If there is one thing royal events over the past two years have taught us is when things can't get any messier or worse or demand a fresh supply of adjectives to convey the full horror, then they have a horrible tendency to do just that.
This month will mark two years since Prince Andrew managed to ritually disembowel himself on TV when he appeared on the BBC's Newsnight programme to discuss his ties to convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein. In under an hour, he managed to do more for the Republican cause in the UK than anyone since Oliver Cromwell.
Andrew's standing is now not so much poisonous as radioactive and currently his public approval in the UK is sitting at 10 per cent, a figure which I frankly find surprising. One in 10 people still approve of him?
Things couldn't possibly get dire for Andrew … could they?
Over the weekend, Andrew's legal team filed their official rebuttal against Epstein trafficking victim Virginia Giuffre's (nee Roberts) civil case against the royal in which she alleges that he sexually assaulted her on three occasions, scathingly attacking the mother-of-three, accusing her of trying to procure underage "slutty" girls for the disgraced financier.
The royal's legal team, which is being headed by Los Angeles-based celebrity lawyer Andrew Brettler, argues in the filing that Giuffre's case is "baseless", that "sensationalism and innuendo have prevailed over the truth" and that she was motivated to launch her legal action "to achieve another payday at his expense and at the expense of those closest to him".
(Sigrid McCawley, who represents Giuffre, told The Telegraph: "On the subject of money, let's be clear: the only party to this litigation using money to his benefit is Prince Andrew.")
In the 36-page document, lawyers for the royal alleged that she was involved in the "wilful recruitment and trafficking of young girls for sexual abuse" and includes a reference to her as a "money hungry sex kitten." (One section in the document is headed: "Giuffre's role in Epstein's criminal enterprise.")
"It is a striking feature of this case that while lurid allegations are made against Prince Andrew by Giuffre, the only party to this claim whose conduct has involved the wilful recruitment and trafficking of young girls for sexual abuse is Giuffre herself, including while she was an adult," the document states.
Virginia Giuffre in a BBC Interview about Prince Andrew. Photo / BBC
What. The. Hell.
This entire situation is not only totally and utterly inexplicable but could also prove totally and utterly disastrous for an HRH who is already persona non grata for the royal family.
To be clear, Andrew has always strenuously and repeatedly refuted Giuffre's claims, telling Newsnight host Emily Maitlis that he "absolutely categorically" denied having sex with the then-teenager in 2011. When Giuffre first filed her case in a New York court in August, there was never a shred of doubt that the Duke of York would mount a vigorous defence.
However, there is a world of difference between pushing back via his high-priced army of legal eagles and indulging in this wince-inducing frenzy of victim-blaming that is wildly tone deaf, especially in the post-Me Too era.
To make this entire situation even more galling is the fact that Team Andrew has been briefing the press against Virginia, with a friend of the Duke's telling The Telegraph: "In the court of public opinion, allegations, no matter how wild or lurid, are often taken at face value with scant regard for the facts.
"There is little appetite to ever challenge the narrative of an alleged 'victim', making it near impossible to fight accusations once they've been made.
"Over the years, increasing inconsistencies have emerged from Mrs Giuffre's narrative, but she has invited examination of her own conduct, allowing a light to shine on the other side of the story."
Prince Andrew and a then teenager Virginia Roberts at Ghislaine Maxwell's townhouse in London, Britain on March 13 2001. Photo / Getty Images
Taken together, this concerted Andrew pushback, via legal strategy and whisper campaign, feels like the equivalent of the Titanic, having ploughed into the iceberg, setting course and running into an even bigger and more damaging one.
Why in hell is Andrew playing things this way? Just how eager is he to lose that 10 per cent of Brits who still support him?
This strategy – of trying to cast Giuffre in a greedy, manipulative light – is already seeing him draw heavy fire from women's groups in the UK.
One of the key accusations that the now 61-year-old faced in the wake of his Newsnight performance was that he failed to show even the most minute jot of sympathy for Epstein's victims, or anything even vaguely resembling empathy.
He framed himself as a victim, offering up a variety of ridiculous alibis and defences against Giuffre's claims. (The Woking outpost of Pizza Express must surely be the most famous chain restaurant in the world these days.)
Still, despite being forced, within a matter of days, to humiliatingly resign from being a senior working member of the royal family, since then Andrew has made no secret of his desire to return to public life.
In October last year, The Times reported that he was "plotting" a return to royal duties and that he was resolute in his desire to "support the monarchy" and return to a "public role".
To that end, Andrew's defence matters not just in terms of how it plays out in the American legal system but how it plays out in the court of public opinion.
With this legal filing came the opportunity to not only rebuff Giuffre's allegations but for him to demonstrate a functioning range of human emotions and to recast himself as marginally less of an egotistical, selfish jerk.
And instead?
The file document opts to maul Giuffre. Even if Andrew does ultimately prevail in court, pursuing this particular legal strategy has dealt his already tattered reputation another even more devastating blow.
All of this, it must be pointed out, is reportedly being paid for by none other than his mother, the Queen. The fact that millions of pounds of Her Majesty's private income might be being spent to tar and feather a woman who suffered years of truly unthinkable sexual abuse does not sit well at all.
The Queen is reportedly picking up the cost of Prince Andrew's legal bills. Photo/ Getty Images
One thing that has not changed in the last two years is Andrew's complete and utter obliviousness in reading the room, so to speak.
The morning after his Newsnight appearance aired, he attended church with the Queen where, The Sun reported at the time, "[he] was heard telling her it's all been a great success" and that he had "put the criticism to rest". That he thought he had done a bang-up job speaks volumes.
But that he doesn't seem to have learnt a single, solitary thing from that chapter, the most devastating one in royal history, is just gobsmacking. Andrew is the first senior member of the royal family to have ever been publicly accused of rape – but that his pompous and callous approach has not been toned down a peg is stunning.
(To be clear, the Duke of York has never been charged with a crime and there has never been a suggestion he might be. In October, the Metropolitan Police announced they would take "no further action" against the royal after Giuffre's civil suit sparked a review.)
And all of this? This is just the warm up for the case which will stretch long into 2022 (key dates are already set down for May, June and July.)
Andrew famously told Maitlis that, for medical reasons, he could not sweat. The next year is really going to put that particular claim to the test.
• Daniela Elser is a royal expert and a writer with more than 15 years experience working with a number of Australia's leading media titles.
