The royals spent several months in the run-up to Prince Andrew settling with Virginia Giuffre insisting that Andrew would have to clear up his own mess and pay his own settlement.
So why is it so strangely unsurprising to read allegations in the Sun that Prince Andrew’s settlement is going to be funded with the help of a chunky loan from Charles and the queen after all?
Andrew-loans and regular loans are not, of course, always exactly the same thing. A few months ago, it was revealed that Andrew, having borrowed $2 million from a private bank operated by a friend—the Conservative party donor David Rowland—he paid the money back with a personal gift from…David Rowland.
ADVERTISEMENT
The British public seems to be being softened up for something similar here. In this case, British newspaper the Sun says, if Andrew does not pay back the money (from the sale of his Swiss ski chalet) it will be taken out of any bequest left to him by his mommy in her will.
A cynic might wonder whether an indulgent mother might simply, therefore, leave a wayward but favoured son an extra pile of money so that he could ultimately pay Charles back for the loan.
As the palace is refusing to offer any guidance or information about how Andrew is settling his liabilities, apart from insisting the matter is “private,” this might never be known. Royal wills are typically kept secret; witness most recently the decision to sequester Prince Philip’s will for ninety years from the prying eyes of the public.
The Sun says that Charles is to pay, “most of the agreed” settlement, which has to be paid in full ten days from now and is variously reported to be between $10 million and $14 million. The queen is also, “chipping in,” but the Sun says no public money is involved in the settlement.
Andrew will supposedly then repay his brother and his mother with the proceeds of sale of his Swiss chalet.
The Sun confidently says this will sell for around $17 million, but this ignores the fact that it is a matter of public record that Andrew has hefty debts on the property. Some calculations suggest that he only has around $4 million of equity in the property, which he owns with his ex-wife.
And although Andrew’s side have confidently been saying the sale is on the point of closing for weeks now, the reality is that the war in Ukraine has upended high-end property sales all over Europe. Russian buyers have long been vital in propping up the top end of the European property market. It wouldn’t be entirely surprising if the terms offered to a disgraced prince were being reconsidered.
The Sun says that if Andrew fails to pay back his brother, the money, which includes a donation to Giuffre’s charity for sex trafficking victims, will be docked from the will of his mother when she dies.
While this may go someway to satisfying Charles’ own sense of propriety, it is unlikely to quell public irritation at royal—if not public—money being used to make Andrew’s legal woes go away.
Speaking on the decision to loan Andrew the money, a source said: “There were family discussions about how to ‘take a little from here and a little from there.’
“Once [money from the chalet] hits his bank account, he can pay back his brother and whoever else has lent him money.
“But that payment [to Virginia] has to be paid on time. He can’t rely on selling the chalet. Too many things can go wrong and the court won’t wait for property queries.”
A friend of Andrew added: “He has no income or money to repay a bank loan so the family is the only way to guarantee the payment.”
Andrew of course, famously said that he had, “no recollection“ of ever meeting Giuffre and accused her of being a liar when she alleged that she had sex with him.
Andrew backed himself into a corner with his claims he had never met Giuffre, with sources on Giuffre’s side telling The Daily Beast they were left with little more to prove than that the two had ever met.
This was a relatively simple task, made considerably simpler by the widely circulated photograph of Prince Andrew with his arm hooked around Virginia Giuffre’s midriff.
Andrew’s side tried to claim the picture was fake, and The Daily Beast revealed the original had been lost, but there was never any realistic prospect that Andrew would be able to overturn the compelling narrative put forward by the photograph that he had encountered Giuffre.
The offices of Prince Andrew and the queen declined to comment to The Daily Beast. Prince Charles has been approached for comment.
