Last Tuesday I put up a posting on this blog headlined Why are so few newspapers carrying the Prince Andrew story?
I couldn't understand why there had been so little FLeet Street fuss following the revelation (in the News of the World on 20 February) about the prince's friendship with a convicted sex offender, Jeffrey Epstein.
Only two papers - the Mail on Sunday and the Daily Mail - immediately took it seriously. Then, after eight days, The Times, and its columnist, Ben Macintyre, covered it well as questions were asked about Andrew's role as trade envoy.
But where were the others, I wondered. One editor very sportingly emailed me to say: "Spot on about Prince Andrew... We should have done it - and are making active efforts to repair our mistake." (And his paper did so).
Now it appears every paper - and broadcaster - has realised the story's import. It was all over the Sunday papers yesterday and it has front page coverage in virtually all of today's national dailies.
There were several mentions of the story on Radio 4's Today programme this morning, with the red-carpet-fevered Hugo Vickers even attempting to offer support to the supposedly "unwise" prince.
I was particularly surprised by The Sun having previously failed to cover the story. It still couldn't find space on page 1 today, but it did carry an inside page lead plus a superbly sarcastic column by Trevor Kavanagh, "There's no suggestion Andrew is a disgrace." (sadly, not online)
Andrew, not the brightest prince in the pantheon of the world's inbred royal families, might well think that headline is supportive. (Memo to the Panned Old Duke of York: it means the opposite).
Anyway, he wants it to be business as usual. According to the Financial Times (yes, even the Pink One is covering the story too), the prince will lead a trade mission to Saudi Arabia in the coming weeks.
He has decided to go ahead with the visit, says the paper, "despite rising political instability in the Middle East and fresh criticism of his official business-promotion role following links to Jeffrey Epstein, the controversial US businessman."
A controversial US businessman? That's some euphemism for a man who served 13 months in jail for soliciting an underage girl into prostitution and is now on the US sex offenders' register.
Anyway, I still can't understand why most of the papers were silent for most of the time. But I am pleased the "oversight" has been corrected.
And, for the record, I am given to understand that if the muckrakers rake a little more, there is more muck to be found.
