Now Andrew should ‘stay out of the public eye’ for good, ex-colleagues warn

Prince Andrew has been bombarded with demands to quietly retire in private and ‘stay out of the public eye’ after his reputation took an ‘irreparable’ battering from Virginia Giuffre‘s rape claims.

The Duke of York was urged to surrender any notions of a royal return and ‘move on’ by friends and former colleagues because he has ‘forever been tainted’ by the dramatic scandal that plunged the monarchy into crisis. 

The 61-year-old needs to ‘draw a line under this episode’ and ‘surround himself with better friends’ after making ‘some bad choices’ such as his friendship with paedophile financier Jeffrey Epstein, they warned.

Navy top brass were among those calling on Andrew to keep out of the limelight in the wake of the bombshell allegations and settlement with his accuser – and now ‘enjoy essentially what is a very good privileged lifestyle’.

On Newsnight his former Naval Commander Rear Admiral Dr Chris Parry pressed him to ‘remember some of the things that we remember him for, for his earlier days’ before he left military service and the damaging claims against him emerged.

Meanwhile royal experts said there will be no ‘return to the fold’ for the embattled Duke – who was stripped of all his military roles and patronages earlier this year – and he should ‘disappear for a year’.

The commentators said they were sure Prince Charles will ram home the importance of ‘keeping a very low profile’ until the furore over the New York court saga dies down.

But Labour MP for York Central Rachael Maskell does not want to let him off that easy as she renewed her calls for him to be stripped of his dukedom named after the city.

She repeated a call made last month, saying the Prince should give up the association out of respect for the people who live there.

There is fresh anger at Andrew after the Queen was drawn into the row amid claims she helped fund the deal;A leaked email from Ghislaine Maxwell appeared to confirm the authenticity of picture of Andrew and Giuffre;The Met has no plans to reopen the Andrew sex abuse probe despite calls for officers to re-examine evidence;A former chief prosecutor launched an astonishing attack on Andrew, accusing him of paying ‘blood money’;Prince Andrew is thought to be using cash from the sale of his beloved ski chalet to fund his huge settlement. 

Andrew’s former naval commander was among those who weighed in to implore the Duke to shut himself away until the scandal dies down.

Rear Admiral Dr Parry said he hopes his old brother in arms ‘looks to a private life’ and was sure the Royal Family will ‘survive and still command the loyalty of the British people’.

He said: ‘I think it’s good to see that he’s done the decent thing. He’s drawing a line under all this episode, and I hope he’s going to move on now and remember some of the things that we remember him for, for his earlier days.’

He told Newsnight: ‘I think that I would invite Prince Andrew to remember that he had friends in the Royal Navy who would have given him very good advice, both as an officer and a gentleman. He’s made some bad choices.

‘He needs to surround himself with better friends and I think really he should look to a private life and enjoy essentially what is a very good privileged lifestyle. But I think he should probably stay out of the public eye.

‘The royal family has for a thousand years had rogue elements and sort of mis happenings like this. It will get over it, it’s a big institution. It knows how to survive and still command the loyalty of the British people.

‘There is no question about that. If you look back in history there are all sorts of things like this that have happened. They will get over this.’

Royal experts also called for the Duke to retired to his private life and give up notions of reprising any military roles or royal duties.

Editor-in-chief of Majesty Magazine Ingrid Seward said: ‘The best thing he can do is disappear for a year. He must keep a very low profile, which I am sure Prince Charles will insist upon.’

She said: ‘I would doubt if the Duke of York will return to royal duties as much as he might like to. I think he will however be happy to be present at his father’s memorial as an innocent man.

‘He made no admission of guilt and no apology. The best thing he can do is disappear for a year. I would hate to see him popping up doing TV interviews and good works.’

Robert Jobson said: ‘I don’t think in any way this leads the way back to public duty. I’m sure he’ll be at the service of thanksgiving for his father, but I really do not see him coming back into a public role going forward.

‘Number one, simply because I think the long term future of the monarchy doesn’t involve lots of extended members of the family and in Prince Charles’ reign I would have thought that they would be reduced anyway, naturally.

‘But equally there’s too much water under the bridge here in terms of his associations with Epstein, his association with Maxwell and his lack of judgement that has been called into question.

