Prince Charles is said to be a driving force behind Prince Andrew's settlement. Photo / Getty Images
OPINION:
The royal family famously give one another joke presents at Christmas but this week, the Queen got her son Prince Andrew something much, much more expensive.
For his 62nd birthday on Saturday she allegedly fronted up the cash to pay the $24.4 million (more than £12 million) settlement in the civil sex abuse case brought against him by Virginia Guiffre, formerly Roberts. (Wonder if Her Majesty gift-wrapped the cheque?)
On Wednesday, news broke that the Duke of York and Guiffre, a mother-of-three who now lives in Perth, had reached a deal only weeks before he was set to be deposed by her lawyers.
Later this year the duo had been set to face off in a New York courtroom with Guiffre having accused him of raping her on three occasions, an allegation he has always strenuously denied.
But now that nightmare situation has been headed off at the pass, reportedly thanks to the 95-year-old monarch and her cheque book.
According to The Telegraph, it has cost tens of millions of dollars for the threat of a sordid trial to be neutralised, which will include not only a payment to Guiffre but one to her charity, Speak Out, Act, Reclaim (Soar).
So is this a question of Andrew having finally come to his senses and realised that a drawn-out court case was the last thing the monarchy and his dear Mumsy needed in her Platinum Jubilee year? Has he agreed to forgo his day in court and any chance to clear name for the greater regal good?
Piffle! Various reports out of the UK Wednesday have made the case that it was Her Majesty and his elder brother Prince Charles who were the driving forces behind the settlement, not Andrew.
According to the Daily Mail, "the Prince of Wales also spoke to his brother on several occasions" and was instinctively keen to avoid the horror of a public trial.
"Royal sources 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 paper reported.
"I'm sure that Charles has had enough of the situation," an insider has told the Mail.
"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."
In what might be the most obvious statement to ever come out of a royal insider's mouth, one "well-placed" source has said that "no one had much sympathy for Andrew".
"There is huge relief in the royal household," per the source.
Meanwhile over in The Sun, former royal protection officer Paul Page offered a slightly different read on the situation, saying, "This wasn't his decision, this was the Queen's."
Page, who was convicted of fraud in 2009 after running an investment scam, also earns points for the most colourful quote of the day, having said that the 61-year-old was "f***ed'' from the beginning thanks to his aggressive defence strategy.
(Remember last year when Andrew's lawyers tried to have a newspaper report calling Guiffre a "money hungry sex kitten" included in evidence? Or when earlier this year it was revealed that his legal team wanted access to Guiffre's medical records and to depose her psychologist?)
Up until now, every indication out of Royal Lodge, the 31-room Georgian grace-and-favour Andrew lives in basically for free, has been that he would fight the case tooth and nail.
It would make perfect sense if this deal with Guiffre had been driven by his family's prevailing cool heads and not the pugnacious Prince who has so far seemed spoiling for a legal fight.
Consider too here the actual statement put out by Guiffre and Andrew's teams.
In it, Andrew said he had "never intended to malign Guiffre's character" and that he recognised she had "suffered both as an established victim of abuse and as a result of unfair public attacks" in what amounts to a pretty spectacular backtracking.
So too did he promise to "demonstrate his regret for his association" with Epstein.
Do we really buy that a man who seems driven wholly by self-interest would willingly accede to such a strategic about-face?
That a man who managed to sit through an in-depth interview about his ties to a convicted sex offender and who managed to not once show any sympathy or concern for the women abused by his former host would suddenly decide to fall on his legal sword?
The question you have to ask yourself here, is, would Andrew have really adopted this position entirely of his own volition and out of his own good sense?
(It's worth pondering for a moment: Would we be where we are today if he had used that interview to condemn Epstein and to apologise genuinely for his association with him?)
Based on his behaviour, words and choices over the last few years, it is clear that expressing even a jot of humility or remorse is not something that comes naturally to the Queen's second son. If there is one thing that the world has learned over the last few lamentable years is that he seems permanently disinclined to think about anyone but himself.
As longtime royal biographer Angela Levin said on Wednesday during a British TV interview: "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**locking and said, 'You're not going to spoil my Platinum Jubilee. I'm the only person who's ever reached this and you've just got to sort it out.' She's the only one I think who should really give him a telling off."
Factor in too here that every big decision about Andrew's future over the last few years has seemingly only come at the instigation of his family.
Back in 2019, in the days after his horrible Newsnight turn, Charles, who was on tour in New Zealand at the time, "told his mother that his younger brother should be withdrawn from the spotlight to stem the tide of publicity," The Times has reported.
A source told the paper: "Prince Charles and his private secretary were determined that this should not be allowed to drag on and on."
Prince William was also reportedly part of those crisis talks in November 2019 along with Prince Philip. "William is no fan of Uncle Andrew," a friend of the Duke of Cambridge told the Times last year.
More recently, it has been widely reported that it was the Queen and Charles who played the central role in the guillotining of Andrew from his honorary military roles and patronages last month in a move that putatively and technically made him a "private citizen".
According to the Times, "the whole royal family knifed Prince Andrew" and when a palace source was asked who was involved in the decision about his sacking they replied, "Everyone".
"The family were always clear that … these decisions were always going to have to happen," the source said.
Having now circumvented what would have been a highly damaging and deeply embarrassing trial, the royal family is now theoretically free to get on with celebrating the Queen's history-making 70-year stint on the throne.
That's in theory.
Andrew might have been defrocked and humiliated but he will still most likely attend the service for Prince Philip set for March 29.
So too is this disaster far from over. Guiffre's lawyer David Boies has confirmed that his client has not signed a nondisclosure agreement as part of the settlement, leaving the door open for her to write a book or take part in a documentary.
Maybe there are some things that even Mummy's money can't buy.
• Daniela Elser is a royal expert and a writer with more than 15 years experience working with a number of Australia's leading media titles.
Washington Post: The mindset should be - less fuss, more fun with company.