![\"\"](\"https:\/\/www.thetruthseeker.co.uk\/wp-content\/uploads\/2019\/11\/Prince-Andrew-headlines.jpg\")
<\/a><\/p>\nFuture historians may conclude that Prince Andrew\u2019s defining achievement was to gift the nation a new verb.<\/span><\/p>\n Following a tumultuous week when his car-crash interview shook the House of Windsor so vigorously it seemed its palaces were in danger of losing their crenellations, the Duke of York now finds himself banished from duties. His fate is the 21st-century equivalent of that which befell the difficult minor royals of previous eras who were locked up in asylums, away from the public gaze.<\/span><\/p>\n \u201cPrince Andrew has been de-royaled, if there is such a word,\u201d said the historian and biographer Robert Lacey, an adviser to<\/a><\/strong><\/span> the acclaimed Netflix series The Crown<\/em>. \u201cAt the risk of sounding melodramatic, I really would compare it to 1936 and the abdication of Edward VIII. What we are talking about is effectively the removal of a member of the royal family as a result of public opinion.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n The duke can take some comfort from the knowledge that if he had been around a few hundred years ago, things could have been worse. \u201cOne can even compare it to 1649, when Charles I was executed,\u201d Lacey said. \u201cThis is a reminder that what was an institution of absolute power now depends ultimately on the consent and approval of the communities it seeks to represent, and Prince Andrew<\/strong><\/span><\/a> failed in this respect.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n Arrogant, aloof and slow-witted, according to some who have encountered him, the duke\u2019s interview last weekend with Newsnight<\/em>\u2019s Emily Maitlis is now seen as a textbook example of how not to conduct a damage-limitation exercise.<\/span><\/p>\n Perhaps he should have heeded the lessons of history. Princess Diana\u2019s bombshell Panorama<\/em> confession did huge damage to the royal family. Prince Charles\u2019s decision to admit to adultery via a television interview greatly reduced his standing in the eyes of the public.<\/span><\/p>\n \u201cAndrew is a bit of a plonker, everybody knows that,\u201d said one source close to the palace. \u201cThere\u2019s no way he should have been allowed to do that interview. They should have just sent him off to Australia. That would have been a bloody good idea. Out of sight, out of mind.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n The duke\u2019s former adviser Jason Stein, who resigned<\/strong><\/span><\/a> shortly before the broadcast after only a month in the job, was one rare voice who was opposed to the interview. But Andrew\u2019s private secretary, Amanda Thirsk, who has now been moved from her post, disagreed with Stein, seeing the interview as a chance for the duke to put some distance between him and his late friend, the disgraced sex offender Jeffrey Epstein.<\/span><\/p>\n Ultimately, the decision came down to the duke and, confident in his abilities to swing public opinion, he agreed to be interviewed. It was to prove a catastrophic example of hubris.<\/span><\/p>\n \u201cWhat he has managed to do is achieve the worst of both worlds,\u201d one lawyer said. \u201cHe has done the interview, but he\u2019s left lots of things unanswered. And he has not given a coherent explanation of what happened.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n It appears Buckingham Palace was incapable of spotting the bear traps that the interview presented \u2013 a sign, according to insiders, of institutional decay. \u201cThere\u2019s a lack of discipline there at the moment,\u201d the source said. \u201cSir Christopher Geidt [the Queen\u2019s private secretary from 2007 to 2017] was a real steadying hand. But he\u2019s not there now.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n Geidt, a battle-hardened former soldier, was seen as a good adviser to the monarch. \u201cHe had the measure of her,\u201d the source said.<\/span><\/p>\n Others who might have been prepared to speak truth to power are also long gone.<\/span><\/p>\n Two decades ago, as the royal family sought to modernise post-Diana, it brought in several sharp-witted outsiders, including former No 10 press adviser Colleen Harris and Mark Bolland, a PR executive, to act as troubleshooters. \u201cBut the family hated them,\u201d the source said. \u201cBecause they imposed quite a lot of discipline. I do think some of the staffing has gone a bit awry. They don\u2019t have people who can stand up to them now. They\u2019ve gone back to the Hooray Henrys who go \u2018yah, yah, yah\u2019 and don\u2019t confront them properly.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n This would not be such a problem if there was leadership at the top. But the Duke of Edinburgh is frail and has retired from the fray. The Queen is 93.<\/span><\/p>\n \u201cThe royals are like most families,\u201d the source said. \u201cYou need a head of the family to step in \u2013 somebody tough and stern \u2013 who sorts it all out, but they don\u2019t have anyone at the moment. It\u2019s all sliding again. The Queen is just tired. It needs a stronger hand at the helm.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n From the Duke of Edinburgh\u2019s infamous car crash to the apparently growing divide between princes William and Harry, the royal family could be forgiven for wishing to see the back of 2019. That the Queen felt she had no choice but to sacrifice Andrew, whom many consider her favourite child, will have made it a particularly bleak year.