Andrew’s fall from grace should spur republican fervour to sever UK links
That Andrew remains in line to therefore also become Australia’s head of state shows how ridiculous it is that this position at the apex of our system of government is held by one family, on the other side of the world, observing one religion and with skills and abilities not a requirement, let alone integrity and credibility.
Andrew is utterly discredited and it is commendable of Charles and William, no doubt influenced by Camilla and Kate, that they took the steps they have taken to strip the delinquent entitled prince of his titles and evict him from his royal residence. But it has taken far too long for there to be significant remedial action by the royal family.
As the scandal over Andrew’s friendship with Jeffrey Epstein, a pedophile and sex trafficker, snowballed, Charles removed his title as Duke of York and his right, by birth, to be a prince.
He evicted Andrew from Royal Lodge, where he has lived effectively rent free for 20 years. Andrew is to be sent to Sandringham, the private estate of Charles, at the King’s cost.
But none of this affects Andrew’s place in the line of succession to the throne. That can be changed only by a law of parliament. Moreover, all 14 Commonwealth countries would have to agree. This could possibly require the Australian government to also ask the parliament to pass legislation to give effect to it in Australian law.
There are now calls among members of the British parliament – both in the governing Labour Party and outside it – for Westminster to take action to ensure any family tragedy does not end up with the dishonoured former prince sitting on the throne. Sir Keir Starmer, however, says he will not initiate such a step. But Starmer is so weakened as Prime Minister, he may not be able to stop it.
The posthumous publication of Virginia Giuffre’s memoir provided damning new allegations against Andrew. She claims that, while being trafficked for sex by Epstein, she was sexually assaulted by the former prince at age 17. Giuffre’s account makes for harrowing reading. Andrew has denied these allegations. The photo of Andrew with Giuffre as Ghislaine Maxwell looks on, however, remains notorious.
It is telling that Charles displaced his brother despite there being no conviction being recorded against him. “These censures are deemed necessary, notwithstanding the fact that he continues to deny the allegations against him,” the statement noted. This underscores how damaging Andrew has become to the royal family he was born into.
If that was not extraordinary enough, the statement then sought to identify with victims of sexual abuse. “Their majesties wish to make clear that their thoughts and utmost sympathies have been, and will remain with, the victims and survivors of any and all forms of abuse,” the statement concluded. Andrew, evidently, has been cut loose.
An investigation into Andrew’s links with Epstein is still needed. Indeed, there is good reason to believe that more is still to come out. Andrew has already been found to have lied about ending contact with Epstein. There have been calls for the Metropolitan Police in Britain to reconsider opening an investigation into whether Andrew sexually abused Giuffre.
There is still much we do not know. Even after Epstein was released from jail after serving 18 months for soliciting a minor for prostitution, Andrew continued to be in contact. He claimed that the photo with Epstein in Central Park taken in 2010 was the last time they were in contact. Yet they remained in touch the following year. Andrew denied Giuffre’s claims yet settled her lawsuit with a multimillion-dollar donation to her charity in 2022.
Moreover, US President Donald Trump should make public all files relating to Epstein. He has not done so, which has angered many of his fervent MAGA supporters. Trump, of course, was also very friendly with Epstein, as The Wall Street Journal and other media outlets have reported. It is suspected that Trump himself might be implicated but that has not been proven.
The sorry saga over Andrew should reinvigorate debate about whether an English Anglican family should continue to provide our head of state. It makes no sense that in the 21st century, our head of state is not an Australian. Instead, the head of state is provided from a family who may or may not furnish us with a wise and prudent monarch.
It always struck me that many monarchists claim they are also democrats, expressing support for fair and free elections, rule by consent of the governed, a parliament made up with elected representatives and an independent judiciary, yet think the head of state should not be elected but determined by hereditary birthright. It could not be more undemocratic.
The powers of the monarch are vested in the governor-general who has nationalised the role and exercises their functions as a constitutional monarch. But the monarch, on the advice of the prime minister, appoints the governor-general. And the governor-general remains the monarch’s representative in Australia.
The reality remains that Australia’s head of state is not one of us. It is unacceptable that a man as disgusting and disgraced as Andrew is just heartbeats away from ascending to the throne and becoming Australia’s head of state. If this does not galvanise Australians to sever the remaining constitutional links with Britain then perhaps nothing will.
More Coverage
Imagine the unimaginable: tragedy and disaster befalls King Charles, his two sons William and Harry and their families, which makes Andrew Mountbatten Windsor Australia’s head of state. It may sound far-fetched but the scandalised and disgraced younger brother of the King remains eighth in line to the throne.