against Ghislaine Maxwell. I also think that scope and context is important to keep in mind overall. There are many people who are mentioned like Leonardo DiCaprio, Naomi Campbell and Stephen Hawking and there are some people that aren’t mentioned and that doesn’t necessarily indicate the totality of their relationship with Epstein. This lawsuit had a specific focus and just because these witnesses didn’t see anything personally, doesn’t mean these documents tell the whole story. Anyone who associated with Epstein after his initial conviction in 2008 is, at best, extremely stupid. Over 20 civil cases have been filed against him and his estate over the past 16 years. It’s hard to imagine that anyone who spent time with him in private wasn’t somewhat aware something fishy was happening.
I will admit, Epstein’s crimes are not something I enjoy discussing. Not because I don’t find his crimes heinous, but because there isn’t much to be said. He was a horrible person who did horrible things and he met a horrible death. He was ridiculously wealthy, which meant that he had many famous, rich and influential friends. And all that means is there’s not likely to ever be any accountability. For anyone unsure why the police is not investigating, Cameron Walker at GB News interviewed sources at the Met and they provided some compelling information: One of the biggest pieces was, this case is not their jurisdiction. They’ve already reviewed all the information coming out previously. So far, none of these documents have produced anything new to warrant an investigation because those who come forward are going with civil cases. Virginia Guiffre did attempt a criminal case but her statements were contradictory and she lost necessary evidence. My interest in Epstein goes only so far as to Prince Andrew’s relationship with him and how it continues to harm the British Royal Family by association. So with that, let’s unpack how disappointed I am in King Charles’s handling of this whole affair.
“He hasn’t been found guilty”
The common refrain you hear is “Andrew hasn’t been found guilty of anything”. My response?
So what?
Whether he was found guilty or not, it’s disgusting that Andrew is linked to such an abhorrent case and that he was friends with such disgusting people. That he is still seen in public with the working royals is insane. That he has been seen in public with the King is madness. That he went to church at Sandringham where they had to go through hundreds of people was wrong. Yes, he is “family”, but keep that private. That was a “private event” that was very public. He was cackling without a care in the world. That Fergie was there is wrong too. Can the institution be aware of things for once in their lives and understand that they should at least keep Andrew away from the working royals and all public events. It doesn’t matter if it is an “official” or “family event”.
He hasn’t been found “guilty”. But given the public view of him and the negative press stepping back completely from public life is the right and decent thing to do. And if he is invited to “family events” he should be there privately. Arrive by car at a back, secluded entrance. Don’t take part in any public aspect. He needs to appreciate he isn’t in prison, still has Fergie and his daughters and grandchildren, and learn to live quietly. The problem is, Andrew has no shame. And he has no contrition. He is deluded enough to believe that he should in public-facing situations with the wider public. He isn’t going to step back until he’s made to do so. And that’s where King Charles has shown dereliction of duty. Yes, Andrew hasn’t been formally charged. In the eyes of the law, he’s innocent until proven guilty. But right now? Morally and publicly? He’s not innocent. We aren’t judges here to determine whether he is guilty of a crime or not, but the association alone is terrible.
Taking away Andrew’s titles is another talking point, which I do agree with. King Charles doesn’t have the power to remove his titles, but Parliament can. Charles could write to Parliament and signal that he is in support of this move. There is precedent here. Two months into his reign, he wrote to Parliament with a request to add in two new Councilors of State: Princess Anne and Prince Edward.
Within a couple of weeks, a bill was introduced into the House of Lords and approved in quick succession. It would definitely be a pain in the ass to remove his titles, the King would need buy in from all the Lords. It’s not as simple as people think and it’s not something the monarch can do on his own. But he could try. In comparison, not inviting Andrew to public or semi-public events is something the King can do, no matter if they see it as a “family event”
Kick him out
A very public fight played out between Andrew and King Charles in the media when it became clear that Charles wanted to evict Andrew. Though the home was a “gift” from his mother, Andrew had signed a lease directly with the Crown Estate and the terms included a stipulation that he’d have to invest money to renovate the home properly over time. The lease terms were for 99 years and when stories about Andrew’s impending eviction reached a fevered pitch earlier this year, sources close to him were blunt:
“This is a lease between him and the Crown Estate. That’s not a matter for the King. It’s a matter for the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The only way you could get him to move out would be through an arrangement — he [Andrew] would have to agree”.
