The Andrew formerly known as “Prince” was always supposedly his mother’s favorite child. He had a degree of indulgence paid to him that his (far more deserving) siblings never received. Newly released files suggest that this indulgence went far beyond any kind of explicable or appropriate fashion.
Correspondence between Sir David Wright, chief executive of British Trade International, and then-foreign secretary Robin Cook from 2000 suggests that the late Queen was “very keen” for the former Duke of York to take on a “prominent role in the promotion of national interests.” This, in turn, led to the creation of “Air Miles Andy,” with Mountbatten-Windsor acting as a roving trade envoy. He had apparently unfettered access to diplomatic lounges and, if the stories are to be believed, young women in the five-star hotels and embassies in which he stayed.
It is also clear that Andrew has always been seen as a moron by those around him. Another memo stated that he should not be “burdened with the regularity of meetings … or the burden of paper which goes along with board membership.” Under normal circumstances, this might be seen as difficult for a high-profile appointment of this nature, so officials were told to describe his “high profile and commitment,” rather than any meaningful experience.
The Firm’s most troublesome member continues to be both a reputational and existential threat
Mountbatten-Windsor was a decidedly picky figure, too. The memo states that Andrew “tended to prefer the more sophisticated countries, particularly those in the lead on technology.” Ironically, in light of the subsequent allegations made against him, his interests were said to be “high-tech matters, trade, youth … with a preference for ballet rather than theater.” However, there was one red line. The head of protocol at the Foreign Office insisted that:
The Duke of York should not be offered golfing functions abroad. This was a private activity and if he took his clubs with him he would not play in any public sense.
The documents, which have been released in response to a request by the Liberal Democrats earlier this year, are hugely embarrassing for the royal family. Wright’s letter stated, with appropriate pomposity, that:
The Queen’s wish is that the Duke of Kent should be succeeded in this role by the Duke of York. The Duke of Kent is to relinquish his responsibilities around April next year. That would fit well with the end of the Duke of York’s active naval career. The Queen is very keen that the Duke of York should take on a prominent role in the promotion of national interests. No other member of the Royal Family would be available to succeed the Duke of Kent. The Duke of York’s adoption of his role would seem a natural fit.
And so, by royal decree, one of the worst public appointments in history came to pass, without so much as the most basic investigation into Andrew’s suitability for the post. As the trade minister Chris Bryant noted, “We have found no evidence that a formal due diligence or vetting process was undertaken. There is also no evidence that this was considered.” Matters involving the royal family were clearly seen as beyond normal political considerations, and now the impact has proved ruinous.
That someone as stupid, charmless and distinctly mediocre as Andrew was ever considered an appropriate ambassador for his country is a stain on our nation, but it is also a stain on the reputation of Elizabeth II. It seems clear that, when he became the British special representative for international trade and investment in 2001, it was a sinecure rather than a position that he was remotely suited to. Wright’s letter, however, makes it clear that it was a sinecure pushed through at his mother’s explicit behest. The blithering nonsense within it – the not-so-grand Duke of York was not a natural fit for anything apart from being a lecherous lounge lizard – was couched in officialese, but the implication was clear: he had to have something found for him to do, and this particular “job” would be it.
Since Andrew’s arrest in February, things have been quieter than they have been for some time. This is not least because the police investigation into his activities has meant that media speculation has been dampened down somewhat. Andrew strenously denies all wrong-doing. Yet there are always more stories left to come.
Andrew Lownie’s updated paperback edition of his bombshell biography of Andrew and Fergie, Entitled, contained several marmalade-dropping claims – not least that Fergie supposedly had an affair with the similarly disgraced musician P. Diddy, an assertion angrily denied by Camp Fergie. There will undoubtedly be more embarrassing tales emerging from the files over the coming hours and days, as well as, of course, the possibility of yet more lurking within the bowels of the Epstein documents.
But this new revelation – coming as it does after weeks of good press for King Charles – will remind the Firm that their most troublesome member continues to be both a reputational and, perhaps, existential threat. And with a potential court case looming, this shows no sign of going away.
Comments