Queen Elizabeth II and Prince Andrew, Duke of York on day five of Royal Ascot at Ascot Racecourse on June 22, 2019 in Ascot, England. Photo / Getty Images
Queen Elizabeth II and Prince Andrew, Duke of York on day five of Royal Ascot at Ascot Racecourse on June 22, 2019 in Ascot, England. Photo / Getty Images
Opinion:
The Queen has a unique range of options at her singular disposal when it comes to cheering up the members of her family. She could give them another one of her 140-plus grace-and-favour homes or lend them one of the 65 Rembrandts which are part of the Royal Collection. Hell, she could gift wrap Wales.
However, if Her Majesty does have a particular 'love language,' to co-opt the pop psychology concept du jour, then it is very obviously one simple thing: Titles.
This week it emerged that the 95-year-old monarch has reportedly allowed her disgraced son Prince Andrew to keep one of his most spiffy titles to try to lift his spirits after a particularly bumpy two months for the Duke of York.
Queen Elizabeth II and Prince Andrew, Duke of York on day five of Royal Ascot at Ascot Racecourse on June 22, 2019 in Ascot, England. Photo / Getty Images
In January, the Queen stripped her supposedly favourite child of his remaining honorary military titles and official patronages, thus technically rendering him a private citizen in what amounted to a humiliating and swift sacking of the Duke of York, once and for all.
Then in February, the legal fight between Prince Andrew and Virginia Giuffre, nee Roberts, who last year had filed a civil sex abuse claim against him in a New York court, drew to an abrupt close after they had reached a settlement, thus circumventing what could have been the most damaging court case in royal history. (Andrew has strenuously denied her claims.)
Now, according to a new report, Andrew is "broken" after paying Ms Giuffre, a Perth-based mother-of-three, a reported $22.7 million, and which has led to the Queen taking what is, in my opinion, a truly staggering step.
This week, an "old pal" of the 62-year-old told the Mirror: "He is down, he is broken."
The report then claimed Andrew is "said to be in such low spirits he has been allowed to keep the title of Vice Admiral to cheer him up".
(The Duke was promoted to Vice Admiral in 2015 on his 55th birthday. He had been due to be elevated further to admiral in 2020 on his 60th birthday but by that point his royal career was over thanks to his catastrophic Newsnight interview.)
Prince Andrew at the Royal Chapel at Windsor, following the death announcement of his father Prince Philip in 2021. Photo / Steve Parsons, AP, File
The source, who had served with the former naval pilot, said: "He was actually not a bad person when I knew him. He had a few entitlement issues but that is to be expected.
"His reputation is in tatters, his public life is over. He is a walking embarrassment.
"If he wants to dress up once in a while in a naval uniform, then let him."
According to the Mirror: "It is understood the Queen allowed him to remain a Vice Admiral."
Sadly, news.com.au has rules about me swearing so I will restrain myself here.
What the actual hell?
How, after the last two-and-a-half years, which has seen Andrew's friendship with a convicted sex offender drag the royal family into the most squalid crisis in its history, can Her Majesty even countenance letting him hold onto any of the titles which are, in essence, shiny gifts?
After tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, of news stories have come out that combine the words "Prince Andrew" and "alleged sexual assault", how can anyone think that letting the sacked royal keep this honorific is anything but an abysmal idea?
Let me state at this point that Andrew has never been charged with any crime nor has there ever been any suggestion he might. He has always maintained his innocence. Moreover, the deal with Ms Giuffre means he will never get his day in court, meaning that there is no chance that he will ever be able to clear his name.
But, there are plenty of indisputable facts when it comes to the long and very sorry saga of the pointless prince and the paedophile. In December 2010, Andrew flew to New York where he spent a number of nights at the home of Jeffrey Epstein, a man who by that point, was on the sex offender's register.
Prince Andrew with Virginia Roberts, who he denied any memory of meeting. Photo / Supplied, File
In November 2019, after the arrest of Epstein on sex trafficking charges and his subsequent suicide, the Prince sat down with journalist Emily Maitlis for an hour-long TV interview. Presented with carte blanche to make his case to the UK and the world, did Andrew use the opportunity to show genuine empathy for the women who had suffered so horribly at Epstein's hands? To express profound regret for his continued association with the financier even after he was convicted of sex crimes involving a minor? To acknowledge his mistakes and pledge to use his position to help trafficking victims?
Insert a mirthless laugh here. Of course he didn't.
Instead he pompously told the world that he was "too honourable" to end his friendship with Epstein over the phone and then wheeled a trio of truly bonkers arguments to counter Ms Giuffre's account of events. (See: Him not being able to sweat, that he was wearing "travelling clothes" and that members of the royal family don't engage in PDA, all claims for which there is ample photographic evidence to prove otherwise.)
At every turn, Andrew's actions, choices and words have become an indelible stain on the house of Windsor.
Moreover, accusations of victim blaming, dodging and weaving (such as rushing to Scotland last year to evade process servers trying to officially serve him with court papers) and deeply distasteful courtroom strategy (such as trying to have a report labelling Ms Giuffre a "money-hungry sex kitten" included in evidence) have only contributed to this PR disaster of titanic proportions.
And yet despite all of this, we have the Queen reportedly taking it upon herself to buck up her down-in-the-dumps son. Diddums.
While Andrew deserves all the critical adjectives a writer can haul out here, so too does Her Majesty deserve to come in for criticism, because her handling of this whole sordid mess, since the get-go, has been disastrous. Again and again and again she has interceded to try to protect her son from the consequences of his actions and to shield him from the fallout of his own horrible choices.
When Epstein died in August 2019, the nonagenarian pointedly took Andrew to church with her a day later in a blatant signal of support. When Andrew was forced to step down from official duties after his fateful TV interview, she allowed him to keep his various military titles, including most notably as the Colonel of the Grenadier Guards. In August last year, The Times reported that the Queen had "let it be known" she wanted her son to retain the prestigious position even though he had quit public life.
Yet when Prince Harry similarly stepped down from his role as a senior royal, he was forced to hand back all of his military honours and patronages. How's that for a double standard of Buckingham Palace proportions?
Virginia Roberts Giuffre outside a Manhattan court following the jailhouse death of Jeffrey Epstein in August 2019. Photo/Bebeto Matthews, AP, File
It is hardly as if Andrew has spent the years since his downfall humbly reflecting on his mistakes. When Prince Philip passed away in April last year, it was the Duke who took it upon himself to speak to the media in what looked like a sneaky attempt to start to try to rehabilitate his image.
Eyebrows shot up sky high when he gave a TV interview after a service of remembrance for his father, with a source close to him telling the Daily Mail: "He still does believe in his heart of hearts that he can return [to public life] and that time will be a healer. He thinks he will be able to resume royal duties at some point and save his reputation … He hopes there is a way back."
You really can't keep a selfish, silly man down can you?
(The public was having none of this with almost 400 people writing in to complain to the BBC that he had been included in their coverage in the days after Philip's passing, the Guardian has reported.)
And nor, it would seem, can you stop a history-making Queen from making the same mistake, all over again. Her lenient approach towards the handling of him and his mess has only contributed to the ongoing publicity catastrophe here, all of which has done irreparable damage to the Crown.
At every moment when Her Majesty was forced to choose between acting as a monarchy or a mother, time and again, her acute maternal blind spot has won out.
That this is still the case in regards to Andrew's Vice Admiral title beggars belief.
