I don't like to criticise my sovereign but the King handled Andrew badly by bringing him back into the family in various ways, for example by ordering the Prince and Princess of Wales to drive him to the Sandringham carol service.
The late Queen had wisely put him in purdah.
Now Andrew will lose his titles, we learn tonight, but as the son of a duke he should still be Lord Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor.
Will he be?
I bet not.
And as the son of the previous monarch why will he no longer be a prince?
The hereditary principle takes no account of merit.
That's the beauty of it.
Princes are princes for the same reason you and I are here - because we are our parents' children.
Why is Andrew losing his lease on his house for which he paid millions?
Presumably because he agreed to this.
The man has not been accused of any crime in the United Kingdom, by the way.
The only crime he is accused of is by woman who accused him of sleeping with her when she was 17, in a state in the USA where that is illegal. He denied it and there is no proof.
I expect accusations involving money will be made but they have not been yet.
The important question about Jeffrey Epstein and the young girls he procured is not what did Andrew know or do.
It is whether Epstein was procuring girls, some as young as 12, in order to blackmail influential men for the Israeli government.
If he was, does it makes sense for the USA to support and subsidise Israel?
Or for the British Royal Air Force to assist the IDF? The answer to this question is 'Yes, because we are a faithful American vassal'.
