Andrew is banished - finally - but how much has he damaged the royal family around the world?
It’s a curious business, covering British news for an Australian audience.
Stories that feel seismic in Sydenham can sink without trace in Sydney, while the seemingly irrelevant can suddenly assume huge importance.
There is, however, no doubting the significance of the storm surrounding the man formerly known as Prince Andrew, cause of as much fascination in Australia as in the UK.
From 10,000 miles away, the question most frequently asked is why it took this long to take back his titles, and to finally evict him from the 30-room mansion he has somehow kept rent-free, as what remained of his reputation was shredded by own outrageous behaviour.
His exile is now complete. Stripped of his titles, no longer a prince, evicted from his home. Two weeks ago Andrew was allowed to present himself as magnanimously surrendering his privilege. Now, his brother acts more brutally, even if it is less a principled stand than a response to mounting public fury.
We have known for many years that Andrew Mountbatten Windsor is an awful, awful man. A rude, arrogant dimwit, seemingly too stupid realise how gormless he is, who for decades has wandered around with an astonishing sense of entitlement and a gigantic chip on his shoulder.
But the scale and nature of the allegations surrounding his friendship with Jeffrey Epstein — allegations he continues to deny — have turned him from an irksome laughing stock into a loathed pariah.
Focusing on Andrew is like poking a sore tooth — you know the outcome, but you can’t stop doing it. Stories about his limitless lack of shame or self-awareness, his unwanted appearances at family gatherings and funerals, will always attract attention from Australian audiences.
So, why not ditch the monarchy?
Australia had a chance to cut its connection to the British crown more than 25 years ago — the November 1999 referendum on becoming a republic.
The proposal was rejected 55-45 — chiefly because it would have let Australia’s MPs and senators choose the head of state, with the public frozen out.
Campaigners had assumed the years after the death of Queen Elizabeth would be a natural break point, a time to re-assess Australia’s constitutional relationship with the UK.
Again, circumstances got in the way. The failure of the 2023 referendum on Indigenous rights means there’s no political appetite for another public vote. The monarchy’s position is safe, for now.
Fascination is not the same as affection
Those hoping for an Australian republic aren’t giving up though. When the King and Queen visited in 2024, they called it monarchy’s “farewell tour,” while one senator loudly protested when they arrived in Canberra.
The public reaction was more muted than past royal visits. In 2014, I was travelling across Australia, frequently turning up a day or two after William and Kate had arrived to huge crowds and immense media interest.
It puzzled me for a while, until I realised why. In the UK, on most days, a member of the Royal Family will be out performing some public duty — whether it’s opening a hospital wing or hosting a garden party.
But visits to Australia are rare, prompting a level of fascination rarely seen in Britain.
That doesn’t mean, though, that Australians feel a close connection to the monarchy, or an overwhelming affection. In polls, support for a republic hovers between 40 and 50%.
It would be a mistake for Buckingham Palace officials to interpret that as warm support for the status quo — it’s more a sign that the constitutional position of the British royal family is not something most Australians ever really think about.
Princess Anne arrives in Australia soon, on a four-day visit taking in Sydney, Melbourne and Brisbane. Questions about Andrew will no doubt dominate coverage of the tour, but sending the “hardest-working royal” could provide some much needed positive PR as the Palace tries to recover from the damage Anne’s finally-banished brother has done.
