Andrew scandal sparks calls for greater royal transparency

When King Charles’ official residence announced on Thursday that Andrew, the British monarch’s brother, would lose his titles and be evicted from his home, there was no mistaking the sharp change in tone from just 13 days before.

Buckingham Palace’s statement described the stripping of titles and honours from Andrew and the ending of his lease over the 30-room Royal Lodge in Windsor as “censures” by the king. Courtiers briefed reporters that the former prince had made “serious lapses of judgment”.

As recently as October 17, the palace had allowed the son of the late Queen to retain many of his privileges and portrayed his decision to relinquish some as a noble act of self-sacrifice.

The question for the royal family is how far the latest, far more decisive action will mitigate the damage caused to the institution by the association between the late sex offender Jeffrey Epstein and the person now known as Andrew Mountbatten Windsor.

It also remains unclear how far the episode will encourage calls for greater transparency.

Yet Thursday’s action won over one important constituency: the family of Virginia Giuffre, one of Epstein’s victims who accused Andrew of having sex with her on three occasions, the first when she was just 17.

The latest controversy stems from claims about the prince’s conduct in Giuffre’s posthumous memoir, published in October. Giuffre, who was born in the US, died by suicide in April in Australia.

Baroness Margaret Hodge, former chair of the House of Commons public accounts committee, parliament’s spending watchdog, who has taken a close interest in royal finances, also endorsed the king’s action.

She said the palace’s statement had been “brave and appropriate” but warned there could be further scandals as long as aspects of the royal family’s finances remained hidden from public view.

“Until we get proper transparency of all the revenues that fund the monarchy, things will be constantly emerging,” Hodge said. “When they happen, questions will be asked because of the opaque and ambiguous nature of the royal finances.”

Professor Robert Hazell, founder of the constitution unit at University College London, took a more optimistic view, saying the episode had shown how the UK’s monarchy was “surprisingly accountable”.

“There’s this paradox that the monarchy, although completely unelected, does feel the need to be responsive to public opinion,” Hazell said.

Public support for replacing the monarchy with an elected head of state was 2 percentage points higher on October 26 and 27, before the latest developments, than when the questions were last asked in August, a YouGov survey showed.

The polling company found support for a continued monarchy declined by 3 percentage points in the same period, although support for a continued monarchy remained high at 62 per cent and just a quarter backed abolition.

One key question may be whether the monarchy can portray itself as having acted sufficiently decisively — a task complicated because Andrew remains technically eighth in line to the throne, although Buckingham Palace has always said non-working royals will never fill a royal role.

Andrew came under pressure as long ago as 2019 to address accusations from Giuffre. Trade minister Chris Bryant, who has said he was sexually abused when under-age by an older man, on Friday called the king’s action “long overdue”.

Andrew has consistently denied having ever even met Giuffre.

However, in February 2022 he made substantial undisclosed financial payments — reported to have been in the millions of pounds — to her and a charity she established to settle a legal action she brought against him in the US for sexual abuse.

A courtier insisted on Thursday that the king had “acted swiftly following recent developments” by issuing the October 17 statement.

“A longer-term resolution to all the aligned issues was always going to take a little longer to enact, due to the complexities of the legal and constitutional position,” the person said. “The necessity of further action was never in doubt.”

Hazell said of the royal change of tone: “I think they were told by the government and possibly worked out for themselves that certainly the media hue and cry was not going to let up.”

Asked if the palace’s response would be sufficient to calm controversy over the future of the monarchy as an institution, Hodge said: “Time will tell.”

There are already signs that the scandal may increase pressure for the royals to reveal far more about their financial affairs.

In Andrew’s case, the controversy centred on why he was able to live in Royal Lodge — owned by the Crown Estate, the public corporation that manages the royal family’s property — without paying rent.

Hodge has previously described the tenancy, which was secured after Andrew paid £8.5mn in upfront fees and to cover renovations, as “a sweetheart deal”.

Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown, current chair of the public accounts committee, on Wednesday wrote to the Crown Estate asking questions about its arrangements for leasing property to members of the royal family.

The questions mentioned Frogmore Cottage, previously leased to Harry, Duke of Sussex and his wife Meghan, as well as Adelaide Cottage, home of the Prince and Princess of Wales.

The committee indicated on Friday that it intended to keep pressing for an answer to Clifton-Brown’s questions.

Yet the most indelible impression from this week’s events may be from the tearful media appearances of Giuffre’s brother and other members of her family.

On Thursday, they said Giuffre had “never stopped fighting for accountability”, adding: “An ordinary American girl from an ordinary American family brought down a British prince with her truth and extraordinary courage.”