Andrew is an oaf who has done untold damage to the monarchy… but there is a sinister agenda behind the latest revelations everyone seems to have missed. This is why we must fight back: RICHARD KAY

Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor is a fool and a fool whose lies have destroyed his own reputation and caused untold harm to the institution into which he was born.

So will he be able to overthrow the monarchy? Not so long ago, this would have been a ridiculous question to ask, as the Royal Family was overcome by scandals that posed existential threats to its survival in the past.

Even if a rogue prince were mired in the kind of pettiness, greed, and oppressive entitlement that Andrew so unappealingly displayed, he could certainly not undo the love and respect that has developed over generations for our First Family.

But these ties are loosening as every ugly detail about the former prince is revealed.

The latest allegations against disgraced Andrew that he is being investigated by detectives for potential sexual offenses are an explosive development and a crisis for the royal family.

Despite the King’s well-intentioned efforts to control the spiral – stripping his brother of his titles and rank, evicting him from his stately Windsor home, and quarantining him at Sandringham – Andrew becomes contagious.

As news of the latest police investigation becomes public, in line with Labour’s decision to publish documents relating to the appointment of the former Duke of York as trade envoy, an indisputable trend is clear: respect for the royal family is rapidly fading and disappearing.

Nothing, in particular, showed how absurdly the publishers greeted yesterday’s publication of historic government documents about Andrew.

Commentators jumped on the statements with lip-smacking enthusiasm, which must have pleased republicans that Andrew represents everything they hate about the monarchy.

The implication was that he was a ‘nepo baby’ and was catapulted into the role of trade ambassador (unpaid, incidentally) because the late Queen Elizabeth wanted him to.

Among the more ludicrous allegations was a complaint that Andrew was not subject to review because the appointment had been expedited by Her Majesty.

This barely stands up to serious scrutiny; At the time, Andrew was not only a decorated war veteran and a Naval officer who had served with distinction in the Falklands conflict, he also had top-level security clearance to attend briefings at the secret intelligence agency MI6.

It’s worth reminding ourselves of what Andrew was asked to do. He was not trained to take on the difficult role of a senior diplomat; he was simply taking over the job that the Queen’s cousin, the Duke of Kent, had carried out with tedious meticulousness for the previous 30 years.

This was the role of shaking hands and performing ceremonies, opening doors and making connections. Of course, it would be naive to ignore the fact that Andrew has manipulated the position to his advantage over the years. Among the many claims against him is that he became rich in this process.

Such is the frenzy created by Andrew’s disgraceful activities, but questioning the Queen’s influence in the whole harrowing saga now appears to be part of the public discourse.

Make no mistake, a historical revisionism is happening before our eyes that was unheard of ten, perhaps five years ago.

In short, we are witnessing what appears to many to be the beginning of a tarnishing of the Queen’s impeccable record as monarch and public servant.

It fits the current narrative; Here was a mother blinded by her love for her beloved son, whose every wish could not be denied.

But is this fair or even right?

Of course, he wanted gainful employment for his son as his time in the Royal Navy came to an end after 22 years of service. Many would have preferred him to remain in the Navy, but higher-ups were clear that he was unfit for higher ranks. So here he was just 41 years old and expected to have many years of public service ahead of him.

The implication was that he was a ‘nepo baby’ and was catapulted into the role of trade ambassador because the late Queen Elizabeth wanted him to.

It would be a completely natural move to follow in Eddie Kent’s firm footsteps. It wasn’t even remotely controversial at the time. If there was an ideal job description for a member of the royal family, it was ‘special representative for trade and investment’.

Simply put, the Queen was demanding that we replace the role of one duke (Kent) with another (York).

There was no doubt about Andrew’s motives or their friendship during the date. It is, of course, true that Andrew’s private life attracts attention; He had been divorced from his ex-wife Sarah for five years and had affairs with a number of women.

However, there was a view that when it came to the opposite sex, Andrew was free to do whatever he wanted as a single man.

