Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor has become a figure of controversy, his actions and fabrications tarnishing not only his own reputation but also casting a shadow over the royal institution he was born into. His missteps and the consequences they have wrought lead us to question the monarchy’s resilience in the face of such scandal.
Not long ago, it would have seemed unthinkable to suggest that a single member could endanger the entire monarchy. After all, the Royal Family has weathered numerous storms before, each time emerging with its foundational respect and admiration intact. Yet, the current situation presents a unique challenge.
Andrew’s behavior, characterized by scandalous entanglements and a sense of unwarranted entitlement, is eroding the public’s longstanding affection and respect for the monarchy. Each revelation further weakens the bond between the Royal Family and the public.
The latest developments surrounding Andrew, specifically the investigation into potential sexual offences, have escalated the situation into a full-blown crisis for the royals. These allegations serve as a significant blow, threatening to undermine the institution’s integrity.
King Charles has taken significant steps to mitigate the damage. In a bid to contain the fallout, he has removed Andrew’s titles and military honors, evicted him from his opulent residence in Windsor, and effectively isolated him at Sandringham. Despite these efforts, Andrew’s presence remains a persistent threat to the monarchy’s stability.
Despite the well-meaning efforts of the King to control the fall-out – stripping his brother of his titles and rank, evicting him from his palatial Windsor home and quarantining him at Sandringham – Andrew is becoming a contagion.
As news of the latest police inquiry was made public, conveniently in lockstep with Labour’s decision to release papers relating to the ex-Duke of York’s appointment as trade ambassador, one indisputable trend is clear: reverence for the royals is vanishing and vanishing fast.
Nothing illustrated that more than the absurd way broadcasters in particular greeted the publication of historic government papers about Andrew yesterday.
Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor is an oaf and a fool whose lies have done untold damage to the institution he was born into, writes Richard Kay
Commentators leapt on the revelations with the kind of lip-smacking fervour that must have delighted republicans, to whom Andrew represents everything they loathe about the monarchy.
The implication was that he was a ‘nepo baby’, catapulted into his role – unpaid, incidentally – as a trade envoy because the late Queen Elizabeth wished it.
Among the more ludicrous assertions was the complaint that, because the appointment was turbo-charged by Her Majesty, Andrew was not subject to vetting.
This barely stands up to serious examination – not only was Andrew at that time a decorated war veteran and Naval officer who had served with distinction in the Falklands conflict, he also had high-level security clearance to attend briefings at MI6, the secret intelligence agency.
It is worth reminding ourselves what it was Andrew was being asked to do. He was not being groomed to take on a difficult role as a high-level diplomat, but was merely taking over the job that the Queen’s cousin the Duke of Kent had carried out with dull diligence for the previous 30 years.
It was a role of handshakes and ceremony, opening doors and making connections. Of course, it would be naive to ignore the fact that over the years Andrew manipulated the position to his own advantage. Among the many claims against him is that he enriched himself in the process.
Such is the climate of frenzy that Andrew’s shameful activities have generated, however, questioning the influence of the Queen in the whole sorry saga now seems part of the public discourse.
Make no mistake, a historical revisionism is under way before our very eyes, something that would have been unheard of ten or perhaps even five years ago.
In short, we are witnessing what to many looks like the beginning of a smearing of the Queen’s unblemished record as monarch and public servant.
It fits with the current narrative; here was a mother blinded by her love for a favourite son who could not be denied his every wish.
But is that fair or even true?
Of course, she wanted gainful employment for her son as his time in the Royal Navy after 22 years’ service was drawing to a close. Many would have preferred him to stay in the Navy, but the top brass was clear he was not cut out for high rank. So here he was aged only 41 with what was anticipated to be years of public service ahead of him.
The implication was that he was a ‘nepo baby’, catapulted into his role as a trade envoy because the late Queen Elizabeth wished it
Following in the well-trodden footsteps of Eddie Kent would have been an entirely natural move. Nor was it remotely controversial at the time. If there was an ideal job description for a royal family member, ‘special representative for trade and investment’ was it.
In simple terms the Queen was requesting that we replace the role of one duke (Kent) with another (York).
At the time of the appointment there were no suspicions about Andrew’s motives or his friendships. It is of course true that Andrew’s private life was raising eyebrows – he had been divorced from his ex-wife Sarah for five years and had been linked with a string of women.