‘The fact that there’s been a settlement doesn’t necessarily mean that his reputation is rebuilt.’

‘Amongst the family, I’m sure that they would want this to go away,’ he added. ‘It’s been hugely embarrassing at the very beginning. But this is a lot more than just embarrassment.

‘This is very serious legal issues, and questions of his judgement have all been brought into play, so, no, I don’t think there’s any way back for him.

‘I think really, what he needs to probably do is to just keep a low profile for a while, and then gradually – like John Profumo did in the 60s after the Profumo affair – in the background carry out charity work and private work, but I don’t think there’s a way back in terms of a public role as he had before.’

Royal commentator Richard Fitzwilliams said: ‘I see the next step for Prince Andrew – if he wants to have a public role of some sort at any time, I don’t see it but he probably does – the next step is to speak with the FBI.’

Nigel Cawthorne, author of Prince Andrew: Epstein, Maxwell and the Palace, insisted a ‘comeback for the prince remains impossible’.

‘There are still legal clouds gathering over his head,’ said the royal expert. ‘There is a US warrant for him as a material witness and he cannot visit the US without facing arrest.

‘There is also his role in the perjury trial slated for June against Maxwell. But most of all he continued his friendship with two underage-sex traffickers even after allegations were made against these friends.

‘It is impossible to see how he can ever return to public duty without those serious errors of judgement following him for the rest of his public life.’

Joe Little of Majesty magazine said: ‘I just don’t think he’s ever likely to resume work as a working member of the royal family. 

‘I think that too much water has gone under the bridge for that and the institution of monarchy has been tainted by his association with Epstein and I just think that there’s no going back on all that.’

Of the likely reaction of the rest of the Royal Family, Mr Little said: ‘I’m sure that they’re glad this (settlement agreement) has happened, but does it exonerate the prince who really has not been charged with anything criminal? He will, I think, forever be tainted by this scandal, for want of a better way of describing it.’

Royal author Penny Junor said the agreement made it appear ‘as though he (Andrew) has finally been humbled’ and is likely to come as a ‘huge relief’ to the rest of the royal family.

She said: ‘I think the problem with Prince Andrew is he has always seemed to display a sense of entitlement, an arrogance which might lead him to think that he could come back to public life but I think it’s very, very unlikely.’

Crisis communications expert Andy Barr said: ‘I think we can safely say that Prince Andrew is forever destined for a life in the background.

‘His image is in tatters and, unless there is a seismic turn of events, there is no way back into the public eye for him.’

A royal source added: ‘Regardless of the outcome, he has ruled himself out of any public role by virtue of his appalling lack of judgment and poor choice of friends and associates.’

Ms Giuffre, also known as Virginia Roberts, made a claim against Andrew for damages in the US, claiming she was trafficked by Epstein to have sex with the Royal when she was 17, a minor under US law.

The settlement states Andrew will donate to her charity in support of victims’ rights and he has pledged to ‘demonstrate his regret for his association with Epstein’ by supporting the ‘fight against the evils of sex trafficking’.

But the Duke’s fall from grace may not be over, with growing calls for him to give up one of his last remaining major titles gathering pace.

The Prince, whose status in the Royal Family was left in tatters last month when the Queen stripped him of his military roles and he gave up his HRH style, has been urged to show ‘respect’ by now losing his dukedom.

Labour’s Rachael Maskell, who represents York Central, repeated a call made last month, saying Andrew should give up his association with the city out of respect.

She said: ‘To demonstrate his seriousness in this endeavour, and his respect for those affected by abuse and the people of our city, I would ask that his first act of contrition is to confirm his support for the withdrawal of his ducal title.’

But he is reportedly set to keep the title and the his home at Royal Lodge in Windsor he shares with his ex-wife the Sarah, Duchess of York.

Meanwhile there is mounting anger over claims The Queen is having to foot part of the bill for Andrew’s sex abuse lawsuit.

The Telegraph suggested the victim and her charity will receive more than £12million, with the funds coming from her private Duchy of Lancaster estate, which recently increased by £1.5million to more than £23million.

But neighbours at Andrew’s ski resort in Verbier believe the Prince will fund his settlement using cash from its sale.