Unfortunately, this “source” is correct. Andrew, whatever we may think of him, has a legal lease. If he abides by the terms of his them, then he legally cannot be evicted. As discussed, one of those terms is Andrew is responsible for the cost of renovations. That’s why King Charles played sly hardball by cutting off Andrew’s allowance shortly after the Queen died. This allowance is what allowed Andrew to afford the renovations as they occurred.
His friend told the newspaper: "He is so fragile. He's refusing to see anybody. This has been his family home for the past 20 years. Is it really sensible to kick him out?"
They added: "He's concerned that now the Coronation is over, the knives are out. He's worried that the royals might even turn off the utilities to get him out of there. But we're dealing with human beings, not real estate."
Andrew is responsible for the refurbishment costs of the building, but after the King has "slimmed down" the monarchy's spending, he can no longer afford the upkeep.
I need Charles to go for the jugular. Yes, Andrew signed a legal lease. And it’s likely that if he’s forced to break the lease by his brother, Andrew would be entitled to money, but that is small price to pay for getting him out of there. The reason why Andrew is hanging on to Royal Lodge tightly with both hands is because it’s a sign of his standing in life. He’s a “Prince of the Blood” who received an estate home from the Queen of England. He can waddle around and feel important ensconced on the estate. And the loss of Royal Lodge would mean that he’s also lost his status. That’s why the odd public appearances with the Royal Family are so damaging, though they are much less than they were when Queen Elizabeth was alive..
Being seen with Andrew in public, going to church with him, even being seen in a simple photo with him is terrible PR for everyone involved. I don’t care if he’s family. He was mentioned in an aberrant case and was friends with aberrant people and by his own admission, he does not regret being friends with said people. Family or not, he is suspected at best, of doing terrible things. Family or not, they can’t pretend that he is a saint or that being family exonerates him from everything. While he has never admitted to any crimes, remaining friends with a convicted criminal and staying at his house post conviction is a serious lapse in judgement.
Thus, Andrew being seen alongside working royals, the people who represent the monarch, i.e. the head of state and his government, is appalling. Andrew being seen next to the monarch is appalling. King Charles and his siblings have to learn to separate the family from the institution. And if they don’t do it now, they never will. And the fact that they have never learned to do so is the reason why the spares have been able to do as they please without any serious consequences. And it seemed like we were going so well with this back in November of 2022.
In November 2022, Andrew was photographed at a shooting party on the Windsor Estate his two siblings, Anne and Edward. This allegedly angered King Charles who believed that Andrew should not be seen publicly like this with working members of the Royal Family. It’s said that this attendance was “intended as a show of support” for Andrew but Charles was reportedly angry and Buckingham Palace briefed the press about his disappointment to well-connected royal reporter Kate Mansey.
This public outing intended to show support by his siblings was preceded by stories about Prince Andrew in tears after speaking to the King and being told, in no uncertain terms, that there was no way back to public life for him.
Prince Andrew was left ‘bereft’ and ‘tearful’ when Charles, as Prince of Wales, told him he would never return to Royal duties, The Mail on Sunday can reveal.
The Duke of York’s hopes of returning to public life were dashed at a one-on-one meeting with his older brother that an insider has described as ‘emotional and fraught’. And the devastating decision has left those around the Duke concerned for his well-being, a source told this newspaper.
Andrew is said to have been ‘blindsided’ by the outcome of the private meeting, held at Charles’s Birkhall estate in Scotland, just days before the Queen’s death.
He believes he could ‘still be of value’ as a working member of the Royal Family despite his association with convicted paedophile Jeffrey Epstein, and has lobbied strenuously to resume his former roles.
But The Mail on Sunday understands these hopes were quashed in the early-morning meeting, attended only by the two brothers.
