TRUTH SED!
desperately want to carry on with your job of propping up the monarchy, but your mere presence attracts more negative headlines than flies to honey?
This is, in a nutshell, the predicament of Prince Andrew after he spoke in detail about his friendship with convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein on BBC Newsnight almost 12 months ago. During the BBC interview, Andrew strenuously denied any allegations against him. He has consistently done so ever since they first surfaced in 2011.
But it was Andrew’s comments on other issues that created a very bad odour. Unwisely, Prince Andrew expressed no regrets during the interview about the friendship, except maybe in the vaguest possible way. It attracted stringent criticism from many in the media. During the interview, the prince also offered help to the FBI with its investigations into other participants in Epstein’s sex ring. It is the fact that, almost a year on, we still don’t know whether he has or has not shared any knowledge of his former friend with the FBI that has become the magnet of the increasingly strident criticism the prince attracts. Earlier in the year, the Manhattan Attorney leading the investigation said Andrew had “completely shut the door” on cooperation. However, the claim was resolutely rejected out of hand by the prince’s lawyers.
A few months later, another twist followed nonetheless. US Attorney General William Barr, in an extraordinary statement, disclosed on Fox News that he had sent an official request under the US-UK Mutual Legal Assistance Treaty to Home Secretary Priti Patel, requiring her help in obtaining evidence from the prince. It appeared that Donald Trump’s administration agreed with the Manhattan Attorney and had waved the confidentiality that is usually wrapped around such requests.
When Princess Beatrice married in July, the prince
did not appear in his own daughter’s wedding pictures. For some protesters, the question whether Andrew has or has not cooperated became a reason for focusing their horror at Epstein’s misdeeds in rallies in front of Buckingham Palace.
“IT IS HARD TO SEE HOW HE CAN RETURN TO BEING AN ACTIVE ROYAL”
The anniversary of the BBC interview on November 18 may well form the point of no return for Prince Andrew. All things being equal, if it is still not clear to the public whether the prince has spoken to the FBI, it is hard to see how he can return to being an active royal.
There is some evidence that Buckingham Palace, too, has doubts about Prince Andrew’s usefulness for the monarchy. At the recently reopened shop at the Queen’s favourite home Balmoral Castle, you can no longer buy postcards of Andrew. When asked why, an assistant said the prince “is
very much on the naughty step”.
What does the future look like for the prince?
Like the Sussexes, Andrew may soon promise not to use his HRH title and withdraw from the royal family’s public life to retire.
If there is one thing from writing his biography, it is that Prince Andrew is the consummate courtier and he knows when it is time to pull in one’s horns. After a few intemperate comments that were reported earlier in the year, he has stopped making waves in the media. This is a very different Andrew from the one who, for forty years, resisted his older brother’s greater power as the presumptive heir. Where Charles was dependable and dutiful, Andrew enjoyed his more raffish public persona.
A clue as to what lies ahead will come on Remembrance Sunday on November 8. If he isn’t there, his absence will tell its own tale.