By Kate Holton and Sarah Mills
LONDON (Reuters) -King Charles’ ruthless move to banish his younger brother Andrew from public life was born of a desire to insulate a weakened monarchy before he passes on the crown, but it remains to be seen if the profound damage can be contained.
Charles stripped Andrew of his title of prince, evicted him from his mansion near Windsor Castle and said he and the queen were thinking of survivors of abuse, to draw a line under a scandal around his ties to Jeffrey Epstein that has buffeted the royals for years.
It marked one of the most dramatic moves against a member of the royal family in modern British history, by a king who is still undergoing regular cancer treatment and whose priority is to bolster support for the monarchy before his eldest son Prince William inherits the throne.
But some commentators said the move should have come much earlier.
With Queen Camilla and the king’s sister-in-law Sophie both long-term campaigners against sexual violence, royal author Robert Hardman said Andrew’s ties to the U.S. sex offender were increasingly putting the royal family in “Team Epstein”, which Charles could not live with.
“He wants to put as much distance between his brother and the monarchy as he can,” Hardman, the author of Charles III: The Inside Story, told Reuters.
ROYALS CAST ANDREW ASIDE OUT OF SELF PRESERVATION
The royals have been trying to cast aside Andrew, the younger brother of Charles and second son of the late Queen Elizabeth, for years, for fear that he would tar the family with the same air of entitlement and bad behaviour that has long lingered around him.
Andrew had once been regarded as a dashing naval officer who returned from the Falklands War with Argentina in 1982 to greet his mother with a red rose clamped between his teeth.
But in the following decades the supposed favourite son of the queen became the focal point for much mockery as the British press focused on his personal life, dubbing him “Randy Andy” and “Air Miles Andy” for his jet-set lifestyle.
That ridicule turned to revulsion when Andrew was revealed to have stayed in contact with Epstein after he was jailed for sex offences in 2008, and when he gave a disastrous interview in which he failed to show any sympathy for victims of abuse.
Andrew told the BBC’s Newsnight interview he did not regret his friendship with the U.S. financier because it had had some “seriously beneficial outcomes”.
He quit all royal duties in the wake of the interview and was stripped of his military links and royal patronages in 2022.
That year he also settled a lawsuit brought by Virginia Giuffre which accused him of sexually abusing her when she was a teenager after being introduced by Epstein.
Andrew had denied ever meeting Giuffre, who died by suicide in April. Her account returned to prominence with the publication of her memoir this month.
BANISHMENT REFLECTS THE THREAT POSED TO ROYAL FAMILY
Royal experts said Charles’ actions reflected the threat to the institution, after a move earlier this month to stop Andrew from using his Duke of York title was deemed to be inadequate.
In recent weeks Andrew had overshadowed two efforts by Charles to shape cultural and public life – his historic praying with the pope in the Vatican and the unveiling of a memorial to LGBT military veterans who had previously been banned.
“I think that the fact that the royal family decided to actually go against him is quite a big thing,” said recruitment worker Anna Hunter, 29, in London on Friday morning.
Giuffre’s brother, Sky Roberts, told BBC Newsnight he commended the king, but said a further investigation was needed. The Rape Crisis charity commended the king and queen for their commitment towards survivors of sexual violence.
But others questioned whether the royals had taken too long to act. “I don’t know that this move is enough to repair the damage that has been done,” Afua Hagan, a journalist and royal commentator, told Reuters.
SUPPORT FOR THE MONARCHY HAS BEEN WANING
Support for the institution has been in decline over the last decade, with the British Social Attitudes survey showing that 51% of people in Britain thought it was “very important” or “quite important” for Britain to have a monarchy.
That is the lowest figure reported to date, and reflects a lack of interest from younger generations.
To their supporters Britain’s royal family provide stability and continuity in a time of constant political upheaval, acting as a draw to political leaders like U.S. President Donald Trump.
But to their detractors a hereditary monarchy that requires subjects to bow and curtsey is an anachronism that holds the country back, while the lives of leading members, such as William and Kate and their three young children, are followed like a soap opera.
Charles will hope that his very public defenestration of his brother, which a royal source said had been supported by Prince William, will go some way to addressing the problem.
“It’s a ruthlessness on behalf of King Charles, but it’s also ruthlessness on behalf of Prince William,” commentator Hagan said.
(Writing by Kate Holton; additional reporting by Catarina Demony and Sarah Young; Editing by Conor Humphries)
Comments