"We are not amused."

Is Prince Andrew about to get the chop? The pressure is certainly mounting. Yesterday the Sunday Times published an article entitled 'The Lowlife World of His Royal Highness', while in Prime Minister's Questions last week, Chris Bryant, the former minister for Europe, demanded that Andrew be stripped of his role as a UK trade ambassador. He later described him to BBC Breakfast as a "national embarrassment". On the BBC news website, Vince Cable, the Business Secretary, has indicated that there will have to be "conversations" about Prince Andrew and 'Downing Street sources' have indicated that 'one more serious story could make the prince's role untenable'. 

A number of recent stories have brought Prince Andrew's judgement into question. In a 2009 court case, Paul Page, a royal bodyguard documented how the prince repeatedly broke Buckingham Palace security protocols in order to entertain late night female visitors. Page also recorded that when challenged on one breach of the rules, the prince, who was regarded as one of the rudest royals - any bets on who the rudest royal is - told Page, 'This is my f***ing house, I can go where I want. Now f*** off!' Nothing quite like the Queen's English is there?

According to the Sunday Times, a number of former diplomats have criticised his 'rude' manner and poor judgement. This was illustrated over the weekend by the revelation that he hosted a business lunch for Sakeher el-Materi, the son-in-law of Tunisia's President Zine al-Abidine Ben Ali,  just three months before he was deposed. Such unsavoury associations, however, would seem to be in keeping with the prince's general tastes. The Sunday Times article discussed a number of unlikely friendships and speculated about 'Andrew's penchant for being around people who have access to pretty women.' 

On the whole, most of the story seems a bit thin. A rude royal. A man with a taste for pretty women. A member of an extremely wealthy family with a few dodgy social connections. Not particularly shocking is it? The business lunch? Certainly, it is embarrassing, especially, as the Daily Mail has discovered the meeting was not an official engagement but initiated by the prince. But whether public or private, the meeting was attended by dozens of British executives all looking to get their share of the same distasteful pie. Are the papers going to call for them to be sacked? Difficult to criticise the prince for having the same degree of foresight as the British intelligence services. They didn't see Tunisia coming either. Observe Mr Cameron - it is much easier to try and do the right thing after the event. 

Epstein

Most damaging of all are the photos published in the New York Post, showing Prince Andrew walking through Central Park with convicted paedophile, Jeffrey Epstein, the man who paid off the Duchess of York's personal debts. 'Prince and the Perv' ran the headline. He was convicted for soliciting a minor for prostitution and received an 18 month prison sentence but only after a plea bargain. There were allegedly many more victims and according to FBI documents, a witness claimed on one occasion Epstein had three 12 year old girls flown over from France. 

According to the Sunday Times, Epstein has been a guest at Windsor and Sandringham, while Prince Andrew has stayed with Epstein at his homes in New York and Florida. However, that is not all the two men have shared. Both have been romantically linked with Robert Maxwell's daughter, Ghislaine Maxwell, although court papers indicated that she had developed a business relationship with Epstein. 

The article noted that one girl, Virginia Roberts, who was 'recruited' to work for Epstein and abused by him when she was 15 years old, was also introduced to Prince Andrew by Ghislaine. Roberts has not made any claims about Prince Andrew's conduct, however, Ghislaine is considering what action to take in relation to accusations about her role in the Epstein case made by two other women. 

It may be a collection of gossip and innuendo at the moment but what a terribly sordid world is emerging. Andrew's lifestyle is certainly a story. Dictators, prostitutes, paedophiles and our dear royal family all in the mix. After the news of of Kate and Will's wedding and the success of The King's Speech at the Oscars, "cor blimey gov'nor, don't yer just love Colin Firth", I-I-I am sure the palace was hoping for a run of more sympathetic coverage. Just why is it that a family that has risen to power through a history of violence, interbreeding, loveless marriages, luck and deceit, can't seem to stay out of trouble? Happily, for the Windsors, they are still very well protected and so far I find this aspect of the story just as disturbing. 

Roy Greenslade asked in his Guardian blog today, 'Why are so few newspapers carrying the Prince Andrew Story?'. He notes the majority of the mainstream newspapers have 'overlooked' it so far, including the Guardian. Isn't paedophilia and public figures meat and drink to papers, he asks? Only the Mail and Sunday Times have pursued the story. Why is it being ignored? Is it the same reason that the Speaker of the House of Commons, John Bercow, stated during Prime Minister's Questions, that all future references to royals were to be 'very rare, very sparing and very respectful'? I didn't realise that the Speaker had a constitutional role to define the breadth of a debate in the Commons?

Why the special treatment? Are papers worried about not getting good seats for the wedding? Surely the royal family's position requires the House of Commons and our newspapers to hold them, and their staff, to the very highest levels of scrutiny and standards of public behaviour. Yet, as the has reported today the prince's representatives gave the impression that the meeting with Sakher el-Materi had been organised by by the Government's Trade and Investment Bureau and the prince's press secretary, Ed Perkins, tried to patch up a deal with UKTI, ‘Am deploying the line that he (Materi) was vice chairman of the Chamber of Commerce. Will UKTI stand behind him? We need some govt backing here . . .’ 

Rather embarrassingly, Perkins sent the email out to the media rather than the UKTI so that particular lie couldn't be fed through. No matter, the waters are being muddied. His followers are closing ranks. David  Cameron has offered Prince Andrew his 'full support' and William Hague has said he has 'done a jolly good job.' Hugo Vickers, a royal historian, told the BBC there had been a 'rather irresponsible harassment of Andrew by the press.' Accusations of close connections to a paedophile and it is described as 'irresponsible harrassment'. Would that be the case for any other public figure outside the royal family? No, but instead the focus of this story seems to be drifting to the rather irrelevant question of whether the prince remains a trade envoy. 

Hurrah for George VI

Vince Cable told the BBC "I think we need to remember he is doing this as a volunteer, he is not a government appointee, he is not somebody who is appointed and sacked." What wonderful logic -  so does that mean the Government can't get rid of him even if they wanted to? Perhaps doctors and nurses should pull the same trick and just claim 'expenses'. The BBC political correspondent, Gary O' Donaghue believes "It's unlikely the government would actually sack Prince Andrew but may choose in the long run gradually to downgrade his activities, avoiding a damaging and embarrassing row between ministers and the Royal Family." 

Embarrassing for whom? Damaging for whom? I think Minette Marrin, in the Sunday Times, yes a Murdoch paper, got it half right when she said this is a story about a prince corrupted by deference. Yes, I agree, but I think deference has also corrupted our media and politicians. 

It doesn't particularly bother me if he keeps the trade envoy job. His official engagements look like a tour of the 'axis of evil' + Germany - not sure if they are included or not. Compared to his friends, letting him hang out with tyrants would be less embarrassing to the country.