And at least initially, Andrew seemed like an inspired choice. I accompanied him on one of his first visits to New York, where he represented the Royal Family’s response to the terrorist attack on the Twin Towers on September 11. The prince I witnessed was empathetic, compassionate and kind to the families of those who lost their lives; Everything you’d expect in a member of the Royal Family.

This is important because even a cursory look at yesterday’s official documents shows that it was not just the Queen who carried out the application, but also then-prime minister Tony Blair. A handwritten note recommends that details of the advert ‘be placed in the Prime Minister’s folder next Monday’.

Others included former ambassador Sir David Wright, who is no stranger to the Royal Family as former private secretary to then-Prince Charles, according to the documents.

As a government memo wrote at the time: ‘The Queen is keen for the Duke of York to take on a significant role in promoting the national interest.’

He added: ‘No other member of the Royal Family will succeed the Duke of Kent. Embracing the role of the Duke of York seems like a natural fit.’

How simple and unconventional everything seems.

Yes, there were concerns about Andrew’s availability; Charles stated these; He reportedly feared that his brother would ‘use the position’ to ‘befriend the rich, chase women, and play golf’.

Peter Mandelson and Andrew hooked up with disgusting pedophile Jeffrey Epstein. Both are accused of giving him government secrets

But it is inconceivable that the Queen, in the line of duty, would allow personal concerns to override doubts about Andrew’s responsibilities.

But now, combined with the Government’s shrewd decision to suppress details a day before Parliament prorogued, and the shocking revelations from Thames Valley Police, we are being invited to examine Andrew’s appointment through a distorted lens.

And what a distraction all of this is for our lame-duck Prime Minister, who should be strongly defending the monarchy but has instead remained virtually silent on the issue.

Of course, he approves of the Crown when it suits him. Remember the bumbling behavior of the King in the Oval Office of the White House when he waved off an invitation for Donald Trump to come to Britain?

But it’s worth remembering that Starmer was caught on camera in 2005: ‘I became the Queen’s Counsel, which is strange because I was often proposing the abolition of the monarchy.’

He remained undecided on so many issues that it is difficult to know whether he had a settled view on anything, including the long-term welfare of the House of Windsor.

Yet even he must appreciate that attempts to tarnish the Queen’s reputation are deplorable. After all, he is inexorably tied to this entire sordid saga. It was his decision to push through the appointment of Peter Mandelson as US ambassador after ignoring warnings from others.

Mandelson and Andrew hooked up with disgusting pedophile Jeffrey Epstein. Both are accused of giving him government secrets.

To suggest, as some are now doing, that this is a blemish on the Queen’s record is not only wrong but reckless.

Monarchists need to fight back. The Crown is one of our most cherished institutions, but it is also fragile. Following the Queen’s death, Charles steadied the ship only to suffer a cancer diagnosis that heralded another emergency; This situation was exacerbated when the disease also struck the Princess of Wales.

The King somehow overcame these setbacks and demonstrated the unique gift of a constitutional monarchy in America last month, especially in his historic speech to Congress that was profound, poignant and full of humor, where he charmed the capricious President Trump.

But as the last 24 hours have shown, Andrew remains a malevolent and destabilizing force for the monarchy and one that suits the Left’s agenda.

Of course, we cannot forget that it was Andrew’s evasiveness, or lie, about Jeffrey Epstein that triggered this long crisis. She lied about her links to the vile Epstein when she sat in front of BBC cameras with Emily Maitlis at Buckingham Palace in 2019.

However, lying on television is not a crime. There has been a trickle of allegations in recent years, but how many of them can withstand rigorous cross-examination in court?

Some will doubtless be skeptical of police’s public appeal for ‘surviving victims’ linked to Andrew to come forward. It sounds like a fishing exercise and brings back disturbing memories of Operation Midland, the discredited Metropolitan Police investigation into something called a VIP sex ring a few years ago.

Andrew has dominated royal headlines for nearly seven years, overshadowing his family’s good deeds and sucking the air out of the royal chamber. What a tragedy it would be if this spreading scandal was allowed to extend to the reputation of the Queen, who has always wanted to do the best for her country.