Prince Andrew’s tentative rehabilitation was not just short-lived but badly timed. On Christmas day, as the disgraced Duke of York appeared alongside King Charles and the rest of the Sandringham party for their walk to church, there were reports of a “softening approach” by the monarch.
Even Sarah Ferguson, Andrew’s former wife and co-resident at Royal Lodge, his grace and favour mansion, was back in the fold, returning to the royal walkabout for the first time in 32 years.
Friends of the King attributed his inclusive gesture to his typical kindness, and a promise to his late mother that he would look after his errant sibling.
At Charles’s coronation last year, Andrew donned his garter robes, despite no longer being a working royal and having no official role at the ceremony. This, too, was seen as a sign of the new King’s benevolence towards his brother.
But today, in light of newly released court papers relating to the deceased paedophile Jeffrey Epstein, Andrew looks set to be cast out forever.
The documents did not come as a surprise and repeated allegations already in the public domain, denied by Andrew, that he took part in underage orgies and committed acts of sexual abuse.
Yet the fall-out shows he cannot escape his past nor hope for any future redemption. According to the Mail, Charles will now act to evict him from Royal Lodge to the much smaller Frogmore Cottage, vacated by the Sussexes, and he will never be allowed to resume royal duties.
Apart from his immediate family, few will worry about Andrew’s pariah status. Of much more concern is the damage he continues to inflict on the crown.
Charles has quickly proved himself equal to his destiny and, as even his detractors would surely concede, has hardly put a foot wrong since succeeding his mother.
While he will never match her special place in people’s hearts, his popularity, which surged after his accession, has remained respectable, with 60 per cent of respondents in a YouGov poll last September regarding him favourably.
Younger generations, however, are less enamoured (only 35 per cent of 18 to 24-year-olds want to keep the monarchy) and Charles has wisely addressed public perceptions of royal overreach by slimming down the institution.
Buckingham Palace balcony scenes are now reserved for the inner circle of the King, Queen Camilla, and the Waleses, with the hard-working Princess Anne and the Duke and Duchess of Edinburgh present on occasions.
Charles is also reportedly trimming staff from the royal household in a concession to these straitened times, but the Windsors are still very far removed from their European counterparts in terms of pomp and circumstance.
Denmark’s Queen Margrethe, who announced her abdication on New Year’s Eve, is famously down to earth. She has been spotted doing her own shopping and, unlike our senior royals, goes mostly unrecognised outside her country.
Last month I happened to sit at a neighbouring table to the elegant octogenarian as she dined, with our late Queen’s friends, in a Chelsea restaurant. Her security was so discreet and her arrival and departure so without fanfare that few fellow diners would have clocked her.
In Norway, King Harald and Queen Sonja apparently use public transport and Crown Prince Haakon can move seamlessly among crowds as a commoner. Almost 80 per cent of Norwegians are said to support their monarchy, while the Danish queen’s popularity is currently at 85 per cent.
A poll this week for Danmarks Radio, the national public broadcaster, put Crown Prince Frederik and his Australian wife Mary’s respective approval ratings at 84 and 85 per cent.
This is against the backdrop of an alleged sex scandal surrounding Frederik, who is rumoured to have had an affair with a Mexican actress. In fact, Danish royal experts have even suggested that the queen’s decision to stand down was an attempt to save her son’s marriage.
What can Charles learn from the humbler Scandinavian sovereigns? Abdication after waiting so long for the job would be drastic and wouldn’t rid the family of its black sheep.
But he hasn’t really dealt with his most troubling relatives, lacking the ruthless streak that comes with good leadership. Queen Margrethe stripped four of her grandchildren of their royal titles in a controversial move in 2022 to enable them to live more normal lives.
Charles has much greater justification for removing Andrew’s titles, as well as the vexatious Sussexes’, but can’t bring himself to punish any of them further.
With Andrew, he may soon have no choice. The Epstein sleaze will continue to tarnish what’s left of his reputation as more court files are published, and the Palace will be tainted by association.
Republican groups have said the royals should not be above the law and demand that the Metropolitan Police investigate “new details of sexual assault and rape allegations” made against the Duke of York in London.
The majority of the British public might not want their royal family to be more Danish or more Norwegian. A behind-the-scenes BBC documentary on Charles’ first year on the throne, with its insights into the splendour of our royal traditions, was the most-watched show on Boxing Day.
The King’s broadcast was the UK’s most-watched programme on Christmas Day. Our royals cannot pass incognito, jump on buses or pop down to Lidl. They do not do “ordinary” and most of us like it that way.
Charles, endearingly eccentric, is perhaps the least ordinary of all. But for the sake of “The Firm”, he must remove the danger his brother poses by banishing him for good, in public at least. That means he must never speak of him and never be photographed with him again; less of the regal, more of the realpolitik.
Write to us with your comments to be considered for publication at letters@reaction.life
