Queen’s dutiful son failed in his moral duty

IN EARLIER times, troublesome royals were removed by a headsman’s axe or, in one instance, drowned in a butt of wine.

These days, with just their titles lopped off, they are demoted to a non-royal life.

The Duke ofwindsor, Diana, Fergie, Harry and Meghan, and now Andrew were all “exiled” from the family fold.

Onthursday,andrew lost his military roles and royal patronages, and is unlikely to use the honorific HRH again.

Removal of the title Duke ofyork would require a parliamentary update to the Titles Deprivation Act 1917.

The situation with Andrew had grown completely out of hand and threatened to engulf the Queen, who had stood by him since his connections with Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell were revealed.

But protecting the Queen in the year of her platinum celebrations is only part of the story. Charles led the decision in the name of preserving the monarchy.

However, action should have been taken much sooner – at the point where Andrew’s non-compliance with the FBI over their inquiries into Epstein and Maxwell became a scandal in itself.

Andrew had a moral duty to offer assistance, but his sense of entitlement and privilege seems to have overcome his

‘Duke should have been exiled earlier’

principles. Now, as a “private citizen”, Andrew cannot hide behind royalty and deference. “Mummy’s darling boy”, as some refer to him, is on his own.

To the frustration of courtiers and some family members, the Queen saw only the good in Andrew. He was the dutiful son who gave her comfort when Philip died.

He is a loving father to Beatrice and Eugenie, and behaved with consideration to his calamity-prone ex-wife.

Last week, the urgency of dealing swiftly with Andrew’s crisis was impressed on the Queen by Charles and, reportedly, William – who must wonder if there will be a throne left for him to inherit.

Meanwhile, Andrew and his lawyers seem keen to continue the fight to clear his name. Any financial settlement with Virginia Giuffre carries the risk that it could look like an admission of guilt.

The question also arises of who would pay a multi-million-dollar compensation.

The Palace statement failed to assure the tax-paying public they are insulated.

Andrew may decide that proceeding to trial is worth the risk of embarrassment.

He could plead the Fifth Amendment, stay silent and leave Ms Giuffre’s lawyers the challenge of proving her claims to gain a “balance of probability” verdict.

There are two sides to this murky case. Andrew would not be the first accused to reposition his memories and Ms Giuffre not the first accuser to have inconsistencies in her statements.

However, Andrew may feel trial by jury is infinitely better than trial bytwitter.