“I think it’s all over for him, any kind of public life,” said Dickie Arbiter, the queen’s former press secretary and royal commentator.
“His reputation is toast, within and without the royal family. Nobody is going to want him back,” said Mark Stephens, a media attorney at the Howard Kennedy law firm in London, who has closely followed the case.
Stephens said Andrew had already been banished, metaphorically, to “social Siberia.”
British PR guru Mark Borkowski told The Washington Post that while “anything is possible,” he couldn’t imagine a return to public life for the 61-year-old former Royal Navy helicopter pilot. He said perhaps Andrew may hope the public has some sort of collective “memory loss” or “short-term amnesia.”
“He will want to come back, but I don’t think the British public will accept it,” Borkowski added.
Andrew, viewed as a “bad uncle,” will be kept away from the upcoming celebrations of the queen’s Platinum Jubilee, Borkowski predicted.
Questions will probably continue to circulate about where the settlement money comes from. Andrew hasn’t received financial support from taxpayers since giving up his position as a “senior working royal.” And Buckingham Palace said that Andrew would be considered “a private citizen” in the legal proceedings. But that doesn’t preclude the queen from covering some of the settlement through her private wealth.
The Telegraph newspaper, citing its sources, reported the total could come to about $16 million. Legal observers have told The Post they estimated a settlement of $10 million to $12 million.
Giuffre’s lawyer David Boies would not name the amount but said in a statement: “I believe this event speaks for itself.” Andrew’s attorneys have not publicly commented outside of the court document.
Stephens, the media attorney, suggested that Andrew’s representatives would sometime soon make clear that the money did not come from the public purse — or his mother.
Andrew was stripped of his honorary military titles and royal patronages last month by the queen and also instructed not to use the honorific “His Royal Highness.” He is still a prince, though, and the Duke of York. He has also retained the title of a vice admiral of the navy — so far.
Defense secretary Ben Wallace said Wednesday it would be up to Buckingham Palace whether to take that title away.
“I think he effectively is acting now as a private citizen insofar as both addressing the challenges and the allegations, and I think there’s been obviously a payment and that is where he currently remains,” Wallace said.
Rachael Maskell, a Labour Party lawmaker in Parliament who represents York Central, said Andrew should surrender his Duke of York title and that the people of York did not want to be associated with him.
Maskell tweeted: “A young woman trafficked & exploited. She bravely spoke out. People of privilege, position & power tried to suppress & silence. This must be a turning point, where York is not a Duke’s title but a people’s movement to fight for the rights of women & girls.”
In his own statement on the settlement, Andrew says he “commends the bravery of Ms. Giuffre and other survivors in standing up for themselves and others.” But the statement portrays her as a victim of Epstein, not of the prince.
The statement says Andrew “never intended to malign Ms. Giuffre’s character.” His legal team, though, had tried to paint her as too unreliable to be trusted. They had described Giuffre’s claim that she was forced to have sex with Andrew on multiple occasions as “baseless.” For years, Andrew has said he doesn’t even recall meeting Giuffre — despite a photograph of him smiling with his arm around her waist.
Anna Whitelock, a historian of modern monarchy at City, University of London, told The Post the statement pointed to where Andrew might seek to reemerge: supporting charities for abuse victims.
The court document notes that the prince “pledges to demonstrate his regret for his association with Epstein by supporting the fight against the evils of sex trafficking, and by supporting its victims.”
However, Whitelock said it was “very doubtful” that organizations in that arena would want to associate with him.
Andrew was patron of more than 100 charities before organizations moved to cut ties with him while Giuffre’s accusations were in the news.
British legal experts said Andrew may just donate to support charities fighting sex trafficking, rather than do any public campaigning.
Former palace courtiers told The Post they imagined Andrew would continue to live a pampered lifestyle and socialize with his royal family — but all out of the public eye.
Camilla Tominey, a British royal commentator, noted that the next two in line for the throne, Prince Charles and his son Prince William, are thought to be less sympathetic than Andrew’s mother, the queen, who has always indulged her second son.
“All of the royal family will feel tainted by association; that’s why they’ve removed him from the scene,” she said. “What you’re seeing is this triumvirate approach — three generations of monarchy all taking action to insulate the institution.”
Charles has already made known that when he becomes king, he is planning for a smaller footprint for the royal family — and one that now will likely not include Andrew.