The Palace statement was brief and brutal: “His Majesty has today initiated a formal process to remove the style, titles and honours of Prince Andrew.
Prince Andrew will now be known as Andrew Mountbatten Windsor.
…These censures are deemed necessary, notwithstanding the fact that he continues to deny the allegations against him.
Their Majesties wish to make clear that their thoughts and utmost sympathies have been, and will remain with, the victims and survivors of any and all forms of abuse.”
And now – it is difficult not to refer automatically to the King’s younger brother as “Prince” Andrew – a kind of internal exile awaits Andrew Mountbatten Windsor. He has been publicly shamed, denied all the privileges of birth, banished from his home, ostracised by his family. And don’t miss that reference to “notwithstanding the fact that he continues to deny the allegations against him”. This suggests the King may not wholly believe his brother’s declaration of innocence, his denial of any wrongdoing.
An ordinary American girl from an ordinary American family, brought down a British prince
It came as a surprise that it was even possibly to strip Andrew of the title of prince, since you’d have thought that this, unlike his title of Duke of York, was automatically the prerogative of a son of the Queen. But we’re back in Edward VIII territory, whereby an uncrowned king was effectively disowned and cast out by the Royal Family. Virginia Giuffre’s brother Skye was emotional but triumphant: “an ordinary American girl from an ordinary American family, brought down a British prince”.
It was right that Andrew was called to account for his actions, though it must continue to be said that he has denied the allegations against him. Nobody’s Girl, Virginia Giuffre’s posthumous memoir, was indeed the final straw, the unforgettable accusation against him. Poor Virginia took her own life in April, but she still had the power to bring down Jeffrey Epstein’s most famous associate and friend: Andrew.
But I would say that righteous vengeance has its limits and that limit has been reached. Today, Skye Roberts said that Andrew should be behind bars. In other words, he will not be content until the former prince has been charged, tried, convicted, imprisoned. It may of course be that allegations that he asked his personal protection officers to use Virginia’s social security number to investigate her background, presumably to discredit her, will result in further investigation. He may be asked to participate in US investigations into the Epstein affair; he’ll have to think how that might be done without compromising himself further.
It is natural that Skye Roberts should be vengeful, but Andrew’s humiliation is already complete. Indeed many of the commentators throwing the first, second, third, thirtieth stone at the former prince give the impression that they cannot think of any fate bad enough for him.
The King has acted as a king. It is time for him to remember his other functions — he is still Andrew’s brother
Enough. Indeed, now that the King has acted as a king and deprived Andrew of all his privileges, all the things that made his shallow life worthwhile, it is time for him to remember his other functions. He is still Andrew’s brother, and he should remain in touch with him; to put it another way, he is his brother’s keeper and the rest of us should respect that.
The King is also the head of the Church of England; he is a Christian, and it’s the job of a Christian to encourage a sinner to repent, not to abandon him. It’s not for the King to forgive Andrew’s behaviour – it’s for Epstein’s victims – but to try to encourage him to come to terms with what has happened and find some way of life that will be harmless if not productive. Leaving him to despair alone would not be a Christian thing to do.
It was, reportedly, Prince William who insisted on that complete extinction of his uncle as a royal person. That’s an indication of his ruthlessness
It is interesting to note that it’s also an indication that it was, reportedly, Prince William who insisted on that complete extinction of his uncle as a royal person. That’s an indication of his ruthlessness. He saw that his own work to make the royals relevant to modern Britain was being undermined by Andrew. He’s steely, is William. And his own younger brother should note that.
We should remember too that Prince Andrew occupied only a small part of Virginia Giuffre’s harrowing description of over two years in the hell that was subjugation to Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell. Our understandable focus on Andrew leaves out of account all the other men who participated in her sexual exploitation and that of many other vulnerable girls.
At the end of the book she mentions other men whom she was too frightened to name, and I don’t know if the book was redacted on the advice of lawyers before publication. She writes, “There are certain men who I fear naming. The man who brutally raped me towards the end of my time with Epstein and Maxwell – the man whom I’ve called the former minister … I fear that this man will seek to hurt me if I say his name here. And later, she adds: “I have fears about another man…whom I was forced to have sex with many times. I would love to identify him here. But this man is very wealthy and very powerful.”
There is an awful lot of unfinished business when it comes to Jeffrey Epstein’s and Ghislaine Maxwell’s crimes. There are men who, unlike Andrew, have got away, who have used their power, influence and money to ensure that their names have not been made public. The US investigations may yet bring them down; we shall see.
For now, Virginia Giuffre has indeed destroyed a prince, and his wife. Let’s not forget that Sarah Ferguson – presumably she too is stripped of the title she uses for her wretched books – was also a friend and associate of Epstein.
The public has had its way and the King and his son followed public opinion. The relationship between the country and the Royal Family has not, perhaps, been reset, but the royals have been reminded that their privileges depend on public approbation of their conduct.
And let’s remember that not long ago, before the rules were changed, by a quirk of primogeniture if Charles had died before having an heir, Andrew would have taken his place in the line of succession. Doesn’t bear thinking about, does it?
