When the Palace announced last October that Andrew would not use his royal titles and would quit Royal Lodge in Windsor for the obscurity of the Sandringham estate, King Charles, his heir Prince William and the rest of the family were keen to draw a line.
The latest revelations in the document dump from the Epstein files shows that line is nowhere near enough an insulation for the Crown from Andrew, now plain Mountbatten-Windsor, the family’s black sheep.
A hail of sordid new emails, accusations and images have made clear that the story is not over. Nor is the fraught question of what to do with Andrew.
For one thing, Andrew’s previous reluctant admissions are shown to be false in word and spirit – not only did he maintain dealings with a man convicted of sexual offenses against a minor out of a stiff-nicked sense of “duty”. But he also remained entwined enough in Epstein’s tawdry circle to be sent a “trustworthy” Russian woman and separately to make invitations guaranteeing Epstein “privacy” at Buckingham Palace.
Added to which a second complainant also in her twenties claims she spent the night with Andrew at Royal Lodge in 2010 at the late sex trafficker Epstein’s behest.
The line between foolish behaviour in the wake of his divorce and actions that would have been illegal is one that Andrew’s lawyers will be keen to uphold.
For today’s Royals however, the risk factor is that they appear to have turned a blind eye to misconduct by a spoilt and unaccountable younger brother.
Sluggishness on behalf of the Palace has been a recurrent theme. There are some reasons for this. Andrew was a favourite of the late Queen. The royals are a family beset by strains and personality differences, and there has been a tendency to interpret the will of the much-loved monarch variously.
But that is changing: Prince William and the Princess of Wales are more alert to the implications of dragging out unpleasant decisions about Andrew and the insidious effects of that delay on the monarchy’s standing.
Even as the latest Epstein files on Friday opened up yet more unflattering details of Andrew’s sickly desire for “private time” (Epstein’s email) and “lots of privacy” (Andrew’s recorded reply) in the wake of a sex criminal’s first conviction for soliciting under aged girls, Andrew was trotting around in the Sandringham sunshine with a groom. That does not look a lot like penitence or even self-awareness.
This sense that nothing much material has changed for a royal who has dragged the monarchy though the mire – and then lied about the depth of his contacts with a convicted rapist – means that the family have always been a beat behind. They spoke in a statement about “victims” only last October, because Andrew refused to make apology or acknowledge any awareness of Epstein’s wrongdoing.
Now the Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer has raised the temperature by saying that “anybody who has got information should be prepared to share that information in whatever form they are asked to do that”.
As well as piling pressure on Andrew to testify about what he knew or saw in his years of close association with Epstein, the most urgent effect is to raise pressure on the King to also stipulate that his younger brother should indeed testify. If he does not, he puts the palace at odds with the PM – a former public prosecutor. That is an invidious position for Charles – and would once again repeat the mistake of lagging behind events. It would also feed the conspiratorial view that the royals knew more about what is in the Epstein files than they have said. This is hardly likely to be the true – things are bad enough without a conspiracy theory.
But the Place does have leverage. Andrew is still driving around Sandringham and horse riding on a royal estate. He may be there reluctantly, but he is still there at the say-so of the monarch and privately funded by the King – to avoid his reliance on the crown estate proprieties. He can therefore be asked to leave at any time and that must be an option being weighed up in the Palace. The pressure for Andrew to testify is growing and will get louder.
To do this, he does not even have to go to America (which would indeed be a bear-pit he and his legal team would devoutly wish to avoid). Ro Khanna, a congressman on the US House of Representatives committee conducting an inquiry into the government’s handling of the Epstein case has made clear that Andrew could give his evidence remotely.
In short, the only impediment to this happening is that Andrew does not wish to answer questions. And that so far no one who matters has been pressuring him to do so. Given the holes and contradictions in his infamous Newsnight interview, the record now looks remarkably untransparent.
His other option is the escape hatch to live in exile in UAE where Sheikh Mohamed bin Zayed Al Nahyan is reported to have offered him a luxurious bolthole in Abu Dhabi. At that point however, the former Prince would have to accept the life of an isolated outcast, far from his two daughters and grandchildren. It is an unenviable choice – but one he has entirely brought on himself by failing to give an honest account of his relationship with Epstein for so long.
My guess is this evasive position cannot hold now that the PM has spoken. A new load of information from the files proves beyond reasonable doubt that Andrew did not care much about the conviction of his wealthy pal for sex with a minor. And contrary to his previous statements, Andrew continued a chummy relationship which emphasised their “private” connections.
The Palace now needs to get tougher with its apostate ex-royal, ensuring that he is stripped quickly of succession rights via parliament (which has not yet happened) and that he either testifies about his time in contact with Epstein in order to remain in royally funded accommodation – or cuts himself loose for a life in the arid world of Gulf sheikhs showing off their largesse.
That call may need to be made sooner rather than later to forestall further damage to a fallen Prince and the family “Firm” he has so badly damaged. The uneasy ghost of Epstein is now haunting the future of the monarchy and its reputation – as well as the troubled and troubling Andrew Montbatten-Windsor.
‘ The preceding article may include information circulated by third parties ’
‘ Some details of this article were extracted from the following source inews.co.uk ’
