Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor News and Events 1: Oct 2025 -


If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor charged taxpayers for massages and excessive travel costs while working as the UK's trade envoy, whistleblowing retired civil servants have claimed.
One former civil servant, who worked in the UK's trade department in the early 2000s, had been so annoyed by Andrew's request to cover the cost of "massage services" that he'd refused to pay it, but says he was overruled by senior staff.
"I thought it was wrong… I'd said we mustn't pay it, but we ended up paying it anyway," he told the BBC, about a claim that followed a visit by Andrew to the Middle East.
 

Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor is giving up the lease on another Crown Estate property, the BBC understands.
Mountbatten-Windsor has asked to end his lease on East Lodge, near his former home at Sunninghill Park in Berkshire, with documents seen by the BBC showing he has been paying an annual rent of almost £13,000.
Last year the former prince announced he was leaving Royal Lodge in Windsor and moving to Sandringham over his links to sex offender Jeffrey Epstein. He has previously denied wrongdoing in relation to Epstein.
But Mountbatten-Windsor had kept the tenancy of East Lodge, a Grade II-listed cottage located about five miles from Windsor, which is believed to have been used for staff accommodation.
 
Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor charged taxpayers for massages and excessive travel costs while working as the UK's trade envoy, whistleblowing retired civil servants have claimed.
Pretty mild compared to what most MPs were claiming for at the time. The infamous floating duck house springs to mind. Then there was the MP who claimed for the cost of renting "adult films" for her husband. Clearing a moat. Manure for the garden. Dog bowls. Trouser presses. Personal phone calls abroad. All sorts of "expenses" were being claimed until there was a huge scandal about it in 2009, followed by a clampdown. I'm not defending Andrew, but he was only doing what a load of other people were doing.
 
Pretty mild compared to what most MPs were claiming for at the time. The infamous floating duck house springs to mind. Then there was the MP who claimed for the cost of renting "adult films" for her husband. Clearing a moat. Manure for the garden. Dog bowls. Trouser presses. Personal phone calls abroad. All sorts of "expenses" were being claimed until there was a huge scandal about it in 2009, followed by a clampdown. I'm not defending Andrew, but he was only doing what a load of other people were doing.
Yes and if the voting public wanted to remove those MP's they could. The royal family the public are stuck with, or in his case WERE stuck with, but no longer.
 
Pretty mild compared to what most MPs were claiming for at the time. The infamous floating duck house springs to mind. Then there was the MP who claimed for the cost of renting "adult films" for her husband. Clearing a moat. Manure for the garden. Dog bowls. Trouser presses. Personal phone calls abroad. All sorts of "expenses" were being claimed until there was a huge scandal about it in 2009, followed by a clampdown. I'm not defending Andrew, but he was only doing what a load of other people were doing.
The moat! That was funny. I remember that.

The accepted role of the RF is that they should represent the ideal. Be figureheads of Britain, showing the country's best side. HLM, Philip, Queen Mary, even now the Dukes of Kent and Gloucester and others fulfilled and are now fulfilling this role admirably, with modesty and dedication.

Modesty and dedication were never important qualities within the York bailiwick.
 
Not sure where to put this, but I'm seeing on YouTube Videos Clips of British TV Shows that are implying that Princesses Beatrice and Eugenie are being greatly swept up in The York Family Epstein Scandals AND "Pay for Play" Financial Dealings.

I watched Jeremy Vine this AM and it *seems* Public Opinion there ( rightly or wrongly) is becoming skeptical and inquisitive about just how involved The York Princesses were. A Panelists of the Two featured on The Show, said based on Information released, that Both Women (aged 20 & 19) were (after visiting Epstein days after leaving Jail ) along with their Parents, especially Fergie, to be part of "supportive organization to repair Epstein' s reputation". And were drafted to take Epstein's friends on tours of Buckingham Palace.

And Andrew Lownie was interviewed on another Show, just stated that in his upcoming Paperwork Edition of his book Entitled, The Rise and Fall of The House of York, he will detail Beatrice and Eugenie's own questionable Financial Dealings with Contacts made through Their Parents.
And the latest is *allegedly* they won't be Invited to Ascot.
Another words, an escalating MESS.
 
Last edited:
Several newspapers have stated that Beatrice and Eugenie won't be invited into the Royal Box or to present trophies at Royal Ascot. [if they want to attend to attend the racing, they can of course pay for admission [like everybody else] and keep out of the Royal Enclosure.

I have often wondered how 'innocent' the York sisters have been and what advantages and and material benefits they received by virtue of AMW's relationship (ditto their mother's) wit Epstein and am therefore going to be interested in the further findings revealed in the paperback edition of Lownie's book. He has a reputation for accuracy and so I think we can believe what he says...
 
Last edited:
Several newspapers have stated that Beatrice and Eugenie won't be invited into the Royal Box or to present trophies at Royal Ascot. [if they want to attend to attend the racing, they can of course pay for admission [like everybody else] and keep out of the Royal Enclosure.
Isn’t there a relatively famous photo of them as children having to stand in the normal admission portion to wave to their family when their mother was on the outs?

I hope very much representatives on both sides are remembering how unfortunate a look it would be to have those photos in a side by side comparison.
 
By the time their mother was pulling them into the Epstein web they should have known better.
 
Isn’t there a relatively famous photo of them as children having to stand in the normal admission portion to wave to their family when their mother was on the outs?

I hope very much representatives on both sides are remembering how unfortunate a look it would be to have those photos in a side by side comparison.

The one that immediately springs to mind is the one of the young princesses standing with their nanny waving handkerchiefs [ugh!] at the passing royal procession as it passed just before the so-called 'Golden Gates' that lead on to the racecourse.

At the time, many people quoted in the press were dismissive of the Yorks 'playing the sympathy card' - it all looked rather pathetic.

Following the 'Fake Sheik' debacle, Fergie was allegedly banned from the Royal Box and the Royal Enclosure by Prince Phillip. She cleverly 're-inserted' herself into both by joining her daughters in the Ascot Authority Box when AMW was invited to present a trophy to the winners of one of the races. [The Ascot Authority invites Trophy Presenters to lunch ad tea in the Ascot Authority Box and Andrew simply said he would bring Fergie with him, which also secured a Royal Enclosure badge and parade ring badge for Fergie.] Of course, nobody stood up to Andrew in those days of course and so nobody refused him!

Amusingly, the photos and tv pictures then showed Sir Francis Brooke [An Ascot Trustee and now His Majesty's Representative] carefully inserting himself between Fergie and the Royal Party to ensure that Fergie did not get within speaking distance of HLM!
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom