newsGradually and then suddenly the late queen’s pampering of her second son is on the lips of British people who are fast losing faith in the royals
Andrew with his adoring mother, the late Queen Elizabeth 11
By Trevor Grundy
“A man who has been the indisputable favourite of his mother keeps for life the feeling of a conqueror” – Sigmund Freud
There is a growing feeling in Britain that the former Andrew Mountbatten Windsor isn’t entirely responsible for his behaviour over the last few decades because, from about two to three years of age, he was marinated in royal privilege and class snobbery thanks to mum.
Take a look (above) at what Freud had to say.
Yesterday morning, a BBC radio presenter asked Andrew Marr if what is happening now to her favourite son would put the late queen’s legacy under the microscope.
“Yes,” he said.
Marr is the former editor of ‘The Independent.’
He said that the queen had been a loving mother to all her children but especially to Andrew.
Sadly, neither she nor Prince Philip gave their second born son the “moral upbringing” needed to keep what Philip always called “The Firm” in business.
Sadly, for the royals, “The Firm” faces moral bankruptcy. It has loads of cash in the bank so for a while yet the shareholders are not too bothered.
Said Andrew Marr – “Andrew was always pampered from a very early age. And I wonder how many of us, if we were told from the age of two or three that we are special and everyone else should be deferential to us and that we could do whatever we liked, would not in some sense become a monster.”
The late Queen Ekizabeth would have had a heart attack if she’d seen here favourite son like this after his arrest last week
Today, we learn from ‘The Sun’ that when the removal-men turfed Andrew out of his luxury mansion/palace at Windsor Park on the orders of his big brother, Andrew let rip and yelled out – “But I’m the queen’s second son. You can’t do this to me.”
They could and they did.
Now Andrew lives on a smaller property on his brother’s Sandringham Estate in Norfolk , a humble (for him but not for the rest of us) five bed-room “cottage” with servants (including a full-time cook and valet) who have been told to bow and bend when he comes near them and to call him “sir.”
Andrew with the 17 -year old who he said he’d never met and who he paid (thanks to mummy) £12 million hush money.
But until now, hardly a soul mentioned that the late queen (some royalists would like to see her ‘canonised’) had a hand in her son being seen in the media as a sort of evil waxwork in the Chamber of Horrors at Madame Tussauds in London.
I am not certain but I think the first mass circulation tabloid to ring the fire bell about the late queen’s role as maker of Andrew was ‘The Sun’ on February 20 (2026).
Under a heading “The King’s reign blown apart by Her Majesty’s unexploded grenade” someone on the staff wrote that Elizabeth had been a doting mother but like all doting mothers she refused to believe her son could do any wrong.
Her former Press secretary Dicky Arbiter said that when it came to the then Prince Andrew, HM buried her head in the sand and would not listen to a word said against him.
“Indeed,” said the writer of this article, ”she even contributed most of the reported £12 million cost to settle the civil case against Andrew brought by a woman who he said he didn’t know.
Charles and dad chipped in, too.
What’s a million quid here and there if you’re a royal?
Two days later the front- page lead in the ‘Daily Mail’ was – “Emails prove Charles was warned about his brother’s secret deal “.
Now, commentators are asking – “What did the Queen know about Epstein – considering she was so willing to provide millions to defend her son?”
The ‘Daily Mail’ columnist Peter Hitchins said on February 22 that Charles has lost control of the Andrew crisis and it may even bring down the Crown.
The King and William have been urged to talk to the Police and Charles has been heckled three times by men in the crowds shouting at the monarch demanding to learn what he knew about is brother’s actions as a British trade envoy and as number one pal of Epstein in America.
The reason I quote a lot from the ‘Daily Mail’ is because it is by far and away the best paper in Britain when it comes to telling stories about the Royal Family.
Its readers are from a large part of Middle England. So, God help got help the royals if that sector of society turns away and cold shoulders them.
God will have to help them because no-one else will.
Thanks to the media the people have seen what daylight does to magic.
In an editorial (February 22) that paper asked just why Andrew was allowed to carry on unchecked for so long.?
It answered its own question when it said that the Queen always guarded Andrew from the criticism that surrounded him before her death in 2022.
It said – “That was the late Queen’s mistake, for which some still feel it is hard to blame her. But even her admirers have to admit that her tolerance of his boorish and unappealing lifestyle was an unfortunate and damaging lapse in an otherwise superb record as Head of State.”
Yet, the paper added “The events of the past few days have dealt a blow to the Crown’s prestige and reputation, from which it will be hard to recover.”
Then this question, the thousand pounds one – “Was it really not possible for the authorities to take action more quickly and more ruthlessly, before we got to this wretched position.”
Sadly, Sigmund Freud is not around to answer.