It’s no bedsit, the Royal Lodge where Prince Andrew lives free of charge. Thirty bedrooms in fact. And that comes after a 12-year stint in Sunningdale, given to Andrew by the late Queen Elizabeth as a wedding present. Having offered to renounce his Duke of York title earlier this month, now attention has turned to his living arrangements. The Times alleges he hasn’t paid rent for 35 years; the cabinet are all privately arguing for his eviction; Keir Starmer has been pulled into the mire. Wherever Andrew goes, mess follows.
The prince has always had a reputation for unpleasantness. A recent book by Andrew Lownie, Entitled, traces the evolution of the man, from a petulant and demanding scoundrel into a kind of adult moral-abyss, fully realised by the time the prince met financier Jeffrey Epstein. It was Virginia Giuffre’s 2019 allegation that the prince – whom she met via Epstein – had raped her that set his downfall in motion. In an interview with Emily Maitlis, Andrew denied any wrongdoing, and tried to exonerate himself with the incredible claim that he was nearly incapable of sweating. In Lownie’s book, he instead finds a man totally incapable of self-reflection, self-criticism, shame.
Giuffre, the highest profile of Epstein’s roster of victims, died by suicide earlier this year. Her posthumously published memoir, Nobody’s Girl, details a tragic life of poverty and reams of attendant sexual exploitation – from her own father, a slew of men on the streets of Florida, and then Epstein and his cadre. Andrew denies her accusations. But whatever of Andrew’s role in the tragic story of Giuffre, the maelstrom he has whipped up for the royal family and No 10 shouldn’t overshadow the long list of exploited teenagers and ruined lives Epstein left in his wake. The prince – against all his expectations – is not the centre of the universe.
But in spite of that, Britain still needs answers to the question – what to do with Andrew? And how much damage has he done, exactly, to the royal family? Republican opportunists might see this as a moment to call for abolition of the monarchy; a pretext for what they have always wanted. And sure, four out of five Brits want Andrew to be formally stripped of dukedom. But beyond the man himself, a slim majority of the country still believes in the continued existence of the royal family. And of the large minority that doesn’t? Well, it’s much easier to express a feeling in a poll than it is to storm the Bastille. So by my conservative calculations, the end of the monarchy is not nigh.
Live: Humphreys and Harris ask ‘middle Ireland’ to show the country is ‘not far-left’
Who will be Ireland’s ‘first gentleman’? The men behind the women running for the Áras
‘Stop blaming the Brits’: United Ireland would pose threat to Britain from Russia, says ex-Nato commander
Citywest unrest: Sixteen people appear in court over disturbances in Saggart, Dublin
Britain is still in the thralls of the arcane mystique the royal family offers. But we are witnessing the limitations of a system entirely reliant on the moral character of its personnel. An elected politician can be mendacious and still effective, privately miserly but publicly cheerful, an incompetent father but a consummate statesman. Alas, all the royal family has to live up to is its reputation for dignity, duty and all those other cliches. When senior members fail to meet that reputational standard, the entire conceit is exposed. When senior members fail to meet even basic standards of human decency? Maybe that is existential.
Virginia Giuffre memoir: Will the British royal family finally drop Prince Andrew?
The royal family can go on a national charm offensive – roll out Kate and Will, remind everyone that Charles III is doing a rather good job actually, don’t draw too much attention to the couple in Montecito. And continue to apologise profusely for the errant behaviour of the second son.
But here is the rub: you cannot kick someone out of a family any sooner than you can deny a zebra belongs to the equus genus. A family is perhaps the most immutable concept humanity has – save, perhaps, the laws of thermodynamics and mathematics. When Harry and Meghan said they’re “leaving” the family, we might understand that what they’re really doing is resigning their jobs at a company, but no one can dissociate Harry from being the brother of William and the grandson of the late queen. The royal family derives its legitimacy from blood line, that’s not something it can forsake at moments of convenience.
So, you can take the royal family and its attendant wrong ‘uns (and apologies, for the bathetic description of a man who deserves to be described as something much worse than that) and you can accept it. Strip titles, take away the 30-bedroom mansions and pen all the necessary obloquy one nation can muster. But you cannot stop the biological and social reality that Prince Andrew belongs to it. This is the brother of the King of England and the son of its late and beloved queen.
This is a problem that cannot be solved by clever PR moves and the shifting of titles here and there. Keir Starmer can’t fix this one, either. So back to my question – what to do with Andrew when the monarchy is impotent, trapped by its own logic? Pray it doesn’t happen again, I suppose.
