<\/p>\n
Your article (Prince Andrew\u2019s fall from grace complete as monarchy cuts him loose, 17 October<\/a>) reflects a wider narrative that portrays the removal of Prince Andrew\u2019s titles as a bold, moral act by the royal family, as though it resolves \u201cthe problem of Andrew\u201d. In reality, it is far too little, far too late.<\/p>\n The posthumous publication of Virginia Giuffre\u2019s memoir, along with further revelations from the Jeffrey Epstein files, expose the full extent of Andrew\u2019s actions. Despite his denials, he continued his relationship with Epstein after Epstein\u2019s release from prison, writing<\/a>: \u201cIt would seem we are in this together \u2026 keep in close touch and we\u2019ll play some more soon!!!!\u201d<\/p>\n Virginia\u2019s memoir describes in harrowing detail the trafficking and sexual\u00a0abuse of vulnerable girls \u2013 children living in poverty, in care or\u00a0homeless. If Andrew were a\u00a0Pakistani-heritage taxi driver from Rotherham, public calls for criminal investigation and imprisonment would be overwhelming. But he is a\u00a0royal, a prince.<\/p>\n He has not been cut loose. King Charles allows his alleged-child-sexual-abuser brother to live in a 30-room mansion on the Windsor estate. The late queen reportedly helped her son pay millions to settle a claim with his victim while maintaining the fiction that he had never met her<\/a>. It is obvious the monarchy acted only to protect its reputation, power and wealth. Meanwhile, Virginia, like so many victims, took her own life.<\/p>\n Truly cutting him loose would mean removing every financial privilege, donating millions to survivor organisations, and cooperating fully with UK and US authorities to\u00a0ensure criminal investigations and accountability.
Prof Harry Ferguson<\/strong>
Emeritus professor of social work, University of Birmingham<\/em><\/p>\n