One near neighbour in the Alpine village said: ‘Andrew and his family loved their chalet – and he would never have wanted to sell it unless he was forced to.

‘He obviously wanted to avoid going to court with all the shame that it would have heaped on him and members of the Royal family, no matter how much he protested his innocence.

‘It looks like selling up was the only option for him to ensure he had the cash to pay his legal bills and fund a settlement.’

But there is anger at how the Queen, 95, has effectively been forced to bail out the ‘disgraced’ Duke of York, whose modest pension from his time in the Royal Navy is now his only visible income.

Royal expert Omid Scobie, who is the closest reporter to Prince Harry and Meghan Markle, said: ‘In the end, Andrew took accountability for nothing.

‘Instead, he did what only the privileged elite get to do: bought his way out. In the process, he took advantage of his elderly mother’s love (and cheque book) during a year her children should only be lifting her up. A disgrace.’

Another royal expert, Adam Helliker, told the Sun that people will probably take offence to the Queen bailing out her son’s settlement costs.

He added ‘No one has that kind of money but his mother. Andrew is not close enough to the Prince of Wales for him to fund that kind of money. He doesn’t have any income.’ 

And media lawyer Mark Stephens told BBC News: ‘One of the key things that I think will have to be clarified by Prince Andrew’s camp is the fact that he’s paid this from his own resources.’

He added: ‘Essentially he’s managed to effectively immunise the wider Royal Family and more particularly his daughters against this court hearing. But he himself has metaphorically been consigned to a unheated tower at Balmoral never to wave from a royal balcony ever again.’

Mr Stephens said: ‘If you look at his net worth, he’s had to sell a house in order to fund this, and so I think that (£12million) does look at about the right number.’

Andrew and Ms Giuffre’s agreement contained no formal admission of liability from the Prince or an apology but accepted she was a ‘victim of abuse’ and he regretted his association with Epstein.

It also said the Prince accepted the 38-year-old had been subjected to ‘unfair public attacks’ and he had never intended to ‘malign her character’.

This is despite a string of recent aggressive accusations made by his legal team that included referencing a story which branded Ms Giuffre a ‘money-hungry sex kitten’.

It is understood the Duke will hand a large sum of cash to her and he has also agreed to make a ‘substantial donation’ to her charity in support of victims’ rights.

Although the terms of the deal remain a closely guarded secret, sources indicated the settlement itself could cost as much as £7.5 million ($10 million).

This includes several million pounds worth of legal fees, taking the potential cost of the case to around the £10million mark.

Ms Giuffre launched her legal action against Andrew in August, seeking unspecified damages for battery, including rape, and the infliction of emotional distress.

The Daily Mail revealed negotiations on a settlement have secretly been taking place since last month when a US judge refused to throw Miss Roberts’ case out.

But her legal team were said to be surprised at the suddenness of Andrew’s capitulation, with things taking a dramatic turn in recent days.

In February 2011, when her claims were first put to him, he is reported to have spluttered ‘What? Who?. What was the name again? Never heard of her.’

The Prince faced pressure from senior royals to resolve the lawsuit ahead of the Queen’s Platinum Jubilee later this year.

The settlement comes just over a month after another of Epstein’s victims said Ms Giuffre had admitted to her she had slept with the prince in London in 2001.

Last night Lisa Bloom, lawyer for eight victims of Jeffrey Epstein, told Newsnight: ‘This is a monumental win for Virginia.

‘I think this was very important to her. She got a number of positive statements about her, that Prince Andrew had to acknowledge.

‘There’s nothing positive about Prince Andrew that she had to acknowledge in this statement. So that’s important and she is getting surely many millions of pounds donated to her charity to help other victims of sexual abuse.

‘Those who are not in the media, don’t have a celebrity name attached to their case, but who need help financially for medical bills, legal bills, therapy bills.

‘So she’s doing a tremendously positive thing by raising consciousness of sexual abuse and settling the case on these terms.’

She continued: ‘I and others who represent victims everyday are going to be watching, because actions speak louder than words.

‘He’s made promises before that he hasn’t kept like: I’m going to co-operate with law enforcement. Is he really going to support victims now? Well we shall see.