This story could easily have been leaked by Andrew as well as Charles. The sympathetic slant to the story, Andrew’s “tears” and being “blindsided” and “bereft”, make me think it was Andrew’s people speaking to Mansey. Only someone as clueless as Andrew would think there was even a chance he could be allowed back in to public life.
Two months before this tearful meeting, Andrew had asked his daughters to lobby his brother on his behalf and Charles gave the same answer:
Loyal Princesses Beatrice and Eugenie have asked Prince Charles directly to hand their disgraced dad Andrew a return to royal duties.
Charles rejected the plea by Prince Andrew’s daughters to give their dad a way back to royal life, telling them: “There’s no chance.”
The future king, 73, is said to remain “resolute” that the Queen’s decision to strip Andrew of his royal roles and use of the HRH title must not be reversed, sources say.
He held a summit with Princesses Beatrice, 34, and Eugenie, 32, over tea and biscuits at his home on the Birkhall Estate in Aberdeenshire, Scotland, The Sun on Sunday understands.
Just days earlier, Duke of York Andrew, 62, had a “business meeting” with Charles at the same venue to argue his case.
Charles heard all three out but their pleas “fell on deaf ears”.
So it’s clear that in the months leading up to Queen Elizabeth’s death and in the months following, Andrew still wasn’t getting the hint that he wasn’t coming back. Despite Charles’s steadfast refusal to even entertain the idea (something his mother did not share) he still kept trying, and Charles held strong. So if the King was angry about his siblings going on the hunt with Andrew, why did he allow him at the Christmas Walk in 2022? The Mail on Sunday story Andrew in tears sheds some light onto this:
And the devastating decision has left those around the Duke concerned for his well-being, a source told this newspaper.
I think Charles tried to bring down the hammer, but felt a lot of guilt because Beatrice, Eugenie and his siblings came to him distraught. Andrew is pathetic and likely spoke in ways that scared his family. Andrew is a pompous layabout prone to tantrums and hysterics. The combination of his mother dying, his greatest ally and champion, and being told there was no way back likely drove him into a deep depression. And being an older brother, Charles was too weak to completely close the door in his face. Charles likely thought, what’s the harm? It’s just one walk. But it’s so much more than that. Which leads to me William and Catherine, the Prince and Princess of Wales.
William the Enforcer
Although I believe that William was driving force behind the decisions the Queen finally made regarding Andrew some years ago, he’s not the monarch. And therefore does not have the authority to do many things, especially when it comes to the family and the institution. But, he does have the power not to associate with Andrew at least in public. He has the power not to be seen with him in any capacity that he can control and I hope he does. For his own sake and for his wife’s sake. And their reputation. We’ve seen that in action: Andrew has never been to any event which William or Catherine host, even when extended family is present.
I had believed stories Charles was also involved in those decisions or, at least, pressured Queen Elizabeth to make them. But the way he’s not acting right now makes me believe he wasn’t involved. It seems as usual, it was just William pulling everyone forward.
While a friend also told the paper: “He [William] feels very strongly about this and if it had been up to him he would have pushed for things to have happened a lot faster than they did.
“He has strong views on the Duke of York and believes his insistence in trying to cling on to a public role is highly dangerous for the institution.”
A story many royal watchers know: We saw exactly what William thought of Andrew’s inclusion during the 2022 Garter Ceremony. Prince William pulled rank and refused to join the procession if Andrew was going to be part of it. Even the Queen found it a no-brainer and acquiesced to William’s demand and told Andrew he could no longer take part. How I wish William had done the same when he photographed driving Andrew out of a church service last year.
When I saw this photo, I knew exactly what was going on: King Charles asked William to do this, and William, no longer heir to the heir to the throne, felt duty bound to obey. Shortly after these photos were released, a very obvious leak to the media from Kensington Palace explained how this happened:
The King overruled Prince William by ordering the family to fall in line in welcoming the disgraced Duke of York back into the family fold, it has been claimed.
The monarch has made it clear to the senior royals that Prince Andrew would not be shut out any longer and suggested the Prince of Wales would be the one to drive him to church in Scotland last Sunday, sources have revealed. His appearance alongside the future king and queen, while knowing they would all be photographed, has been seen as a major boost in the York camp towards the Duke’s rehabilitation.