All the same there was a view that where the opposite sex was concerned Andrew, as a single man, was free to do as he pleased.
And to start with at least, Andrew seemed an inspired choice. I accompanied him on one of his very first engagements to New York where he represented the Royal Family’s response to the 9/11 terror attack on the Twin Towers. The prince I witnessed was empathetic, compassionate and gentle with the families of those who lost their lives – every quality you would hope for in a member of the Royal Family.
This is important because even a cursory look at yesterday’s official papers shows it was not just the Queen driving the application, so too was Tony Blair, the then prime minister. A handwritten note advises that details about the posting should be ‘put in the PM’s folder for next Monday’.
Others, the documents show, included the former ambassador Sir David Wright, who was no stranger to the Royal Family as a former private secretary to the then Prince Charles.
As he wrote in a government memo at the time: ‘The Queen is very keen that the Duke of York should take on a prominent role in the promotion of national interests.’
He added: ‘No other member of the Royal Family would be available to succeed the Duke of Kent. The Duke of York’s adoption of his role would seem a natural fit.’
How perfectly straightforward and above board all that seems.
Yes, there were concerns about Andrew’s suitability – Charles, for one, expressed them, reportedly fearing his brother would ‘use the post’ to ‘cultivate friendships with the wealthy, chase women and play golf’.
Peter Mandelson and Andrew both consorted with disgusting paedophile Jeffrey Epstein. Both are accused of passing government secrets to him
But it is inconceivable that the Queen, who was driven by duty, would allow personal considerations to outweigh suspicions about Andrew’s liabilities.
Yet now, with the Government’s seemingly sly decision to slip the details out a day before Parliament’s recess, coupled with Thames Valley Police’s shocking revelations, we are being invited to review the Andrew appointment through a twisted lens.
And what a wonderful distraction it all is for our lame-duck Prime Minister, who should be making a vigorous defence of the monarchy but has instead remained virtually silent on the matter.
He does, of course, endorse the Crown when it suits him. Remember his ham-fisted behaviour in the Oval Office of the White House where he brandished that invitation from the King for Donald Trump to come to Britain.
But it is useful to remember an aside Starmer was caught on camera uttering in 2005: ‘I got made a Queen’s Counsel, which is odd since I often used to propose the abolition of the monarchy.’
He has flip-flopped on so many issues it is hard to know if he has a settled view on anything, including the long-term wellbeing of the House of Windsor.
Yet even he must appreciate that attempts to sully the reputation of the Queen are deplorable. He is after all inexorably tied into the whole sordid saga. It was his decision to force through the appointment of Peter Mandelson as ambassador to the US, after ignoring the warnings of others.
Mandelson and Andrew both consorted with the disgusting paedophile Jeffrey Epstein. Both are accused of passing government secrets to him.
To suggest, as some are now, that this is somehow a blot on the Queen’s record is not just wrong, it is reckless.
Monarchists must fight back. The Crown is among our most cherished institutions, but it is also fragile. After the blow of the Queen’s death, Charles steadied the ship only to suffer a cancer diagnosis that ushered in another emergency, which only worsened when illness also struck the Princess of Wales.
Somehow the King has powered through these setbacks and in America last month, where he charmed the capricious President Trump, he demonstrated the unique gift of a constitutional monarch, not least in his historic address to Congress that managed to be profound, poignant and laced with humour.
But, as the last 24 hours have shown, Andrew remains a malign and destabilising force to the monarchy – and one which suits the agenda of the Left.
Of course, we cannot forget that it was Andrew’s evasions about Jeffrey Epstein – lies, in other words – which triggered this long crisis. When he sat down with Emily Maitlis in front of BBC cameras at Buckingham Palace in 2019, he was untruthful about his contacts with the vile Epstein.
But a lie on television is not a criminal offence. In recent years the drip, drip, drip of allegations have become a torrent but how much of it would survive rigorous cross-examination in a court?
Some will undoubtedly be suspicious of the police’s public appeal for ‘victim survivors’ linked to Andrew to come forward. It brings back uncomfortable memories of Operation Midland, the discredited Metropolitan Police investigation into a so-called VIP sex ring several years ago.
For nearly seven years Andrew has dominated royal headlines, overshadowing his family’s good deeds, sucking the air out of the royal room. What a tragedy if this spreading scandal is allowed to now encompass the reputation of the Queen who only ever wanted to do the best for her country.
