The Prince of Wales, whom Buckingham Palace has said was “consulted” before Prince Andrew’s dramatic statement, must have felt some relief at his uncle agreeing to relinquish use of his titles and honours.
At some point William will become king. His uncle, 12 years younger than King Charles, may well be watching when he takes his coronation oath. The indications are, however, Andrew may be watching from afar.
Charles cannot have been unaware that the “Andrew problem” is something William would not relish in his in-tray when that time comes.
Friday’s announcement that Andrew’s dukedom, other titles and his Order of the Garter knighthood would be put in abeyance with immediate effect – extant but inactive, much as his HRH title has been since the Virginia Giuffre scandal broke six years ago – may be seen by some within Buckingham Palace as a solution.
William, however, is reportedly prepared to take a more ruthless approach if required when he is himself king.
Only an act of parliament can remove the dukedom entirely. King Charles is understood to have been of the opinion it would be a waste of parliament’s time to focus on Andrew’s titles, and putting those in abeyance was sufficient. The government has said it will be “guided” by the royal family on any decision to formally strip Andrew of his titles.
But some MPs are pressing further. Rachael Maskell, the Labour MP for York Central, is writing to ministers to back her bill giving the king or a parliamentary committee the power to formally remove Andrew’s titles.
If this came to pass, it would enable William, if his father had not already done so, to draw an unequivocal line.
William reportedly still considers his uncle a ”threat” and a reputational risk to the monarchy.
Measures he could take when he ascends the throne include banning Andrew from public and private royal events, including his coronation, and most state occasions, according to the Sunday Times. He is understood to be concerned at the message Andrew’s presence at such events sends to victims of sexual abuse.
Buckingham Palace has for many years said it does not represent Andrew. But, while having kept a low public profile since the disastrous Newsnight interview in 2019, he was still invited to Sandringham for Christmas, walking to church with his siblings. He was prominent during his mother Queen Elizabeth’s funeral, taking part in the vigil at her lying in state and permitted to wear military uniform though he had been previously stripped of his military titles.
He attended his brother’s coronation wearing full Order of the Garter robes and regalia. He was also at the Duchess of Kent’s funeral at Westminster Abbey last month, where body language between him and the Prince of Wales appeared frosty.
These appearances at family and public events have served to signify unspoken support for Andrew first from his mother, then his brother, in the light of his vociferous denial he ever had sex with Giuffre. Such appearances continued even after his multimillion-dollar settlement with Giuffre with no admission of liability, a settlement believed to have been part funded by the late queen and the now King Charles.
Of that settlement, Giuffre, who killed herself in April aged 41, wrote in her posthumous memoir: “I agreed to a one-year gag order, which seemed important to the prince because it ensured that his mother’s platinum jubilee would not be tarnished any more than it already had been.”
Senior royals may have hoped Friday’s statement helped them get ahead of the anticipated negative publicity that would accompany Tuesday’s publication of Nobody’s Girl: A Memoir of Surviving Abuse and Fighting for Justice, which the Guardian has published exclusive extracts from.
Inevitably, Giuffre’s account would have led to public clamour over Andrew’s remaining high-profile status as a duke and Garter knight. A pre-emptive strike could lessen the sting and any further reputational damage to the institution.
But his titles remain, albeit unused. So do questions over why Andrew, and his ex-wife of 30 years now known simply as Sarah Ferguson, are able to remain in the 30-room mansion Royal Lodge on the Windsor royal estate.
This is a trickier one for the king. The optics are bad: a disgraced prince living in the luxury of a huge crown estate property. Reported endeavours by the king to persuade his brother to downsize to Frogmore Cottage, briefly the marital home of the Duke and Duchess of Sussex, appear to have fallen on deaf ears.
Andrew has a private tenancy agreement with the crown estate, the independent body that administers crown land and holdings and whose revenue goes to the Treasury. The terms of his lease have never been made public. Though financially responsible for its upkeep, there has been no transparency over Andrew’s finances to explain how he pays to remain there.
However, his lease would not be affected by the removal of his dukedom and his honours. Perhaps, if his uncle is still in residence by the time William ascends the throne, the future king will grasp this nettle too.
‘ The preceding article may include information circulated by third parties ’
‘ Some details of this article were extracted from the following source www.theguardian.com ’