‘I expect him to live up to this promise that he’s now made in writing to settle the case, that he’s now going to support victims of sex trafficking. And I think again the only way he can do that is with money.’

Her lawyer David Boies added: ‘It’s a really great day. Virginia was thrilled when told her the terms. This has all come about over the past couple of days, it’s been quite quick.

‘I am not sure what changed from his side. I thought that this should have been settled when we brought the lawsuit.

‘That’s basically the end of the case. She will get paid the money in 30 days’ time. I cannot comment on the amount or the terms, but it’s a good day.’

Mr Boies had agreed to take on the case pro bono but it is unclear if he will still seek to recoup some of his legal costs from the Duke.

A source who is familiar with the case said: ‘Andrew moved so far, so fast from his position of deny, deny, deny. There were a lot of things looming for him.

‘Things were starting to come out and Andrew knew what the case was against him. It’s a princely amount, a very, very substantial amount of money split into two buckets: the settlement itself and the donation.’

Rachel Fiset, a senior partner at law firm Zweiback, Fiset & Coleman who specialises in defending white collar crime cases, suggested the total figure could be even higher than many others predict.

She said: ‘A settlement that would cover Andrew’s legal fees to take this case to trial alone, would be well into the millions.

‘When you couple the price of litigation on both sides with the risk of embarrassing facts coming out for Andrew and a potential jury loss relating to the sexual assault of a minor by a Prince, the settlement amount is likely very high. My best guess puts the settlement amount somewhere between 20 and 30 million dollars.’

Meanwhile a royal source told the Mail the Prince was guilty of ‘inexcusably bad judgement’ in both his association with Epstein and the way the allegations against him were handled.

One source said: ‘There is huge relief in the royal household. This has been a very difficult time for everyone involved, not least because of the issues involved and that the allegations had been made by an acknowledged victim of Jeffrey Epstein.

‘The feeling is that the situation was badly – inexcusably badly – managed by Andrew and his advisers from the start.’

They added: ‘It was as if they thought they could close their eyes and put their fingers in their ears and it would all go away.’

Another source said they believed the settlement would pave the way for Andrew to attend his late-father’s memorial service at the end of March as a member of the Royal Family in a private capacity.

But it was unlikely he would be able to attend any of the Queen’s Platinum Jubilee celebrations. A Palace spokesman said firmly last night: ‘It is a matter for the duke and his legal team.’

Royal sources also said the case and its ongoing ‘attritional’ effect on the Royal Family had been ‘widely discussed’ among senior royals, but there was deep concern not to be seen meddling in issues.

The Prince of Wales spoke to his brother on several occasions and was instinctively keen to avoid the horror of a public trial.

But sources said he accepted the legal process needed to take its natural course and, as a matter of instinct, the heir to the throne shies away from ‘mandating’ on issues when it comes to his family.

Another well-placed royal insider said ‘no one had much sympathy for Andrew’. Last month, the Queen decided to strip her son of his remaining military affiliations and patronages and force him to stop using HRH officially.

The settlement It leaves Andrew’s claims of a trip to Pizza Express in Woking and that he cannot sweat, both of which he used as an alibi against Miss Roberts’ accusations, unresolved.

The deal came just weeks before he was set to sit down for a deposition, an interview under oath, in what would have been an uncomfortable grilling by Miss Roberts’ lawyers.

Nick Goldstone, head of dispute resolution at London-based international law firm Ince, said: ‘Clearly this is a settlement in principle on very generous financial terms for the complainant and a degree of backpedalling by the defendant.

‘In terms of ‘the court of public opinion’ this looks like an admission of bad conduct on the part of Andrew and I suspect he will remain ‘off-stage’ from the Royal Family for the rest of his life. It’s a good day for the Royal Family.

‘A huge relief for that institution. Probably a good day for Miss Roberts and a recognition of the impossible position Prince Andrew was in and the cessation of hostilities.’

Royal author Ms Junor said the settlement made is likely to come as a ‘huge relief’ to the rest of the royal family but that the damage to Andrew is irreparable.

She said: ‘Going to trial, it could have been very, very nasty. It could have been embarrassing, humiliating, and it would have been huge fodder for the tabloid press.

