The Queen was right to get rid of Andrew – but how that must hurt her

THIS is the year the Queen – and country – should be focusing on her Platinum Jubilee.

But instead of celebrating the incredible milestone of becoming the first British monarch to mark 70 years on the throne, she is facing another annus horribilis.



The Queen is facing another crisis as Prince Andrew battles his sex abuse civil case


In all of this, it is the Queen I feel desperately sorry for

Her Majesty has already started 2022 by making a choice that no mother would want to face.

Prince Andrew has always been her favourite.

He was once the swashbuckling Navy hero who would entertain her with bawdy tales of adventure on the high seas.

But today he is an excruciating embarrassment. A podgy, pointless and prickly prince.

The allegations against the Duke of York could not have come at a worse time as we navigate an ocean of woke views, still rocking in the wake of the Me Too movement.

Prince Andrew’s friendship with paedophile Jeffrey Epstein and child trafficker Ghislaine Maxwell, along with claims that he slept with 17-year-old Virginia Roberts — now known by her married name Giuffre — could prove a fatal anchor that drags the monarchy into the cold depths.

And that is why the Queen has had to cut him loose.

As head of the Royal Family, she has been forced to choose between saving the institution she has sworn to protect or shielding her second-born son

In reality, there was no choice to make and, as we all know, the Queen always puts duty first.

Stark message

But how much it must have hurt to give her beloved Andrew the boot.

No wonder she made his lawyer wait outside in the car when she delivered the icy blow to his heart.

It must have been one of the hardest decisions she has ever made, stripping her beloved son of his royal status and making him walk the plank to fight this battle alone.

Although this must have gone against every instinct she has as a mother, she has done what she always does — put the country and the monarchy ahead of everything, even her own family.

Until now the royals have protected Andrew and seemingly turned a blind eye to his friendship with Epstein and the allegations made about him by Giuffre.

But the announcement that Andrew will no longer be known as His Royal Highness sends a stark message.

Slice of pepperoni

Although he remains Duke of York, he loses all the military titles and royal patronages, the things that gave him status and a role.

Andrew is disgraced. And he is on his own now, forced to face the looming civil court case as a private citizen.

In all of this, it is the Queen I feel desperately sorry for.

This remarkable lady has dedicated her life to service for the country and now, in her Jubilee year, her son is mired in sleaze, his reputation in tatters.

Watch Andrew’s car-crash Newsnight interview and you can see why he does not fancy squaring up to a hard-nosed New York judge.

Can you imagine how his Pizza Express in Woking alibi would go down in a US civil court?

Andrew’s story would be torn apart like a thin slice of pepperoni.

So his only option seems to be paying off Giuffre. Which will be seen as an admission of guilt because why would anyone hand a reported £10million to someone they insist they have never met?

Whatever the outcome, Andrew will never again be able to be an active member of the Royal Family.

The Duke of York is done for.

Perhaps the bigger question is, what toll will this latest scandal take on the Queen?

She has already lost her husband Prince Philip.

Her grandson Prince Harry is another outcast, who has fled to California.

And the tell-all book he plans to release later this year will be another devastating shot across the bow.

The Queen has been an impeccable monarch throughout her life — but how much more can she really bear?

Sawalha-ha, a lovely double!

WHEN you’ve got it, flaunt it.

The words come from the 1967 movie The Producers, written by Mel Brooks.



Loose Women’s Nadia Sawalha used a few pieces of black tape to recreate Kendall Jenner’s look

It’s evidently a life motto for Kendall Jenner, who is clearly proud of her body after wearing this teeny, tiny dress to a friend’s wedding.

It cost £1,266 – I don’t know how, as there is more material in a G-string – and she explained she got permission from the bride to wear it.

After pictures were posted online this week Kendall, 26, was criticised for being “inappropriate”.

Loose Women’s Nadia Sawalha, 57, used a few pieces of black tape to recreate the look, leaving very little to the imagination.

She clearly did it for a laugh but I have to say, I thought she looked rather good.

To quote Mel Brooks again: “If you’re quiet, you’re not living. You’ve got to be noisy and colourful and lively.”

Nadia is certainly all these things. And by the way, she has much better boobs than Kendall.

Digital dress dunces

SORRY, but I had to laugh reading about the new “must-have” dress being stocked in Selfridges . . .  and on sale for thousands of pounds.

The thing that makes it unique? You will not be able to actually wear it.



Surely this is a very modern day equivalent of The Emperor’s New Clothes

Not even once. Selfridges will become the world’s first retailer to sell a range of dresses by Spanish designer Paco Rabanne in digital form only.

A dozen of Rabanne’s designs from his “unwearable” collection of the 1960s are to be sold as non-fungible tokens (NFTs) from £2,000 to more than £100,000 as part of a new exhibition.

Surely this is a very modern day equivalent of The Emperor’s New Clothes, the folk story written by Hans Christian Andersen?

Woke’s not so sweet

I KEEP on thinking we have reached the top of the mountain – and Peak Woke.

But news that Marks & Spencer has rebranded its Midget Gems as Mini Gems has, I think, trumped everything.



Marks & Spencer has rebranded its Midget Gems as Mini Gems

This happened after a disability campaigner claimed the hard jelly sweets’ name could have maybe offended people with dwarfism.

Dr Erin Pritchard, who is a lecturer in disability and education, told the retail giant the term midget was “a form of hate speech”.

I know that language matters, and the last thing I would want is for anyone to feel hated.

Also, of course, I am writing here from the point of view of someone who does not have dwarfism.

Still, though. Really? Whatever next? Renaming the Yorkie chocolate bar in case it offends people in Yorkshire?

A toast to Jon legacy

GOODBYE and thank you to Sir Jonathan Van-Tam.

He’s the influenza expert who made an extraordinary contribution to the successful Covid vaccine programme.



Goodbye and thank you to Sir Jonathan Van-Tam.

This week he announced he is stepping down from his role as Deputy Chief Medical Officer to return to his day job at Nottingham University – and no doubt is breathing a sigh of relief.

He is an excellent communicator and managed to explain the various Covid situations we have faced over the past two years in a way we could all understand.

I would like to think he has stepped down as he believes we are on the road to recovery from Covid being a pandemic to endemic, due to the success of the vaccination scheme he helped administer.

Let’s hope I am right.

Where has con act bin?

READING that offenders will be forced to clean up more public spaces in a £93million scheme unveiled by Dominic Raab, I can’t help wondering why this has taken so long.

The Justice Secretary signed the first deal with a national charity that will allow a huge expansion of unpaid work schemes for convicted criminals.

That means millions of extra hours will be carried out by litter-clearing gangs each year, with open spaces cleared.

Raab said the criminals will be required to carry out “real hard graft” such as removing graffiti and picking up litter.

What a great idea. Firstly, one legacy of the pandemic has been a huge rubbish problem in this country.

More importantly, criminals undertaking tough, visible work to repay the damage they have caused to society through their crimes is something that should have been done years ago. Bravo.