Prince Andrew can hide behind a settlement, but he can’t outrun accountability

In reality though, they are a private family, with private interests and no official public responsibility. Instead, their claim to public service represents a key part of the propaganda strategy that underpins their power and influence.

Dr Laura Clancy has described the Royal Family as “the firm”. This is in reference to the cabal-like business arrangements and obscure network of associates that sits behind their public façade.

It is also part of her framing of them as a family in name and in human biology, but that the structure and relational bonds appear far removed from what you or I would recognise in our own extended families.

Ultimately, as was the conclusion drawn by Prince Harry in his interview with Oprah Winfrey in 2021, this is a highly dysfunctional world to grow up in, where the love, support, acceptance and forgiveness that happens in most families is largely absent.

Harry’s conclusion was that he thinks: “they’re all trapped”, and he’s probably right. Although having grown up in it – manufactured in it, if you like – it’s all they’ve ever known, meaning that familiarity and structure can be found in the abnormal, and there likely exists an existential fear of the alternative ostracism.

This is the framework through which we should view the latest scandals to hit Prince Andrew (possibly soon to be Andrew Windsor, or Andrew Saxe-Coburg-Gotha, or maybe even just Andrew, a bit like Seal or Björk).

Legally, we don’t have a right to know the specifics of what Andrew has done beyond publicly available court documents. You cannot make Freedom of Information requests to the Royal Household like you can to all other public bodies.

However, the Royal Family understands that transparency forms part of the public’s endorsement of the UK continuing to be a constitutional monarchy. It therefore allows a degree of managed access to their private lives and seeks to create an illusion of intimacy for the watching public.

Indeed, following the backlash against the Royal Family during the 1990s, they have invested millions into public relations work in a bid to move the dial away from republicanism.

It’s all a construct though, and one that has backfired spectacularly in Andrew’s case.

In his 2019 interview with Emily Maitlis, not only did Andrew come across as someone oozing toxic privilege and detached from the real world, his “just a straightforward shooting weekend” comment perhaps being the jewel in that crown (pun intended). He also came across as an incredibly stupid man.

You don’t have to be a communications expert to conclude that he was being dishonest at multiple points in it. He also reportedly thought afterwards that the interview had gone well (it didn’t), and then wanted to do another one to clear up the mess of the first.

As such, the recent decision to remove certain titles and privileges from Andrew, and the framing of this as the allegations being a distraction from the “good work” of other royals, represents a relatively consistent act of misdirection by “the firm”.

It is an act of protectionism that is problematic for us as scrutineers of public life who seek to hold the powerful to account. If Andrew is to become ostensibly a private citizen, then the Royal Family will be able to use this as justification for not having to disclose further scandalous information as it likely emerges down the road.

We should actually be fighting to keep him in the Royal Family, because at least then they will feel compelled to answer questions from journalists and the public. As Björk said, “It’s oh so quiet. Shhh. Shhh.”

__________________

Dr Colin Alexander is a Senior Lecturer in Political Communications, Nottingham Trent University

LBC Opinion provides a platform for diverse opinions on current affairs and matters of public interest.

The views expressed are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the official LBC position.

To contact us email opinion@lbc.co.uk