‘It could have really taken the shine off the Queen’s Platinum Jubilee year. It does of course, I assume, mean we will never know whether Andrew was innocent or guilty.

‘And that, I think, in itself means that he will never be able to go back to any kind of royal work. I think his reputation will never recover.’

Amber Melville-Brown, a partner at the New York office of the London law firm Withers, told the Times the settlement would be ‘worth its weight in gold to the Queen as she celebrates her Platinum Jubilee’.

Ann Olivarius, the senior partner of McAllister Olivarius law firm who has acted in cases on both sides of the Atlantic, told the Guardian: ‘The size of the compensation is probably massive by any British standards, and it’s probably very substantial by American standards – and American standards are very high.’ 

While the Duke continues to strongly deny the claims made against him, royal expert Mr Fitzwilliams questioned why such a payment was agreed if he was so sure of his innocence.

He told the Sun: ‘Essentially has he admitted that he has done any wrong at all? No. Regretting his association with Epstein doesn’t count.

‘He claimed innocence, but he has settled and many would regard this as an admission of guilt. If he was innocent then why did he pay?’

He added to MailOnline: ‘The relief at the Palace will be almost tangible now the threat of further public humiliation of Andrew in this civil case has been lifted after this settlement was announced.

‘This was always pretty certain as 97 per cent are settled in this way in the US. He has simultaneously, over two and a quarter years, managed to become a serious embarrassment, a national joke and a symbol of entitlement of the worst sort. If it had ever got to court, his humiliation would have been an international cause celebre.

‘The questioning he was shortly facing as part of the legal process by Virginia Roberts Giuffre’s legal team, would have been devastating too.

‘Although it would not have overshadowed the actual Platinum Jubilee celebrations in June, this scandal would have cast a cloud over this unique royal year.

‘That will now not occur and he has continued to deny the charges against him, but the public will not forget the Newsnight interview, the unexplained photograph and his disastrous friendships with Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell.

‘There is therefore no future royal role, other than possibly helping to manage the royal estates, at any time in the future for him.’

Another source told MailOnline: ‘I’m sure that Charles has had enough of the situation. Charles would have said to Andrew that he needed to get this sorted out as soon as possible and before the Queen’s Platinum Jubilee celebrations begin. Charles did not want this hanging over the Royal Family this year.’ 

While the size of the settlement is not yet known, reports suggested last month Andrew could avoid a trial by using the sale of his £18million Swiss chalet to try to pay off Mrs Giuffre with at least £10million of the proceeds.

Meanwhile, a former Royal protection officer told the Sun that the dramatic U-turn was likely ordered by his mother.

‘This wasn’t his decision, this was the Queen’s,’ said Paul Page. He added that Andrew’s story was ‘full of holes’ and the Duke ‘would have been slaughtered’ in his deposition.

Mr Fitzwilliams added: ‘The amount he has paid Virginia Roberts Giuffre in settlement has not been disclosed but it is likely to be huge. He has a naval pension and gets an allowance from the Queen.

‘He has also reportedly found a buyer for his chalet, the ownership of which he shares with his ex-wife Sarah Ferguson with whom he cohabits, which was on the market for £18 million, having paid a debt to its former owner. 

‘We will probably never know how Andrew raised the money for this settlement. However one thing is crystal clear, this was an emergency and this scandal was deeply destructive for the monarchy.

‘The royal family have numerous wealthy friends and it may well be that it was thought necessary to bail out the Queen’s second son in a year that was truly unique for her and for the royal family.

‘Andrew will remain in disgrace, he strongly denies the charges, but the court of public opinion as represented in opinion polls is totally hostile as is the press and Prince Charles and Prince William have made clear there is no future role for him as a senior working royal.

‘This settlement enlists him as promising to join in the fight against sex trafficking. It therefore remains imperative that he assist the FBI in their attempts to trace Epstein’s accomplices, as he previously promised to do and has not. This is a dreadful scandal and it may not all be over yet.’

MailOnline columnist Dan Wootton said: ‘Hard to see how Prince Andrew will ever clear his name in the court of public opinion now he’s settled – and presumably paid huge money – to Virginia Giuffre.’

