After so many scandals, Prince Andrew has given up the use of his titles and honours.
He can no longer sign off as the Duke of York, or put “KG”, a Knight of the Garter, after his name, with a flourish of medieval chivalry.
The Earl of Inverness and Baron Killyleagh are also scratched off his list of titles, with “Andrew Inverness” a name he’d sometimes used in his business dealings.
But what’s caused this sudden announcement? Particularly as this dramatic move, removing the remaining vestiges of his royal life, comes with an assertion of his innocence and that he continued to “vigorously deny the accusations against me”.
Prince Andrew has voluntarily given up the use of his titles – but he was clearly under pressure to jump before he was pushed.
This way, the changes in his status are kept in-house and there doesn’t have to be the intervention of Parliament, which would have needed to legislate to take away his title as Duke of York.
That would have been messy, but the Palace was already sending signals it was prepared to take action, and it was confident that Parliament, and popular opinion, would have supported such a change.
Allowing Andrew to voluntarily give up his titles, which theoretically remain in place, gave him a way out, still holding on to a little of the disappearing vapour trail of his pride.
But it’s no secret that Buckingham Palace was exasperated with the scandals surrounding Prince Andrew and what a royal source calls the “constant parade of headlines”.
He was one of their “Dukes of Hazard” that kept making news for all the wrong reasons.
Questions about Andrew’s links to sex offender Jeffrey Epstein were drowning out the work of the rest of the Royal Family. That was on top of unanswered questions about Andrew’s finances and his connections to an alleged Chinese spy.
Next week will see an historic state visit by the King and Queen to meet Pope Leo at the Vatican, and there was a deep irritation that such a solemn occasion was going to be overshadowed by lurid stories about Andrew and Epstein.
According to royal sources, a “tipping point” had been reached and something had to be done.
Arguably that should have happened earlier. But that would also have meant the Palace publicly accepting that it had a responsibility for Prince Andrew, when it had so long argued that as a “non-working royal”, his problems were his own to resolve.
But this latest move shows a recognition that even if Andrew isn’t a royal responsibility, it’s still their reputation he’s been damaging.
What added to the sense of this no longer being a tenable position was an email published last weekend that showed Prince Andrew had stayed in touch with Epstein longer than he had claimed in his BBC Newsnight interview.
A royal source said this was a significantly different moment when there were such clear “fault lines” exposed in Prince Andrew’s version of events.
Curiously, the same email had been partially published in January – again showing that Andrew had not cut ties to Epstein when he had claimed – but this time in October the impact has been like the pebble that has started an avalanche.
It followed a similar awkwardness for Sarah Ferguson, where a private email contradicted her own public claims to have cut links with Epstein.
And it added to the pressure from extracts published from a posthumous memoir of Virginia Giuffre, the Epstein victim who had reached a financial settlement with Prince Andrew, and had earlier this year taken her own life.
Ms Giuffre’s memoir, to be published next week, once again casts Andrew into toxic associations with Epstein.
And the book’s accusation that Prince Andrew was “entitled” echoed the title of a recent biography of Prince Andrew, by Andrew Lownie, that took another wrecking ball to his reputation.
It’s been a landslide of bad news, month after month, that showed no sign of losing momentum. He’d become the disastrous football manager, or the damaged political leader, who had no obvious way of being removed. Particularly when it was like a football manager whose brother was the chairman.
There’s always a tension between protecting an institution and a reluctance to remove the individuals within it. Even more so when the institution is also a family. It’s where the Godfather movies meet the Crown.
But something had to be done, and in the end, Andrew has handed back the keys to his royal life and walked away.
More could still emerge in the United States in the trawling of documents related to Epstein.
Ominously for Prince Andrew, among those quick to respond on Friday evening was the leading Democrat on the US House Oversight Committee that has been pushing for the release of Epstein material.
Robert Garcia, whose colleagues recently revealed documents showing an “Andrew” getting massages on Epstein’s private jet, said: “His decision to give up his royal titles is long overdue.”
“We know rich and powerful men used their money and power to abuse girls and young women, and to shield themselves from justice. Prince Andrew’s decision is just the beginning in the committee’s work to deliver justice for the survivors.”
Prince Andrew has always denied wrongdoing but this has become a global story.
When US President Trump arrived for his state visit, it was a picture of Andrew and Epstein that protesters projected on to the walls of Windsor Castle.
Prince Andrew’s decision to step away from his remaining titles will also mean he stays in step with his ex-wife, who is no longer the Duchess of York. They are back to where they began when they first met – as Prince Andrew and Sarah Ferguson.
They still live together and as Prince Andrew has his own long lease on Royal Lodge, they’ll carry on there as before. The King had already financially cut off Prince Andrew, so there isn’t any change there, he’ll have to find his own funding.
But by voluntarily stepping back, rather than being stripped of their honours, it means that their daughters will carry on with the titles of princess.
Prince Andrew won’t be at the royal Christmas gathering in Sandringham this year. And the guessing game about seeing him at the Order of the Garter parade won’t happen again.
But are the questions about his conduct really over?
DISCLAIMER: The Views, Comments, Opinions, Contributions and Statements made by Readers and Contributors on this platform do not necessarily represent the views or policy of Multimedia Group Limited.
DISCLAIMER: The Views, Comments, Opinions, Contributions and Statements made by Readers and Contributors on this platform do not necessarily represent the views or policy of Multimedia Group Limited.
Source link
