When I last wrote about the banned old Duke of York, following his voluntary decision to stop using his titles, I suggested that many will now be wondering why the last step of throwing him out the Royal Family altogether cannot be taken. Over the past week, something that would have been unlikely – even unthinkable – has now moved into mainstream discourse. It has become increasingly obvious that the Firm’s actions, masterminded by Prince William and executed by the King, have not gone far enough to stem the tide of public outrage.
It now seems a virtual given that Andrew will have to leave Royal Lodge. This was expected to have been announced last week, but the prince apparently stalled for time after the revelations that, far from paying anything approaching market rent on the grace-and-favour property in the grounds of Windsor castle, he has been living there rent-free for decades. It is also certain that his continued presence in close proximity to William and his family will be seen as unacceptable. The Prince of Wales reportedly despises his uncle and has made it clear that, when he becomes king, Andrew will have no place in any royal event, whether public or private. The idea of the two of them amicably co-existing as neighbours is one for the birds.
It always seemed a close-run thing as to whether it would be money or sex that brought Prince Andrew down
However, it is looking increasingly likely that, long before William accedes to the throne, Andrew’s personal position will have shifted. Breaking the long-standing tradition that politicians do not comment on the affairs of the royal family (and vice versa), the Lib Dems have made it clear that they are considering holding an opposition day debate in order to ‘explore all options’ when it comes to the disgraced royal. The party has suggested that this was designed to ‘ensure parliament can scrutinise this [matter] properly – from Prince Andrew’s residence at Royal Lodge to his dukedom’. The Tory shadow frontbencher Robert Jenrick, who often has a knack for discerning public sentiment, remarked last week that it was ‘about time Andrew took himself off to live in private’ as ‘the public are sick of him’.
Quite what this very private life will involve is yet unclear. The reason for Andrew stalling on leaving Royal Lodge is less because he is attached to the 30-room mansion and more because he wishes somewhere else to be found for him and his former wife Sarah Ferguson to live before he will agree to depart. He will also be owed a significant amount of compensation – believed to be well over £500,000 – for agreeing to break the lease, which will, naturally, have to come out of taxpayer-financed funds. Yet it’s impossible to imagine that he can simply move to another property on the Windsor estate, even if he was prepared to exchange his current baronial splendour for the more modest surroundings of Frogmore Cottage, which is still a four-bedroom, 5,000 square foot residence.
It always seemed a close-run thing as to whether it would be money or sex that brought Prince Andrew down, given his alleged deep interest in both such matters. Now, amidst an existential crisis relating both to his ongoing association with Jeffrey Epstein and public outrage at his apparently being given a free ride by the royals themselves, he is facing a crisis that could well end with his leaving Britain altogether.
Were I the disgraced royal, I would be heading off on a private jet to the UAE or a similar berth as swiftly as I could, to spend my days in exile there at the behest of some Middle Eastern potentate who is less bothered about Andrew’s actions than the outraged people he once called his subjects. His boot-filling career as trade envoy has ensured that he has numerous contacts of dubious degrees of probity who will be only too keen to ensure a palace or similar grand residence can be placed at his disposal.
A wiser man would long since have accepted that this is the only conceivable option that remains for him, but Andrew is a toxic combination of stupid and stubborn. He still believes that some evidence will emerge that will clear his name and allow him to resume his place at the heart of the royal family – he continues to deny all allegations against him – and apparently considers that leaving the country will be tantamount to an admission of guilt. Yet like his similarly disgraced great-uncle, the Duke of Windsor, it is obvious that his life in Britain is now untenable. It would be better for all concerned, not least the family that he continues to profess loyalty to, if the nation were rid of this decidedly persona non grata figure once and for all.
Comments