Richard Kay had an interesting column in the Daily Mail about Prince Andrew and his legal response to Virginia Giuffre. Kay managed to repeat every gory, prurient detail in Andrew’s response, all while noting that this is likely the end of the line of Andrew, that there’s no coming back. I honestly don’t get the point of Kay’s column – clearly, Kay is trying to help Andrew make his case, and clearly Kay has spoken to people in Andrew’s circle. But it’s also clear that Andrew basically has no power and one of last remaining options is to smear Virginia Giuffre as a “money-hungry sex kitten” and Jeffrey Epstein’s “head bitch” (I’m not paraphrasing). So what IS the point? I guess Kay is just trying to sigh and do Andrew’s bidding but remind everyone that Andrew is gross and there’s no coming back.

Andrew in the gutter: The prince’s reputation is in the gutter and the good name of the wider Royal Family has been soiled by the fallout. Now, however, the gloves are off. Andrew’s adversarial American lawyers have come out fighting to confront the sexual abuse claims that have swirled about the head of the Queen’s favourite son for so long. The question is will it work, or might their aggressive intervention risk damaging the prince even more?

The reaction to Andrew’s defense: This was certainly a dramatic change in Andrew’s strategy and women’s groups reacted with fury accusing him of ‘victim shaming’ and further evidence of the prince’s ‘appalling judgment’.

Andrew’s friend speaks: A friend of the prince said yesterday: ‘He has stayed silent, perhaps for too long, but it is right and proper that he should be allowed to defend himself. His reputation, his life has been trashed. Enough is enough.’

The timing: Some, inevitably, will wonder if it is all too late, that in the court of public opinion the prince has already been judged and found guilty. Others will question the morality of impugning the reputation of Miss Roberts, who although no paragon was equally a victim of Epstein. Certainly Andrew’s timing has not been ideal.

Will this backfire? For Andrew, there is a risk of his approach backfiring, that public reaction will mean his professional position will never be restored. But he calculated that continuing to do nothing is equally hazardous and by highlighting Miss Roberts’s alleged greed he may have unearthed a compelling defence. His friends insist that submitting the article in which her ex-boyfriend Philip Guderyon contended she was not a sex slave but rather a ‘money hungry sex kitten who flashed her cash and enjoyed the finer things in life’ was necessary. ‘They are not the duke’s lawyers’ comments,’ says the friend, ‘but it is perfectly legitimate to include them because the narrative cannot be owned by one individual.’

[From The Daily Mail]

“For Andrew, there is a risk of his approach backfiring, that public reaction will mean his professional position will never be restored…” I mean, his position will never be restored. Period. The end. I doubt anyone other than Andrew believes that anything can be “restored.” At the moment, Andrew is merely trying to discredit Virginia by any means necessary, digging the hole deeper and deeper for himself. To what end though? It’s clear that Virginia would settle. It would be best for Andrew if he settled. Why isn’t he? Is it because the Queen would be the one paying the settlement and the Queen would rather pay for Andrew’s unhinged legal defense? Ugh.

Photos courtesy of Avalon Red.