Prince Andrew, Duke of York News and Events 8: Sep 2022 -


If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.

Marengo

Administrator
Site Team
Joined
Aug 13, 2004
Messages
27,035
City
São Paulo
Country
Brazil
257px-Coat_of_Arms_of_Andrew%2C_Duke_of_York.svg.png

Arms of The Duke of York

Welcome to Prince Andrew, Duke of York
News and Events, Part 8

Commencing September 1st, 2022

The previous thread can be found here

Please take a look at the
TRF Community Rules & FAQs

· Only pictures that you have written permission to share can be posted here. You can post links to any pictures.
· It's a copyright violation to post translations of entire articles, so no more than 20% of an article
text should be posted, along with the link to the original article.
· We expect our members to treat each other, and the royals and persons in these threads, with respect.
· The Report Post button is for reporting inappropriate content in a post if no moderators or administrators are online.
· Threads should remain on topic. Posts which are irrelevant or disruptive
will be deleted or moved by one of the moderators.

***
 
Last edited:
Guess after the funeral, it will be easier to find Waldo.
 
According to a sensational new book on Camilla by Angela Levin Andrew conspired with his wife and Diana to put William on the Throne rather than Charles after the Queen’s death, with himself as Regent.

https://m.economictimes.com/news/in...nst-king-charles-iii/articleshow/94382985.cms


If these claims in the book are true (and I don’t believe them, even though Andrew is extremely unpleasant) this is treasonous stuff and if untrue the story is libellous. Would Andrew sue? This story is spreading across the tabloids.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...Charles-King-Biography-claims-plot-Diana.html

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/19884709/prince-andrew-lobbied-stop-charles-king/

From The Sun report


[FONT=&quot]Ms Levin's new book on the life of Camilla, Queen Consort, claims Andrewwanted his nephew to have the crown before he was 18 so he could take the position as Regent. [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]He is also said to have tried to turn Queen Elizabeth against his brother's partner - and appeared "very angry" that he couldn't "rule the country in some way".[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Citing a "senior insider" in Camilla, Duchess of Cornwall: From Outcast to Queen Consort, Ms Levin writes: "Andrew lobbied very hard with the hope that Charles would not become king when his mother died, and that William would wear the crown."[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]A senior insider at the palace is also said to have told her when Princess Diana was alive, she plotted with Andrew - through her friendship with Sarah Ferguson - to try and push Charles aside.[/FONT]
 
Last edited:
Allan Starkie's book "Fergie: Her Secret Life" (1996 Michael O'Mara Books Limited) speaks of this tawdry scenario but makes no mention of Andrew discussing any of it with anyone.

In the book, the year is 1992 ... the context is Fergie explaining to John Bryan that she must stay with Andrew "because there is a chance that Charles will not be allowed to have the throne when the Queen abdicates. That would mean Andrew would be Regent until William comes of age." That is a verbatim quote, page 72.

There is another episode in the book about Sarah's hopes to be the Regent's wife, but that was based on a psychic's prediction about Charles.

It all makes me wonder if Ms. Levin was privy to this scurrilous nonsense. She might have picked it up 25 years ago and just now decided to use it.
 
Last edited:
Obviously Angela Levin waited to publish her biography about Camilla, now Queen Consort until after Queen Elizabeth's death. The Prince Andrew, Fergie, Princess Diana conspiracy triangle seems so farfetched yet plausible. I think I recall Diana saying Charles should stand aside for William, that Charles couldn't do the job or something like that.

This is all unfortunate and very disrespectful to the late Queen as well as King Charles and Queen Consort Camilla. I hate to think what else is in Levin's book.
 
Yeah this has been rumoured for a long while, but again I heard it was Sarah talking about it. Whatever the truth you have to remember that Diana was actually friends with Andrew as they were childhood playmates and who knows what silly nonsense they once all chatted together. I mean in the early 90’s people openly talked on the TV and in newspapers about Charles not being King and openly hoping the Queen would live a long long time.

So contextually it makes a weird sense that doesn’t sound as War of the Roses as it originally does.
 
Obviously Angela Levin waited to publish her biography about Camilla, now Queen Consort until after Queen Elizabeth's death. The Prince Andrew, Fergie, Princess Diana conspiracy triangle seems so farfetched yet plausible. I think I recall Diana saying Charles should stand aside for William, that Charles couldn't do the job or something like that.

This is all unfortunate and very disrespectful to the late Queen as well as King Charles and Queen Consort Camilla. I hate to think what else is in Levin's book.

No. The book was always scheduled for now. I knew she had a new book about Camilla but had no interest other than that.
 
