The royals want a chance to recover over Andrew. They may not get it

“Sandringham,” former Conservative Party MP (and ex-prisoner) Jonathan Aitken remarked drily to LBC radio’s Nick Ferrari, “is not Siberia.” It is, though, an 8000-hectare private estate where a troublesome royal can disappear from public view. Buckingham Palace will be desperately hoping that over time, with Andrew, it’ll be a case of out of sight, out of mind.

King Charles will have dug deep into his private fortune to facilitate his younger brother’s eviction from Royal Lodge. He’ll also have to fund his lifestyle. One of the key goals of this current act of defenestration was to ensure no taxpayers’ cash was involved. The King’s aim will be to stop Andrew seeking additional money from his rich acquaintances, assuming they’re still taking his calls.

Those of us who’ve thrived in life as a commoner may well struggle to empathise with Andrew’s latest enforced deprivation. He revelled in being a blood prince, having a mother who was Queen, and being referred to by staff as “sir”. Andrew Mountbatten Windsor won’t slip easily off his tongue.

He has children, grandchildren, golf and horse riding to distract him. He’ll also be living on an estate where he can take part in what he described in his disastrous Newsnight interview as “straightforward” shooting weekends.

While he takes aim at the pheasants, Andrew will be praying that the demand by Virginia Giuffre’s brother for there to be an investigation, and for him to be put behind bars if found guilty, will amount to nothing. The former prince has consistently denied the allegations of the late sex-trafficking victim that she was forced to have sex with him on three occasions, including when she was 17.

The senior royals are ostracising the father while trying to keep Princess Beatrice and Princess Eugenie close. This will be no mean feat, especially at family gatherings from which their parents will be excluded. The pair keep their titles and palace residences.

Unlike her daughters, Sarah Ferguson has to find her own private accommodation. It’s a brutal dispatch for the ex-wife of a royal and ex-duchess who has generated so many excruciating headlines over so many decades.

This is the fourth time in six years Buckingham Palace has tried to contain the Epstein-Andrew contagion. His toxic relationship with the convicted child sex offender has scarred two reigns, in part because her second son was Queen Elizabeth’s blind spot and King Charles was a ditherer.

Not any more. However, the King has acted decisively this time from a position of fear, not one of strength. The palace will be fearful of what further Epstein revelations might emerge, of being out of step with public opinion (note the heckling of Charles outside Lichfield Cathedral) and of UK MPs taking a liking to investigating royal affairs, especially their finances.

Concern is already being expressed about Andrew Mountbatten Windsor remaining eighth in line to the throne, behind five princes and two princesses. The King, with the support of the government, will want the calls for action to dissipate. The alternative is one the royals would dread: a bill being debated in parliament, and the agreement sought of the other 14 countries – including Australia – where Charles is head of state.

It’s not just Andrew who’s paying a heavy price for his catastrophic and sustained failure of the judgment. The ancient institution he was born to serve has also been tarnished and suffered a loss of respect. Charles and Prince William are focused on restoring credibility.

Their problem is: they don’t know what more might be lurking around the Epstein corner.

Peter Hunt is a former BBC royal correspondent.

Get a weekly wrap of views that will challenge, champion and inform your own. Sign up for our Opinion newsletter.