Since 2019, whenever there are particularly awful stories about Prince Andrew in the news, the British press and the palace all deflect to attacking the Duke and Duchess of Sussex. That’s one of the reasons why the British press has been churning through so many negative and false stories about the Sussexes this month – Andrew and Fergie have been in the news for their lies about cutting off contact with Jeffrey Epstein. Last weekend, we learned that Andrew sent this message to Epstein in February 2011: “I’m just as concerned for you! Don’t worry about me! It would seem we are in this together and will have to rise above it. Otherwise keep in close touch and we’ll play some more soon!!!!” This has not only inspired another round of palace-sanctioned Sussex attacks, it’s inspired another round of palace dithering about “what to do about Andrew.” Palace sources swear up and down that they’ve punished Andrew thoroughly and there’s nothing else they can take away from him. Well, the Times of London has a lengthy piece in which “palace sources” are still dithering and throwing out ideas for what they could possibly do about Andrew. Buried in the piece is a bizarre mention of Prince Harry. That’s being done on purpose, to act as if Harry and Andrew are equal. Some highlights:
Andrew’s 2011 email to Epstein: For the Palace there is no mistaking the fact that the email represents a seismic shift, one which moves the dial from Andrew’s long-held position of deniability, however implausible, to apparent evidence of a lie. Because it proves that, contrary to his previous protestations, he was still in touch with Epstein after he apparently broke off their friendship. Without action, doesn’t the Palace risk being seen to simply grin and bear it? “We’re certainly not grinning and we’re not bearing it,” says a Palace source. “We’re taking the fundamental issues extremely seriously. It is very much not the case that the Palace is turning a blind eye or a deaf ear to it all. We are taking every fresh allegation extremely seriously and reviewing the potential options for further censure, while being aware that significant steps that can be taken have largely been enacted.”
Camilla is worried: The palace source added, “It is a source of immense frustration and concern that there continue to be holes picked in the duke’s story. And there is understandable anxiety that it will impact on the royal family’s wider reputation and public work, not least, of course, the Queen’s notable leadership in campaigning against all forms of sexual abuse.”
Andrew’s titles: So what’s to be done? Today Andrew retains his title of Duke of York and that of prince. Both are difficult to remove given that to do so would require intervention from parliament. Some commentators have described it as a real crisis for the monarchy, while for others it merely confirms their already rock-bottom opinion of the duke. A YouGov poll over the summer, before the latest revelations, showed that 67 per cent of the public would back the idea of removing Andrew’s dukedom. While it has been done before, notably in the First World War to sanction titled aristocrats fighting for the German army, extinguishing a dukedom would require a legal mechanism. “And even if you did strip Andrew of being a duke,” notes a well-placed source, “he’d still be known as a prince, which sounds better anyway.”
Counsellor of state: Yet Andrew does still hold one constitutional role: that of counsellor of state. These are members of the royal family who might be called upon to deputise for the King if he is overseas or unwell by carrying out his official duties. Two are required to act in consort in the monarch’s absence. Typically these are the monarch’s consort and the next four in line to the throne over the age of 21. That includes the Queen, the Prince of Wales, the Duke of Sussex, Andrew and Princess Beatrice. “In a sense the opportunity was missed in the 2022 amendment to remove the Duke of York,” says Craig Prescott, a constitutional law specialist. “What they did instead was to all intents and purposes make it a legal dead letter by saying that he and Harry would never be called upon to act.”
Andrew’s money: A source said: “For Andrew the punishment seems to be the life he’s living as he has had everything apart from Royal Lodge taken away from him.” Even the money: Andrew’s private allowance from the King was removed last year when Charles pulled the plug. And he hasn’t received any public money since he ceased his official duties six years ago. How he is funding his lifestyle at Royal Lodge, a year on, is said to be a mystery to Charles. Andrew has given verbal assurances to the Keeper of the Privy Purse that he can afford the upkeep but it’s unclear quite how. Any suggestion, I’m told, that Andrew still has a treasure trove left over from the last Queen and the Queen Mother is “wide of the mark”.
The Harry Problem: There is also the Harry problem, the second “Duke of Hazard’, as he is known in Palace circles. A source said: “Harry is a greater priority. The whole thing feels off.” Any afterglow from a recent reunion between father and son was quickly scuppered by briefings from Montecito, Harry’s new home in California, saying that the “men in grey suits” at the Palace were trying to “sabotage” his relationship with his father by leaking details of the meeting. Harry has written to the new home secretary to ask for a risk assessment as he keeps his battle for UK security alive. In other words, it rumbles on. The Andrew problem is closer to home and more pressing. One source familiar with his situation described him as a “narcissist” who “cleaves” to Royal Lodge, the last sign of his royal status. A decision to remain at the 42-room palatial home is, they say, “illogical” and “financially ruinous” as the long-term lease with the Crown Estate requires him to maintain upkeep on the property.
The thing is, I actually agree that the Sussexes are doing more “damage” to the monarchy than Prince Andrew. As much as palace sources want to make it sound like Andrew and Harry are in similar predicaments, the larger issue is that Andrew is for all intents and purposes a family member in “good standing.” He’s still being protected, coddled and cared for by the institution, and they’re bending over backwards to ensure that he’s not punished any further. Compare that to how the Sussexes have been treated for merely moving out of the UK, buying a home in California and developing their own above-board income streams. The Sussexit did more damage to the monarchy’s image than Andrew has done, and that’s because of the palace courtiers and the monarch. Over the past six years, there’s a stark difference in how Andrew is coddled versus the sadistic punishments doled out to the Sussexes. People can see it for themselves, and the British public should wonder why the palace can’t stop tripping over their d–ks when it comes to Andrew.
Photos courtesy of Avalon Red, Cover Images.
