The royals need Kate Middleton to help them over a little difficulty: that Andrew has demonstrated that there are lies at the heart of the firm
It was, until recently, hard to imagine a more embarrassing uncle at the royal wedding than Kate's mum's brother, Gary Goldsmith, a "property developer" who lives in Ibiza half the year in a house regally called La Maison de Bang Bang. He has offered journalists the services of prostitutes while chopping up lines of cocaine.
But competition is hotting up with embarrassing Uncle Andrew. For Prince Andrew, we now know, flies round the world to indulge his special relationships with various despots and Jeffrey Epstein, forever to be known as "not quite a paedophile".
While Mr Goldsmith does what he does for himself, Andrew does business for Queen and country. He works for us. Or does he? Currently we are switching channels between two royal reality shows. One is the lovely wedding of Kate and Wills, for which we are meant to be grateful. But we can't help flicking back to all these revelations about what Prince Andrew's "job" involves. It has to be said that Andrew himself looks rattled, or just plain dodgy, in every picture of him doing his "job".
Even ardent monarchists are finding his activities hard to stomach. The sight of the government now having to back Andrew, as he is "unsackable", makes one want to retch. But yes, he has David Cameron's full support, and Vince Cable's full confidence.
Flogging arms and hanging out with Saudi princes is a dirty job, but someone has to do it. This is realpolitik, some may say. But the problem starts when trying to unpick what Andrew does for himself, and what he does that is overseen by the Foreign Office and UK Trade & Investment (UKTI), which has a committee that meets every six months to approve his visits to places such as Abu Dhabi, Vietnam and Turkmenistan.
What is it exactly that he does on his private trips? There have been three of those to Azerbaijan (an autocracy fond of torturing dissidents) and at least one to Kazakhstan on the record, as well as outings to Saudi Arabia that are not financed by UKTI. The royal line is that there is no overlap between the prince's private and public role. That line is getting blurry.
A Kazakh millionaire paid £3m above the asking price for the sale of Andrew's mansion. The go-between was the rather extraordinary Goga Askenazi, commonly referred to as "a Kazakh siren". Her father wrote speeches for Gorbachev, and she has made her fortune in mining, apparently. Where is Borat when you need him? Anyway, Goga reassures us that "if you think Andrew is extravagant, you should see Berlusconi's set-up in Sardinia – outrageous". Outrageous indeed. As is the Prince's friendship with the convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein, who bunged Andew's ex, Fergie, £15,000 to help clear her debts. Also possibly outrageous are Andrew's invites to the son-in-law of the former Tunisian dictator who is under investigation for money laundering.
The BBC reports all this practically curtseying, insisting that all ministers can do is downgrade his role.
Meanwhile, over on the Princess Channel, all that matters is Kate Middleton's amazing ability to toss a pancake. Royalists harp on about the symbolism of the royal family, but what Andrew and his brothers now symbolise is debatable. The Queen works hard and so does Anne, but the rest of them? Charles is now rarely seen.
As for Edward, who knows what he does, except we know his wife's PR company got into enormous debt. Despite their immense connections, these royals do seem to have problems running any kind of business. Fergie, who I defended for a long time as a bit mad and sad, has now gone really bad, offering access to her ex, for whom she says she would throw herself under a bus, in exchange for cash.
For the record, I was a cheerleader for Diana, as I like a troublesome woman who stirs things up. I never thought she was an actual republican, what with her wanting her son to be king and everything, but certainly she rocked the boat, and showed up this family for what it is. It may seem strange to say it, but at her funeral, which I attended, Andrew and Fergie seemed the most human of them. Fergie reached over and hugged those boys. No one else touched them in public the whole of that day.
Now she is banned from the latest wedding and gabbling on about wanting to find "the lotus flower within". She has been cast out.
The brutal dysfunction of the family is plain to see, but at this stage it's the dysfunction of the public that concerns me more. Those of us who champion republicanism must come to terms with the fact that it has never been a hugely popular cause. Years spent sitting in meetings about the constitution mean I have heard the great and the good explain patiently that we must attack the royals institutionally but not personally. It may seem surprising, but I don't agree, because the royals function largely by denial that they are part of a political system that accrues wealth. They modernise only when forced to, and are not accountable. They bypass the institution by using the media to insist we see them only as individuals trying to do their best.
All this went askew because Diana's genuine charisma and easy modernity in an age of celebrity made them look like relics. We know how that all ended: nonetheless, Kate Middleton is being set up as the new Diana. So far she is doing what is required of a princess: shutting up/putting out/slimming down/marrying up. Kate is conforming to some reactionary idea about social mobility. If commoner can marry the heir to the throne … well, anything could happen. But it probably won't. For whatever we understand about Prince Andrew, there will be crowds cheering on this couple. Anyone who doesn't will be branded a sour–faced old trollop like me.
Of course it will be an event, but who now turns out for the other royals? When Charles shows up anywhere they don't need to put out the barricades to stop jostling crowds getting at him. Years ago I was so bored at Windsor (it was Sophie and Edward's wedding) I started talking to policemen. Who are these flag-wavers, I asked one. "Oh, we have a phrase for them," he said. "Cat-stranglers. Women so mad they strangle their own cats." That always stuck with me.
A reasoned argument about the nature of hereditary privilege and how this affects our entire democracy and identity as engaged citizens doesn't really work with cat-stranglers. Nor indeed many who consider themselves a rung above. Look at the fawning over The King's Speech, which was not only revisionist but full of deference. The king stammered because of emotionally distant parents. He needed to unite the nation at a time of crisis. But it took a commoner to help him get over his speech impediment.
The royals are now using another commoner – Kate Middleton – to help them over another little difficulty: that Andrew has demonstrated that there are lies at the heart of the firm. The current impediment is not one of speech but of morality. No amount of confetti can hide it.