PR man quit after advising Andrew not to give interview

Prince Andrew’s spin doctor quit after advising him not to go ahead with the BBC interview on the grounds it could backfire.

A Buckingham Palace source said Andrew’s interview with the BBC would ‘go down as one on single worst PR moves in recent history’. Picture: BBC

The Duke of York’s spin doctor left his job at Buckingham Palace two weeks ago after advising Prince Andrew not to go ahead with the BBC Newsnight interview on the grounds that it could backfire.

One palace source said Saturday’s BBC interview would “go down as one of the single worst PR moves in recent history”.

Jason Stein was hired in September to begin reviving Andrew’s reputation, which had been harmed by his links to Jeffrey Epstein.

In his first meeting, Stein advised the duke not to accept the interview request, but the spin doctor, who had been a special adviser to Amber Rudd until she resigned from cabinet, left by mutual consent after just four weeks.

He clashed with Amanda Thirsk, the duke’s private secretary, who was pushing hard for Andrew to do the interview.

Stein, who has told friends in Westminster that he likes Andrew and considers him “not a bad man”, had instead proposed that the duke conduct two lengthy print interviews to mark his 60th birthday in February, one in Britain and one in the US.

He also advised the prince to spend the time before that seeking to rebuild his public reputation by doing charitable works.

He proposed that Andrew, a Falklands War veteran, should front a Christmas campaign to get sports clubs to supply tickets to troops — a campaign for which he is already a benefactor — and to use his app to give the developing world access to education expertise from Britain’s top universities.

Palace sources say Andrew decided to do the interview out of a sense of frustration that the public sees him as a playboy prince when he does not drink alcohol. The duke believes his only mistake in his friendship with Epstein was to return to the pedophile billionaire’s house in 2010 after he had served time in prison.

The royal family was kept in the dark about Andrew’s decision. Except for the Queen, who is understood to have been told before the interview took place at Buckingham Palace on Thursday, senior members, including Prince Charles, were not informed until “very late in the day”.

Sources have revealed that aides to the Queen, as well as the Prince of Wales, regarded the decision to go ahead with the program with “incredulity and alarm”.

One source with connections at the top of the royal household said: “There is concern in Buckingham Palace and concern in Clarence House. Charles thinks it is highly misguided”. Sources said Charles, on a tour of New Zealand, “feels” for his brother and the “pressure he is under”. Privately, however, he is likely to be furious the fallout from Andrew’s interview will overshadow his week-long tour with Camilla, which started on Sunday.

The latest revelations may prompt Charles to question how much of a public role his brother should have. Their relationship came under strain in 2012 when Charles excluded his brother from a balcony appearance at the climax of the diamond jubilee celebrations to showcase a “slimmed down” monarchy. Earlier this year, members of Andrew’s team accused a senior figure in Prince William’s office of leaking stories about him to the press.

A source familiar with palace discussions last week said Andrew had made a mistake in agreeing to an interview with Emily Maitlis, whose probing style left him looking uncomfortable. “They could have any interviewer in the world, including a soft American,” the source said. “This will go down as one of the single worst PR moves in recent history. They’ve dropped it into a news vacuum on a Friday and it will probably still be on the front pages on Monday. They’ve been lulled into a bad play.”

The insider said Andrew should have been more contrite. “Saying you ‘let the side down’ isn’t good enough. He should have said he let himself down. It’s actions, not words, that count. He should have admitted that he got things wrong and wanted to repent.”

THE SUNDAY TIMES