One insider said that while William may have attended private functions with his uncle, namely last Christmas at Sandringham aside from the Queen’s funeral and King’s Coronation, he had absolutely no desire to be seen with the Duke in public. “It appears he may have had his wings clipped somewhat”, said another source.
Prince William and his aides, likely sick that he was put in this position, were making it patently clear the Wales couple had nothing to do with this and were was forced into this situation. Instead of giving his brother a ride in his own car, King Charles forced his far more popular son to do his dirty work, in the hopes that the public would buy into Andrew’s role in the family more. A ludicrous hope, as all it did was heap criticism on the Prince and Princess of Wales.
The Squad Seething
Something I grow weary of? The Sussex Squad using this dastardly business to, yet again, continue their years long campaign against the Royal Family to settle scores. As I said in an earlier newsletter:
What is crucially missing from he discourse is the only person deciding Andrew can attend Christmas/Easter Royal Family walks, the Coronation Garter robes, the family church days…Is the King. Just as the Queen before him. Andrew walked behind the King and Queen at Easter. He walked with Edward to the service at Christmas.
Who was the person who invited Prince Andrew to Balmoral? King Charles
Who makes decisions as to who goes where at Balmoral? King Charles.
The Prince and Princess of Wales were photographed entering the Craithie Kirk church by themselves in their car. Andrew was not photographed entering. Who would’ve made the call for where Andrew would sit even thought his car also had room? King Charles
Just like the Queen before him, King Charles is responsible for Andrew inclusion or exclusion, not William. But William is a more attractive and convenient scapegoat.
Holding William, let alone Catherine, responsible for Prince Andrew’s actions (occurred when they were teenagers at university) and King Charles and Queen Elizabeth’s inaction is deluded. After being forced to give him a ride, cameras documenting the Heir to the Throne giving the disgraced Uncle a ride, doesn’t mean Prince William and Kate Middleton are horrible people, with horrible judgment, and every single good deed they have done is inconsequential, irrelevant and of little account because they didn’t force Andrew to ride in the trunk or walk home. Both things can be true: William and Kate look “bad” for doing this AND using this one occurrence to paint their character with a wide brush is a stretch.
Another compelling reason why these criticisms and blaming are unconvincing by design? If a public rebuke by the Royal Family of Andrew is necessary, why has the same criticism not been levied against his ex-wife Fergie who regularly tells the press that Andrew is a good man who needs to be allowed to move on with his life?
What about Princess Eugenie, whose Anti-Slavery Collective charity today put out an obvious tweet to “spread awareness” and telling the public to “be vigilant” about recognizing those trapped in modern slavery today? But then restricted replies?
And we can’t forget Eugenie receiving nearly one million pounds to fund her wedding from one of her father’s shady friends?
Or, what about Beatrice who was photographed today grinning like a Cheshire Cat visiting her father, knowing that the photos would end up on the front pages? Nothing like headlines of “Princess Beatrice shows her father, Prince Andrew support” to help spin this hellish story.
Where are the pitchforks asking his daughters to publicly denounce and distance themselves from their father’s heinous actions? No. Supporters of Harry and Meghan are going to hop, skip, and jump right over Queen Elizabeth enabling him for decades, King Charles sitting on hands, and go straight to assigning blame and castigation to William and Catherine who were forced to give him one ride in 2023. Is it because Eugenie, Beatrice and the Yorks are the only people Prince Harry and Meghan Markle were/are on speaking terms with? Is it because they regularly had lunch at Royal Lodge when they lived in the UK and they don’t want to speak ill of their only allies within the Firm?
Your guess is as good as mine. But on the list of people “responsible” for Prince Andrew’s behavior and allotting punishment? The Prince and Princess of Wales don’t make the Top 50 and have nothing to do with his alleged crimes. William is not the head of the family who is making these decisions. At least not until he’s King. Using this sad business to inserting the Sussexes and their supposed treatment by the family into this is obvious and a disservice to the victims. Takes like this make no sense because they are not grounded in reality.
