Andrew and King Charles: A personal battle of royal brothers

“Let me state clearly: the law must take its course,” said the King’s statement.

It was an argument for the law paying no heed to rank or royalty – and no-one being above the reach of justice. And Andrew has always denied any wrongdoing in his associations with Jeffrey Epstein.

But it must also have been a difficult personal moment for the King to set such a public distance between himself and his younger brother, who he calls with some formality Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor.

According to royal sources, the King has no intention of “sticking his head in the sand” and is going to keep on attending events, he won’t be avoiding the public and will be getting on with business as usual.

In recent months, the King has been treading a balancing act in dealing with his wayward brother. A mix of carrot, stick and then acting something like an irritated parent.

For instance, more than 18 months ago the King made active attempts to remove Andrew from Royal Lodge, his former mansion in Windsor.

It became such an unsubtle effort that it was known as the Siege of Royal Lodge, with the King financially cutting off his brother in an effort to drive him out. Royal insiders were talking about Andrew as the Duke of Hazzard.

Andrew was ultimately forced out by the storm that followed the release of the Epstein files. But Charles then stepped in to provide him with a private home, at the King’s expense rather than the public purse.

It reflects something that the Palace often seems to find a delicate subject – that the King still has a duty of care for his brother. He is now giving him an allowance as well as a roof over his head.

That’s compounded by concerns about Andrew’s well-being, a man who looked shell-shocked and haunted in photos taken after he was released from custody.

What makes it delicate, is the concern that looking after Andrew might be seen as shielding him from scrutiny.