Comments by "Ash Roskell" (@ashroskell) on "Prince Andrew- and frogmore: It's cheap and it's squalid" video.

If, “the royal box,” took on a new meaning, because Andrew was living in one made of cardboard, I would be interested. As it is, Prof Wilson’s last word sums up this debacle perfectly well, “squalid.”
7
In fairness, I imagine their mother only found out about it when we did. I can’t imagine what private conversations she had with him about it, but she was the one who pulled the royal plug on Andrew and divested him of everything but his title (something she would have needed an act of Parliament to do). And, given Charles’s feelings about his mother, I would be willing to bet that the harm taking this knowledge to her grave did her, is the one thing that Charles finds hardest to forgive. It is the sort of thing that can hasten the end of a vulnerable, elderly person, after all. I have no knowledge of her ever knowing anything about Andrew’s Epstein adventures. Do you?
6
Andrew doesn’t need to earn a living, does he? What’s in his own personal bank account is surely more than most people earn in a lifetime? He needs to avoid creating family friction and any activity that could get him noticed by journalists. He ought to be happy with a flat in Islington, not making waves about being picky. He has personal staff! Secretaries, cleaners, drivers, etc. Earning a living would be a start!
4
Which popular news outlet will be the first to lead with, “Frogmarch to/from Frogmore,” puns?
3
@Anita-gp1gv : Good points all. I didn’t know about that staffer, but good for him.
2
@2november1917BD : It’s a mess to be sure, but I can’t help wondering how much the press are responsible for in all this? The Royals have long been subscribed to this Faustian pact, particularly with the right wing media, and it frequently blows up in their faces, with them seeming to learn nothing. Like politicians, “briefing against,” their enemies, the press leaks stories about particular royals just to keep the kettle boiling and the soap drama drawing in viewers. In such a toxic environment, it’s hard to know what’s true. The fact that this has historically been the case with the royals is evidenced by the fact that the idea of a royal (Edward VII) being the true identity of Jack The Ripper caught fire so easily in fiction and popular speculation. It was just so easy to believe of any family with that much power, money and secrecy; all three of which are necessarily protected by the state! I doubt any of us really know the facts in this case. Nor are we likely to until they’re all long gone. That Edward is a nasty piece of work, I have no doubt. But the extent of his depravity is probably yet to be revealed. I feel like I will be the only person who isn’t going to be surprised.
1
@maryplaga1822 : But you don’t know, “what,” she knew and when. People in my life have turned out to be monsters, yet I had no clue until they were discovered. That doesn’t make me a monster. It would make me a monster if I found this stuff out and then said, “I have nothing against,” said party though. He wouldn’t be the first son who lied to his mother either. I can only guess at Elizabeth’s knowledge, as can you. But I don’t believe she would have tolerated any connection with the man, had she known more. Unless we discover definitive proof to the contrary, allow me my illusions?
1