Sometimes being a parent means tough conversations.
The one with your toddler when you know for a fact that they have broken that vase and they continue to deny it. Or, a few years later, there’s the whole birds and bees chat. (Come to think of it, thanks to the internet, I’m sure most of us feel we can skip that one now.) Then, a little further down the road, there’s the difficult talk when they crash the family car. Or come home drunk for the first time. Or get pregnant. Or get someone else pregnant.
Tough, tough sit-downs for any mum or dad. But they’re nothing compared to the one the Queen must have had with her child recently . . .
“OK, son. How much is it going to cost to pay off the woman accusing you of sexually abusing her when she was a child?”
And an equally terrible answer: “Twelve million quid, mum.”
That’s what Prince Andrew is reportedly paying in order to avoid having to go to court and settle the civil sexual assault case brought against him in the USA by Virginia Giuffre, who says she was “provided” to him for sexual favours when she was just 17 by the late, disgraced paedophile pimp Jeffrey Epstein.
And when we say “reportedly paying”, it should be made clear that Andrew isn’t paying it all by himself. He hasn’t got £12million to spare. Apparently, his mum is giving a good chunk of it to him…
No surprise there – she’s been funding his multimillion-pound legal costs in the case all along. And you’ll be forgiven for thinking that, as his mum is the Queen, then that ultimately means we’re paying it. You and me. The taxpayers.
However, as many a royal-loving nutter will be pointing out to us in the coming days and weeks, the Queen will be paying it out of her private income. Oh well, that’s fine then. Of course, if she didn’t have us mugs picking up the bill for everything else, then would she be able to chuck 12million around? Who knows? But it really makes you feel good about the monarchy, eh?
Andrew, as we know, has continued to deny any sexual association with Giuffre. In fact, he continues to claim he has never met her.
While it might seem to you or me – or indeed anyone who dabbles in sanity or logic – quite extreme to hand over £12million to someone you do not know in order to apologise for something that never happened, don’t worry… the royal nutters have got this one covered too.
Ready? Andrew is only doing it to prevent embarrassment to the Queen in the year of her Platinum Jubilee. Well, this should fix it, shouldn’t it?
There’s now no way that anyone is going to be watching the Queen parading around during the four-day bank holiday we’re getting this June to mark her 70th year on the throne and thinking: “Aww. God bless her majesty for using all that cash to help her son get out of going to court to face credible allegations of multiple acts of child abuse. I’m not embarrassed at all for the Royal Family now. Nah, it’s all good.”
In fact, arch-royal bootlicker Nicholas Witchell even went as far as to suggest that there might be a way back into public life for the disgraced prince: “Perhaps the answer is as he says at the end of his statement, to pledge to support the fight against the evils of sex trafficking and by supporting its victims.”
What a great idea, Nick. Perhaps a series of TV ads?
“Hi, I’m Prince Andrew. You may remember me as the non-sweating, Pizza Express-loving, credibly accused sex abuser who had underage girls supplied to him by his best friend, the world’s worst sex trafficker, and who then paid millions of pounds to avoid having to go to trial and answer questions about the whole thing. Well, I’m here today to talk to you about the evils of sex abuse and trafficking.”
I can just about hear the Queen breathing a sigh of relief as she puts the cheque book away for good.
You might just save the Royal Family’s credibility yet.
No more fans for Djokovic? Smashing news
He’s at it again. Like a member of the Trump family with a doomed lawsuit, the furious anti-vaxxer (he’s now the only tennis player in the world top 100 not to be vaccinated) and all-round buffoon Novak Djokovic has stood up and said: “I’m not anti-vaccine but I will give up playing in any more majors if I have to get the vaccine.”
First thought: the statement “I’m not anti- vaccine but…’ really is the new “I’m not a racist but…” followed by something incredibly racist, isn’t it?
Second thought: excellent. See ya later. Don’t let the door hit you on the way out, pal. Byeeeee.
Don't miss the latest news from around Scotland and beyond - Sign up to our daily newsletter here .