He added: ‘He said he’d cooperate with the FBI. He didn’t. He said he’d fight Virginia in court. He didn’t. What’s he hiding?’

Royal author Angela Levin told GB News: ‘I think it sounds remarkably humble, which is not something we expect from Prince Andrew. Now, why that is, I’m not sure.

‘I wonder if the Queen, now she’s well, gave him a b******ing and said ‘you’re not going to spoil my Platinum Jubilee. I’m the only person who’s ever reached this and you just got to sort it out’.

‘She’s the only one I think who should really give him a telling off. She’s very matronly with him and perhaps he decided that.

‘But it is a great relief I think because it would have rumbled on and that would have taken the headlines all the time and goodness knows what could have come out the other end.’

Former royal butler Grant Harrold told the broadcaster: ‘I believed there was going to be a court case and I thought it was a great opportunity for the prince who’s always said he’s innocent for him to prove his innocence, but obviously an out-of-court settlement puts an end to the whole thing.

‘I can only assume it’s because the Queen’s got her Platinum Jubilee this year and maybe they were worried this would overshadow that, that’s the only reason I can assume this has happened.’

Solicitor Joshua Rozenberg added: ‘There is nothing in this agreement in which he admits to any misbehaviour with Virginia Giuffre. He accepts she has suffered as an established victim of abuse, but he doesn’t say that he abused her.

‘He pledges to demonstrate his regret for his association with Jeffrey Epstein but he doesn’t say he had any association with Ms Giuffre. There are all sorts of reason why people settle, there are all sorts of reasons why people bring claims.

‘The fact that this has settled doesn’t mean any more than it says. On the other hand, you don’t pay a lot of money unless you want a case to go away.’

It follows reports yesterday Ms Giuffre claims to have lost the original print of the famous photograph of her and Andrew taken in London in 2001, which could further the Duke’s argument that the image was doctored.

The Metropolitan Police dropped their investigation into Andrew last October, saying they would take ‘no further action’ – but the latest development raises questions over whether he could still be quizzed in the future.

A document submitted to the court in New York yesterday outlined the settlement, saying: ‘Virginia Giuffre and Prince Andrew have reached an out of court settlement.

‘The parties will file a stipulated dismissal upon Ms Giuffre’s receipt of the settlement (the sum of which is not being disclosed).

‘Prince Andrew intends to make a substantial donation to Ms. Giuffre’s charity in support of victims’ rights. Prince Andrew has never intended to malign Ms Giuffre’s character, and he accepts that she has suffered both as an established victim of abuse and as a result of unfair public attacks.

‘It is known that Jeffrey Epstein trafficked countless young girls over many years. Prince Andrew regrets his association with Epstein, and commends the bravery of Ms Giuffre and other survivors in standing up for themselves and others.

‘He 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.’

A second document, which was a letter addressed to US judge Lewis A Kaplan, who has been overseeing the case, said: ‘We write jointly with counsel for defendant to advise the court that the parties reached a settlement in principle of the above-referenced action.’

It goes on to say the parties involved plan to file a ‘stipulation of dismissal of the case’ within 30 days. The letter, signed by Mr Boies, concludes: ‘We appreciate the time and effort the court has devoted to this matter.’

And when asked for comment by DailyMail.com today, Mr Boies said: ‘This event speaks for itself.’

Ms Giuffre alleged Andrew sexually assaulted her at the London home of socialite and Epstein’s close friend Ghislaine Maxwell after a night out dancing in March 2001. 

She sued the Prince last year for unspecified damages, alleging that she was trafficked to him by Epstein and Maxwell.

Last December, Maxwell was convicted of recruiting and grooming young girls to be sexually abused by Epstein, exposing a murky world of sex trafficking among the rich and powerful.

As well as the London allegations, Mrs Giuffre also said Andrew assaulted her at Epstein’s home in New York, and on Epstein’s private island in the US Virgin Islands.

Andrew, the second son of Queen Elizabeth II, withdrew from public life as a royal in 2019 after a widely ridiculed BBC interview where he sought to vindicate himself of the accusations.

Epstein killed himself aged 66 in a New York prison cell in August 2019 while awaiting trial on sex trafficking charges.