Who are these “people” who believe Andrew is a worse person than Prince Andrew? Time after time he is voted as not only the least liked cvlic figure, but the most hated Royal. I think it’s something like only 8% of the UK public see him in a favorable light.
Meghan in comparison is liked by nearly 4x as many people in the country. There is zero evidence to suggest otherwise. It’s all in their heads. Someone stop the madness. People are allowed to dislike people for differing reasons and differing levels of seriousness. Just say you hate the Wales’s and call it day. Don’t waste our time sniffing about victims if all roads lead to settling scores on the Sussexes behalf.
So, what happens now?
I’ve always believed that Epstein had multiple groups he isolated from one another.
There were people he used as lures to gain legitimacy and gain access to other targets. Those people would be showered with gifts, loans and investment “windfalls” yet kept out of the worst aspects of Epstein’s operation.
Then there were two groups of marks:
Those he could ensnare with garden variety infidelity and sex, cheaters and closeted individuals with plenty to lose but who had vanilla tastes. I’ve always thought Andrew was in that group.
And a second group of the most perverse, powerful and wealthy men and women who wanted to break taboos and norms. Those who wanted non-consensual sex, p-d-ph-l-a, violent sex, orgies and other acts scorned by society as perverse. I think he blackmailed the hell out of those marks, and threatened exposure to avoid initial prosecution and exposure. These are the people who made certain he initially got a slap on the wrist. And they are the ones that made sure Andrew and Ghislaine were the focus of all the scrutiny post his second conviction and death. They were the ones who recruited Boiles and who insured Maxwell’s trial was held in virtual secrecy. And they are the ones who kept his black book under wraps for years.
One thing the deposition nailed home to me is that these women were told by Epstein and Maxwell to essentially do whatever the men wanted. But I do wonder if any of these men, ever once, thought of it as sex trafficking or did they look around and just think, “It’s a party! I’m the man! And look at all these girls up for anything! ” These offenses happened in the days of hedonism. Reading the deposition, I was reminded of the Playboy Mansion stories in the 1970s. Back then, Hugh Hefner was seen as a cool cat with girls hanging off his arm. In reality? A cesspool of drugs, sexual assault and death. What was going through the minds of the men who hung out around Epstein? I really think they all just thought this buffet of young sexual girls were there for their pleasure without any thought to how they got there, just like they wouldn’t have stopped to think about why a woman might be sleeping with them. It had to be because they were such great catches, right? It couldn’t be because that’s what they were trafficked for. These are the people Andrew associated with.
The biggest mistake Queen Elizabeth II ever did, and which her son is continuing to mirror, was not stripping Andrew of his titles. They ignored Prince William’s advice and decided to protect and continue to protect a man who was a close of friend of Epstein, Maxwell and Weinstein instead of protecting the monarchy. It should have been done years ago. They probably knew what was in the files, but still King Charles chose instead to parade Andrew and his grifter of an ex-wife on Christmas. It does not remove the good he has done. But it does make me think less of him. Especially since he seems to pull rank himself and force his son to sully his own good name for the sake of a wastrel.
King Charles, if you’re reading this: Banish Andrew from public life forever, take away his princely titles and dukedom, remove him as CoS, and from LoS. If you want to have him over for dinner, be our guest. He wants to go to church with you all? He can arrive an hour early and take the back entrance.
The British Royal Family banished Edward VIII for marrying a divorcee in the 1930s. A KING. Yet now they can’t properly kick out an irrelevant idiot who has done far worse. Charles is picking up his mother’s worst habits and has become too casual and accepting of horrible behavior.
As an example, King Felipe and Queen Letizia try to not be seen publicly together with Former King Juan Carlos. It’s very important for the Prince and Princess of Wales to not be seen with Prince Andrew anymore. If King Charles wants to be with his brother, have at it, but not the Wales’s and their family. No more. And if it is down to worrying about Andrew, I understand that too. But that’s what therapy is for. If he’s considered harming himself and his family [William: Not me] is worried about his mental health, a good therapist can work wonders.
Enough is enough.
-Lady Sinclair