Did the Queen know about Prince Andrew and his sweat glands? 

Lainey Posted by Lainey at November 19, 2019 15:36:47 November 19, 2019 15:36:47

The fallout from Prince Andrew’s shambolic interview with Emily Maitlis on BBC Newsnight continues. It was a unanimous bomb. A major disaster. A total sh-t show to the point where even the British tabloids can’t avoid it as, you know, they prefer another royal target. But it’s undeniable that there’s only one royal doofus in the British royal family – it’s the Queen’s beloved second son, the one who was friends with the dead rapist pedophile, Jeffrey Epstein. 

According to the Sun, Andrew went to church with Her Majesty on Sunday after the interview aired and, supposedly, he was in great spirits because he thought it was “a great success”. I believe this. I believe it because of the way he conducted himself in the interview and the way he has conducted himself over the last 20 years – this fool thinks he’s the sh-t. He thinks he’s a baller, what with all his “eminent” contacts, rolling up to international trade meetings like he’s the ultimate wheeler-dealer. Of course he thought it went well. Of course he thought the world would see him the way his mother sees him and that’s been part of the problem. It’s time again for me to link to one of the best reference pieces on Andrew that I’ve sourced often – the Vanity Fair article from 2011, “The Trouble With Andrew”. It’s amazing how prescient that piece is considering how much of the Epstein mess is still unresolved and, obviously, exploding in the royal family’s face right now. One of the major takeaways is that the Prince Andrew keeps f-cking up because his mother, the Queen, has indulged him for far too long. He is, apparently, her blind spot. 

Andrew claimed that he had the Queen’s go-ahead when he sat down for the interview with Newsnight. But now there are reports that that might not be true. According to the Daily Telegraph, she “did not give her approval for the Duke of York’s Newsnight interview about his friendship with Jeffrey Epstein” and palace insiders are now accusing Prince Andrew’s office of “operating in a silo”. 

It must be a mess among the courtiers right now because even though they’ve been trying to protect Andrew, the priority is always the crown. And the crown doesn’t look so good right now. Prince Charles and Camilla are on tour in New Zealand and getting very little press coverage because Andrew’s defective sweat glands are dominating headlines. The dilemma now is how to distance the seat of power from the family f-ckup. Of course the Queen can’t be seen to be endorsing Andrew’s humiliating performance on television the other night. Because it speaks to her judgment as well.

Andrew is now losing sponsors for his [email protected] initiative. The National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children (NSPCC), which Prince Andrew name-checked in his interview on Newsnight when he was answering a question about whether or not he ever saw his friend, Jeffrey Epstein, the dead rapist pedophile, abusing girls… 

“And if there was, you have to remember that at the time I was patron of the NSPCC's Full Stop campaign so I was close up with what was going on in those time about getting rid of abuse to children so I knew what the things were to look for but I never saw them.”

…is now making it clear that they’ve not worked with Andrew in a decade, releasing a statement to the Telegraph that “Prince Andrew was a patron of the NSPCC Full Stop Campaign, which ended in 2009.”

Prince Andrew and Buckingham Palace, for years, have insisted that he’s innocent. For years his claims were taken at face value, not challenged, not the way they’re being challenged now, even though his explanations have never really made sense, even though Jeffrey Epstein’s victims tried to be heard, maintaining that Andrew was among the Epstein’s circle of influential enablers. The public and the media didn’t care enough to keep on it. Now, though, finally, Andrew’s explanations are being thoroughly considered and reconsidered …and found wanting. 

But can we just go back to that mess of an interview? Here’s an answer of Andrew’s that I didn’t get to yesterday that was allllll kinds of WTF. This is the second son of the Queen of England, Prince Andrew the Duke of York, with dozens of other titles, being asked about his friendship with the dead rapist pedophile Jeffrey Epstein and the allegations from some of Epstein’s victims that they were sex-trafficked to Andrew. When Emily Maitlis asked him, again, if there was any way he could have had sex with any of the girls under Epstein’s detainment – which is mortifying enough! – this was Andrew’s response: 

“No and without putting too fine a point on it, if you're a man it is a positive act to have sex with somebody. You have to have to take some sort of positive action and so therefore if you try to forget it's very difficult to try and forget a positive action and I do not remember anything. I can't, I've wracked my brain and thinking oh… when the first allegations, when the allegations came out originally I went well that's a bit strange, I don't remember this and then I've been through it and through it and through it over and over and over again and no, nothing. It just never happened.”

The Queen’s son, Prince Andrew, is talking about how good sex feels feels! “It’s a positive act.” And when something feels as good as sex feels, it’s hard to forget how good it feels. He’s saying this ON CAMERA! These are people who judge the way you drink your f-cking tea. And he’s out there talking about his unforgettable “positive actions”! Can you appreciate how breathtakingly embarrassing this is?! 
 

Photos:
John Phillips/ Getty Images

Previous Article Next Article