The Prince Andrew scandal has spread its tendrils in every conceivable direction. Questions have been asked about whether it is causing existential damage to the institution of the royal family, whether the king and the prince of wales, in particular, have done enough to stop the rot, and whether the likelihood that more incriminating Jeffrey Epstein emails will appear over the coming days and weeks means that the embarrassment will only get worse.

Yet amid the febrile speculation as to the repercussions of the former Duke of York’s actions – and with his voluntary decision to stop using his various titles, he remains decidedly persona non grata – it must be asked what would be happening if his late mother were still Queen.

Since her death in 2022, Elizabeth II has been sanctified as not only the greatest monarch that the country ever had, but as someone of remarkable acuity and perception when it came to running “the Firm”.

The late Queen Elizabeth II with her ‘favourite child’, Prince Andrew, at Royal Ascot in 2017

open image in gallery

The late Queen Elizabeth II with her ‘favourite child’, Prince Andrew, at Royal Ascot in 2017 (Getty)

Most people point to her dignified but firm rebuttal of many of the charges of racism brought against the royals by Harry and Meghan with the words “recollections may vary” as having turned public sympathy against the Montecito Two. She restored the primacy of an institution that certainly faced its fair share of controversy and difficulty during her reign – Princesses Margaret and Diana, Princess of Wales, for two – but which nevertheless rose above scandal thanks to her guiding influence.

Unfortunately, when it came to Prince Andrew, who was commonly regarded as her favoured child, the Queen’s good sense and sound judgement deserted her.

Andrew was very much his father’s son, a Falklands hero whose tabloid reputation did him no harm in his family’s eyes – until, of course, it became quite clear precisely what this behaviour had involved. Yet long before then, it was clear that the Queen venerated the outdoorsy, hearty Andrew rather than the more effete, Cambridge-educated Charles and Edward. (Anne, in many regards the best of the bunch, was a woman and therefore not taken as seriously.)

Prince Andrew is a Falklands veteran with a tabloid reputation as ‘Randy Andy’

open image in gallery

Prince Andrew is a Falklands veteran with a tabloid reputation as ‘Randy Andy’ (Martin Cleaver/PA)

To dote on a favoured child is one thing, but to facilitate their increasingly rackety lifestyle is another. While the Queen was alive, the stories about her second son’s behaviour began to come to light, especially after his disastrous, would-be exculpatory Newsnight interview in 2019, which it is widely believed that she agreed to allowing him to participate in, with a view to clearing his name in public. It did the opposite, and while Andrew continued (and continues) steadfastly to deny the allegations against him, his withdrawal from royal duties would have been reluctantly authorised by his mother.

Yet a more serious charge against Elizabeth II is that, when it became obvious that the civil suit against her son had the potential to become embarrassing, she bankrolled an out-of-court settlement that he made to his accuser, Virginia Giuffre, to the tune of a considerable £12 million. This was not only a vast sum given that there was no admission of liability or guilt, but hush money on a scale more associated with banana republics than Britain.

The late Queen Elizabeth with her son, Prince Andrew

open image in gallery

The late Queen Elizabeth with her son, Prince Andrew (Getty Images)

Again, this would have been signed off at the highest levels, and it was a mark of the Queen’s standing that the payment did not cause widespread outrage towards her. However, subsequent events have called both her judgement and actions into question, and now it looks ever more ill-advised.

Indeed, the memoirs of his sexual abuse accuser, Virginia Giuffre, allege that Andrew insisted on a one-year gag order to settle a civil sexual assault case with Ms Giuffre in 2022 to avoid undermining Queen Elizabeth II’s platinum jubilee in 2022. Whatever the truth of this, it is a desperate spot for the late Queen’s legacy to be dragged into.

Elizabeth II is, of course, far beyond any mortal jurisdiction now, and it is likely that she died still believing her favourite child was fundamentally innocent of the accusations against him.

If she were alive today, she might retain that belief. But given the sheer weight of opprobrium that has been heaped upon him – including by his own family – it is only right to reflect that, just as before, recollections may vary.

Make no mistake, this is a crisis of existential magnitude for the Firm, the danger of which they seem to only just be waking up to. If they are seen as too slow or too inept to right the wrongs that Andrew has wrought then the tide of public opinion will do it for them. And at that point, all bets are off.