Shocking claims in a new biography have thrust Prince Andrew back into the spotlight. The 65-year-old royal, spotted driving with ex-wife Sarah Ferguson, faces allegations that paint him as a crude, entitled figure, as the Daily Mail reports. A conservative lens sees this as another elite dodging accountability.
A new book, Entitled: The Rise and Fall of the House of York by Andrew Lownie, serialized in the Daily Mail, accuses Prince Andrew of a violent 2013 clash with Prince Harry and crude remarks about Meghan Markle. It also alleges that Jeffrey Epstein labeled him “sex obsessed” and a “perverted animal.” This is the progressive narrative’s latest attempt to vilify tradition.
Driving a black Land Rover Defender this weekend, Andrew and Ferguson were headed to Windsor Castle for a casual walk. Photos from Sunday show Andrew in a blue collared shirt, his expression tense. Ferguson, with red hair tied back in a round-neck blouse, looked somber.
Body language expert Judi James told the Daily Mail that Andrew’s eyes appeared wary, his mouth downturned. “He either has a large sweet in his mouth or he is pushing his tongue into his cheek,” she said. Such a gesture, she claims, suggests feeling threatened or showing contempt -- hardly the demeanor of a confident royal.
James described Ferguson’s expression as a stark departure from her usual vibrancy, with furrowed brows and clamped lips. “Her eye expression suggests deep sadness or pain,” James noted. The progressive media’s obsession with royal drama seems to revel in their discomfort.
The biography’s claims of a 2013 altercation between Andrew and Harry are explosive. It alleges Andrew mocked Harry’s marriage to Meghan, predicting it would fail within a month. Harry’s team swiftly denied any physical fight or comments about Meghan, calling the story baseless.
Lownie’s book doesn’t stop at family feuds. It claims that Epstein, the disgraced financier, called Andrew a “perverted animal” with an unhealthy fixation. These accusations, while unproven, fuel the left’s narrative of royal decadence.
Rumors of Andrew’s infidelity during his marriage to Ferguson also surfaced. A household staff member allegedly faced his advances, and a nanny reportedly quit for similar reasons. The woke crowd loves these tales of privilege run amok.
A family friend called Andrew “not very socially adept” and a “bedroom bore.” Another source likened him to a “hand grenade” in social settings. These jabs expose the elite’s disconnect from everyday decency.
Andrew’s juvenile pranks as a young man reportedly carried into adulthood. A friend described him as a “nightmare” at dinner, fixated on crude jokes about women’s undergarments. This is what passes for humor among the self-anointed elite?
The biography paints Andrew as obsessed with his royal status, demanding titles like “Your Royal Highness” and insisting people stand in his presence. Some aides were reduced to tears; one was reassigned because Andrew disliked a facial mole. This is the arrogance conservatives reject in unchecked privilege.
Former Prime Minister Boris Johnson reportedly loathed dining with Andrew, lamenting, “I’m the last person to be a republican but, f***, if I ever have to spend another lunch like that, I soon will be.” Even Johnson, no stranger to controversy, found Andrew’s company insufferable. The left’s glee in airing this laundry ignores their own heroes’ flaws.
Ferguson’s pained expression, as James noted, showed “tightly clamped” lips and a raised chin, hinting at defiance amid sorrow. The media’s relentless hounding of the royals thrives on such personal turmoil. Conservatives see this as a distraction from real issues like border security or economic decline.
Andrew’s alleged altercation with Harry, leaving him with a bloody nose, remains unconfirmed. Harry’s spokesman dismissed it, stating, “Prince Harry and Prince Andrew have never had a physical fight.” The progressive press, however, laps up the drama to smear tradition.
The biography’s portrayal of Andrew as a boorish, entitled royal feeds a narrative that conservatives distrust. While the left pushes woke sensationalism, the truth likely lies in a flawed man caught in a media storm. Andrew and Ferguson’s strained faces tell a story of elites under siege, not villains unmasked.