<\/span><\/p>\n \u201cThe circumstances suggest he may well have been her favourite,\u201d Lacey said. \u201cIt is well established that the Queen regretted that her early accession to the throne did not enable her to parent Charles and Anne as she would have liked, nor to enjoy the experience of having children. It\u2019s no secret that she and Prince Philip took the decision that they would like a second, younger family and Andrew was the first of those.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n That the Prince of Wales was heavily involved in the decision to excommunicate his brother is evidence of a monarchy in flux.<\/span><\/p>\n \u201cThis will be seen as the moment that marks the transition from one reign to another, when Prince Charles<\/a> clearly stepped in,\u201d Lacey said. \u201cAlthough Prince Andrew was allowed to say he jumped, he was in fact pushed. The royal family are absolutely ruthless when it comes to protecting the institution.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n But a monarchy in transition can be a fragile, fractious thing.<\/span><\/p>\n \u201cThe Prince of Wales has got his team,\u201d a royal source said. \u201cHe has always done his own thing, but now they are looking across the park and want more of a say, and this causes friction.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n Lacey believes it is significant that the Prince of Wales was away on royal duties when the decision to use Buckingham Palace for the interview was taken.<\/span><\/p>\n \u201cWith Prince Philip out of the scene, Prince Andrew had effectively become the man in charge of the palace,\u201d Lacey said. \u201cFrom the inquiries one can make, it is not really certain that the Queen gave her personal approval for the use of the palace.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n The choice of location was both telling and a substantial error of judgment, according to Lacey.<\/span><\/p>\n \u201cIn a way, it [the ensuing post-interview furore] is nothing to do at all with whatever Prince Andrew\u2019s relations were or were not with Jeffrey Epstein<\/a><\/strong>. It all starts with last Saturday night and a projection of his attitudes.<\/span><\/p>\n \u201cMost people do not feel they want to be represented by someone like that. It was made worse by his decision to use Buckingham Palace as a backdrop. It invited questions and confrontation. It went along with the lack of contrition in what he said, and in his tone.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n As it became apparent just how far Andrew\u2019s interview had backfired, the palace drafted a statement that it was hoped would paint the duke in a more empathetic light. Announcing his intention to stand down from public duties, the duke confirmed that he was willing \u201cto help any appropriate law enforcement agency with their investigations, if required\u201d.<\/span><\/p>\n But, as with his television interview, the response raised more questions than it answered.<\/span><\/p>\n \u201cHe\u2019s not committing to giving evidence to anyone who asks him. It\u2019s carefully caveated \u2013 deliberately so,\u201d said one legal expert who asked to remain anonymous. \u201cThe duke says \u2018if required\u2019 \u2013 so he\u2019s not prepared to do it voluntarily. It may well be a get-out. Epstein is dead, so there is not going to be a criminal prosecution of him. It may well be that law enforcement agencies are looking at prosecuting his associates involved in the trafficking of young women, but there may end up being no criminal prosecution.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n Epstein\u2019s victims are pursuing civil damages claims against the financier\u2019s estate, but lawyers believe it is significant that the duke has not signalled any desire to help them by agreeing to provide a witness testimony. \u201cIf he\u2019s genuinely concerned about helping victims, he needs to commit to assisting those who are representing them, as they have called upon him to do,\u201d said Richard Scorer, a specialist in sexual abuse cases at the law firm Slater and Gordon. \u201cAt the moment, his statement doesn\u2019t include that.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n John Cooper QC, a barrister who knows about rehabilitating reputations, having sought to have the conviction of Dr Crippen overturned on the strength of new DNA evidence, suggested there was no reason why the duke would not accede to the lawyers\u2019 demands.<\/span><\/p>\n \u201cHopefully, as a man of public duty, he would be quite content to help them,\u201d Cooper said.<\/span><\/p>\n Virginia Giuffre (formerly Roberts) with Prince Andrew in London in 2001, when she was 16. Click to enlarge<\/p><\/div>\n The now notorious photograph<\/a><\/strong><\/span> of the duke with his arm around the waist of one of Epstein\u2019s teenage victims, Virginia Roberts, apparently taken in 2001 at the London mews home of Epstein\u2019s girlfriend Ghislaine Maxwell, has been cited as evidence that he could provide valuable insight.<\/span><\/p>\n But there are claims the photo is a fake. The duke used his Newsnight <\/em>interview to say he had no recollection of it being taken, that he did not recall meeting Roberts, and to categorically deny having sex with her.<\/span><\/p>\n<\/a>