:previous:Thank you FigTree for clarifying that Angela Levin's book was already scheduled for release on September 29 prior to the passing of Queen Elizabeth.
 
Is there any evidence for this? I think that its possible that Diana did talk a lot of nonsense with Fergie, but is Andrew fool enough to join in? Does he hate his brother?
 
Is there any evidence for this? I think that its possible that Diana did talk a lot of nonsense with Fergie, but is Andrew fool enough to join in? Does he hate his brother?

I've been wondering the same thing. In order for Andrew to have become Regnant, the Queen would have had to die, she had no plans to abdicate, ever. Would he really want that of his mother?
 
I don't care for Angela Levin and I am giving the side-eye to her borderline libelous assertion. It's popular to pike on the Yorks; it sells.
 
Always so many rumors, started by Media and others reporting only parts of a story, people wanting to ‘sell’ what they know or pieces of what they know. Anything for money and publicity. This is all so one sided. It is so sad to see this happen.
.
 
I've heard Angela Levin repeat totally untrue things about other members of the BRF so I don't regard her as a reliable source. What she alleges is pretty damning so I hope she's prepared to to produce evidence if required, unless of course she's covered herself by saying "someone told me this".
 
I've been wondering the same thing. In order for Andrew to have become Regnant, the Queen would have had to die, she had no plans to abdicate, ever. Would he really want that of his mother?

I did read somewhere that Diana thought that Charles might die prematurely or be pushed out of the RF -I suppose by a scandal about Camilla..... (sorry i cannot now remember where, but I dont say things unless I have definitely read them) ...and that in that case, someone might need to be regent for William. so, I suppose she might have thought of herself or herself and Andrew being Regent. But I find it hard to believe that Andrew would be up for a plan which depended on the death of his mother and maybe his brother.
 
I did read somewhere that Diana thought that Charles might die prematurely or be pushed out of the RF -I suppose by a scandal about Camilla..... (sorry i cannot now remember where, but I dont say things unless I have definitely read them) ...and that in that case, someone might need to be regent for William. so, I suppose she might have thought of herself or herself and Andrew being Regent. But I find it hard to believe that Andrew would be up for a plan which depended on the death of his mother and maybe his brother.

I remember Diana stating that Charles shouldn't be king, that he should step aside and let William be king. I always attributed that to sour grapes, that she was unhappy and blamed Charles and wanted him to be unhappy.
 
I remember Diana stating that Charles shouldn't be king, that he should step aside and let William be king. I always attributed that to sour grapes, that she was unhappy and blamed Charles and wanted him to be unhappy.

There was more to it than that. She believed in her psychics and apparently some of them fueled her belief that she might lose Charles or he might be pushed out, and she would become Regent herself. I can imagine that Sarah might want in on the act and thought of Andrew becoming a co regent. BUt its hard to see Andrew being willing to contemplate his mother's death or his brother's.
 
Allan Starkie's book "Fergie: Her Secret Life" (1996 Michael O'Mara Books Limited) speaks of this tawdry scenario but makes no mention of Andrew discussing any of it with anyone.

In the book, the year is 1992 ... the context is Fergie explaining to John Bryan that she must stay with Andrew "because there is a chance that Charles will not be allowed to have the throne when the Queen abdicates. That would mean Andrew would be Regent until William comes of age." That is a verbatim quote, page 72.

There is another episode in the book about Sarah's hopes to be the Regent's wife, but that was based on a psychic's prediction about Charles.

It all makes me wonder if Ms. Levin was privy to this scurrilous nonsense. She might have picked it up 25 years ago and just now decided to use it.

According to this account from Leopoldine about Sarah she (and perhaps Andrew) expected the Queen to abdicate not die.
 
According to this account from Leopoldine about Sarah she (and perhaps Andrew) expected the Queen to abdicate not die.

Surely Andrew would know that his mother would not abdicate. Sarah yes I can see her thinking that the queen might give up at any old moment.. and she herself while fed up with Andrew, did not want to give up on the RF if there was a chance, she would be able to show off as the wife fo the Regent.
 
I remember Diana stating that Charles shouldn't be king, that he should step aside and let William be king. I always attributed that to sour grapes, that she was unhappy and blamed Charles and wanted him to be unhappy.

The Panorama interview, from the clips I’ve seen in various documentaries, included reference to his unsuitability to be King. It might well have been there that she said it.

