Right Royal Ruckus

A life-long monarchist, chain-stitched into my DNA, brain-washed from birth, ideologically incontrovertible, I’m actually starting to lose patience with some members of our Royal Family. While Randy Andy plays a part in my growing frustration-bordering-on-disillusionment, I might stomach his ‘indiscretions’ (plural) if these were the whole story – after all, every family has a black sheep (even if I’m not supposed to say that). But it’s others’ reactions and handling of the situation that displeases me as much as anything.

What has Andrew done wrong, legally or morally? Statutory rape? Accepting bribes? Facilitating espionage? Not all the facts have been laid bare, whereas plenty of suppositions have. He hasn’t been tried in an English court of law for anything. It’s his word against the world. He is, therefore, legally innocent until proven guilty.

I want to embellish this situation by focusing on his Epstein connection. First, a scene-setter (if you will). In addition to being hard-wired into adoring the Monarchy, I can’t help believing apparent victims of abuse, unless and until sufficient evidence indicates otherwise. This is how it is with the Pakistani rape gang atrocities. There have been sufficient numbers of convictions, plus consistent corroborative accounts of cover-ups, as well as persistent politicising, feet-dragging and deflection (not least by Jess Phillips and Lucy Powell) to convince me that the abusers are to be believed and their detractors are going to hell without waiting for the handcart. It’s therefore intriguing that I find it difficult to believe the late Virginia Giuffre – may she finally rest in peace – who accused Prince Andrew of abusing her.

 
If one assumes (and I do) that Andrew slept with Giuffre, were their encounters genuinely consensual? Did she turn against Andrew and Epstein for monetary gain à la #MeToo? Or was she groomed? Surprisingly, she looks genuinely happy in that photo where Andrew has his arm around her waist. On the other hand her tragic death from suicide, and Andrew’s infamous, tone-deaf, car-crash television interview and e-mail counterevidence, make me wonder.

A more recent development has cast significant doubt, in my mind, on Giuffre’s veracity. In her recently published posthumous memoir, she accuses her father of abusing her from the age of seven. This he denies. If she’s right, then her life-long vulnerabilities and grooming – rather than a lifestyle choice – are believable. But should her father be innocent, why would she lie? It’s possible that she suffered from a psychological condition, such as Borderline Personality Disorder or Narcissistic Personality Disorder, which can lead to wilfully telling untruths. Alternatively, was she genuinely misremembering? If so, then she might have suffered from another condition: Paranoid Personality Disorder or, according to Psychology Today, some therapeutic practices, particularly those involving hypnosis or suggestive questioning, can inadvertently implant false memories.

The whole thing is horribly messy and there’s a long way to go to a reliable evidence base. Nevertheless, I’m leaning towards thinking that Giuffre was emotionally compromised from an early age, for whatever reason. Consequently she’s not psychologically or legally responsible for any unsavoury acts or untruths. If that is the case then she’s owed compassion and kindness for everything, not castigation or dismissal. As for Andrew, he comes across as arrogant, entitled, insensitive, self-centred and ignorant. He’s undoubtedly morally guilty of something, but if he’s guilty of anything in law, it’s likely because of his ignorance and insensitivity, not intentional law-breaking or being a scofflaw.

Regardless of everything I’ve argued so far, the public expects the Royal Family to be whiter than white (with no black sheep), in morality as well as legality. Andrew is obviously tainting the Royals’ public image, so they have to distance him from the institution. This they have done by stripping him (I’m guessing he didn’t volunteer) of most of his titles and honours.

Fine and dandy. I have no problem with that, but in law he is still innocent until proven guilty and, of much greater importance, he is still Windsor-family. In my book, family comes first. The King seems to agree. He appeared comfortable chatting to Andrew, his younger brother, at the Duchess of Kent’s funeral. Anne, too, was civil to him, but Prince William failed to follow their lead. Does William think he’s higher and mightier than his father and aunt? That alone is disrespectful and arrogant. Then again, William is more focused on currying favour with Gen Z by weaponising his children, producing slick videos, gazing at his woke naval and being judgemental rather than astute. I reckon he thought it would stand him in good stead with his target audience to be publicly rude to his uncle, a Falklands’ veteran, at a funeral. No, William: a funeral is not a suitable occasion for a morality play. Your behaviour was not statesmanlike. It was cynical and petty, and very unchristian. You need to learn that a little humility goes a long way.

As for Kate, she turned her back on Sarah Ferguson (Andrew’s ex-wife) also at the Duchess’s funeral. Sarah has been caught lying about her relationship with Epstein, and a host of other naughties over the years, but she’s still the mother of William’s cousins, and that makes her family. Kate should get out of her Pontius-Pilate armchair and do what she opportunistically and sanctimoniously preaches: spend some time with nature to find peace and clarity on the issue that is Prince Andrew.

Don’t forget that Kate also publicly pettily ignored the Sussexes at the Commonwealth Service just before Megxit. There’s a pattern developing here, and it’s not a pretty one. Perhaps Kate should tear herself away from trying on frocks and jewels and pursue a course in conflict-management. Maybe then she’d be able to advise William, who’s an Aston Villa fan and President of the FA, what to do in response to Jewish fans being banned from Villa Park. That is, after all, of greater significance to the nation than Randy Andy.

I’m not the only one not to call for Andrew’s head on a platter. Peter Hitchens in the Daily Mail is likewise uneasy about the witch hunt. Former Tory MP Rory Stewart also thinks there are more important things to worry about than Andrew’s bad behaviour. Oh dear. You know things are bad when I find myself on the same page as a friend of Mr Dodgy Dossier himself, Alastair Campbell. I suppose such a consequence is consistent with my chain-stitched DNA unravelling. What’s next? Me renouncing Thatcherism?

Now that really would be evidence of a personality disorder.