Copyright dailyrecord
Prince Andrew may have lost his Royal title during a brief 10-minute phone call with his brother, the King, but this has done little to quell public outrage towards the disgraced former duk e. The Royal relinquished what little status he had remaining last week as scrutiny of his ties to paedophile Jeffrey Epstein heightened. This occurred as disgrace befell the Royal Family when Virginia Giuffre's posthumous memoir was published, revealing the horrors she suffered under Epstein's control. Giuffre, who tragically took her own life earlier this year at just 41, alleged that Andrew sexually assaulted her on three occasions when she was a teenager - accusations which the Royal has consistently denied. Earlier this month, Andrew was stripped of all his military appointments and honorary positions. Concurrently, Buckingham Palace announced Andrew would no longer be referred to as His Royal Highness, reports the Mirror . However, there has been no formal decree stripping Andrew of HRH - it has simply vanished from his name. While some are calling for it to be made official - a process requiring Parliamentary action - Royal insiders suggest Charles is hesitant to pursue this route. The Palace has stated it doesn't want to burden the government with the issue, but not everyone believes this is satisfactory. In response to this latest development, a Royal expert told the Mirror it's merely an "excuse" in their view. Andrew Lownie is the author of a recently published explosive biography about Andrew and Fergie titled Entitled: The Rise and Fall of the House of York. He devoted four years to research and conducted interviews with hundreds of individuals, uncovering fresh details surrounding his controversies. The book offers scathing criticism of the prince, with Lownie contending that the Palace's management of the Andrew crisis has been woefully inadequate. "The Palace are doing too little, too late as always and trying to preserve the status quo," Lownie observed. Fellow Royal commentator Emily Andrews expressed similar sentiments on BBC Breakfast, declaring: "This line from Buckingham Palace that the King doesn't want to take up Parliament's time, doesn't want to make a fuss, is a smokescreen, because actually it could be done very easily." Whilst Andrews conceded it would be "tricky" to strip the disgraced Royal of his Prince title, she disclosed that government insiders had told her that Andrew's dukedom could be removed within "a day". The lack of action, or what Lownie described as "too little, too late," might arise from what one Royal expert has characterised as a "brotherly blind spot" that Charles supposedly maintains for Andrew. In his book Endgame, Omid Scobie suggests that whilst the monarch has long "openly detested Andrew's indiscretions," the King still retains a "brotherly bias" towards him. "One all-too-human family complication that the King apparently has a blind spot for is the shameful burden of Prince Andrew ," the author noted, highlighting this was a trait the late Queen also had, with Andrew often referred to as her favourite son. "Understandably, he cares for his brother," Scobie penned, "so much so that a close source said that during the most heightened moments of Andrew's downfall, Charles was tearful over fears for the shamed duke's mental health." The king has reportedly suffered sleepless nights worrying about his disgraced younger sibling, the author disclosed, quoting a source who said: "You'd find it hard to believe, but [Charles] has [lay] awake many nights worrying about him".