That Diana would have said it isn’t the shocker, it’s the regency part. Charles being pushed aside so that the crown passed from his grandmother directly to William could have happened when William was of age. That a woman would prefer her son to be King rather than her former husband isn’t really a surprise, especially when there were three in the marriage. Regency would mean that someone expected the Queen to have died by 2000; she was never going to abdicate because it would mean doing the very thing that ultimately put her father in an early grave.

I could believe that they might plot to have Charles excluded from the succession (Diana and Sarah rather than Andrew,) but think that regency has merely been put there to ensure that jaws dropped. The Regency act provides for who would be regent, no plotting would be required. Andrew would have been the sitting regent as the next person in line over 21, no need to install himself. For a male monarch who is a minor, the act provides that his surviving mother takes the role. A regent cannot refuse to take the role, so Andrew wouldn’t have co-operated as part of any bargain that would have required Diana to do so. He would know the rules even if Sarah didn’t. There are nearly as many holes in it as a sieve.

If Andrew was going to plot to have Charles pushed out of the line, then it would have made much more sense for him to have done it before Charles had children. The only thing I can think would have Andrew join in might be that he was by that point concerned about Charles’s intention to slim down (was it that early?) so could be inclined to support a plot to exclude Charles from succession in favour of his sons who might afford Beatrice and Eugenie more of a role.
 
from what I can remember, Diana had these ideas in the late 1980s, when her marraige was pretty much finished. Not sure offhand, when Sarah began to think of leaving Andrew.
 
The Panorama interview, from the clips I’ve seen in various documentaries, included reference to his unsuitability to be King. It might well have been there that she said it.

That Diana would have said it isn’t the shocker, it’s the regency part. Charles being pushed aside so that the crown passed from his grandmother directly to William could have happened when William was of age. That a woman would prefer her son to be King rather than her former husband isn’t really a surprise, especially when there were three in the marriage. Regency would mean that someone expected the Queen to have died by 2000; she was never going to abdicate because it would mean doing the very thing that ultimately put her father in an early grave.

I could believe that they might plot to have Charles excluded from the succession (Diana and Sarah rather than Andrew,) but think that regency has merely been put there to ensure that jaws dropped. The Regency act provides for who would be regent, no plotting would be required. Andrew would have been the sitting regent as the next person in line over 21, no need to install himself. For a male monarch who is a minor, the act provides that his surviving mother takes the role. A regent cannot refuse to take the role, so Andrew wouldn’t have co-operated as part of any bargain that would have required Diana to do so. He would know the rules even if Sarah didn’t. There are nearly as many holes in it as a sieve.

If Andrew was going to plot to have Charles pushed out of the line, then it would have made much more sense for him to have done it before Charles had children. The only thing I can think would have Andrew join in might be that he was by that point concerned about Charles’s intention to slim down (was it that early?) so could be inclined to support a plot to exclude Charles from succession in favour of his sons who might afford Beatrice and Eugenie more of a role.


No it doesn't.

Had a Regency been necessary the Regent would have been Andrew - no role for Diana in that, just as there is no role for Catherine now.
 
that does not mean that Sarah and Diana might not have thought of it as a possibility for Diana to become a co regent wtih Andrew... does not mean that Andrew was eager for the role or even listening to his wife rattling on about it in long chats with Diana.
 
Is the horse Prince Andrew is on, the same breed Queen Elizabeth rode? Thanks
 
Is the horse Prince Andrew is on, the same breed Queen Elizabeth rode? Thanks
No, I think it is a horse, while the Queen rode fellponies.
But if someone knows for sure, I stand happy to be corrected
 
No, I think it is a horse, while the Queen rode fellponies.
But if someone knows for sure, I stand happy to be corrected

I’m useless at different breeds of horse but that is definitely a horse, the Queen rode the fellponies in her old age. Andrew is far too big for them.
 
No it doesn't.

Had a Regency been necessary the Regent would have been Andrew - no role for Diana in that, just as there is no role for Catherine now.

That was my understanding from page 19 of this document: https://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/CBP-9374/CBP-9374.pdf

Unless there is a distinction between a regent and a guardian that I’m missing - it read to me that Andrew (and so on down the line of succession) would have been there as a default should William have become King as a minor after Diana’s death.
 
That was my understanding from page 19 of this document: https://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/CBP-9374/CBP-9374.pdf

Unless there is a distinction between a regent and a guardian that I’m missing - it read to me that Andrew (and so on down the line of succession) would have been there as a default should William have become King as a minor after Diana’s death.

Regent - does the work of the monarch

Guardian - looks after the child and makes decisions around things like education etc

It would have been perfectly possible for the child to never even met the Regent as the Regent would have no say in the raising of the child.
 
Back
Top Bottom