ANDREW LOWNIE: Why should the King house two non-working royals who have brought nothing but shame to the Royal Family?

To King Charles the advantages of striking a deal that would see Andrew and Sarah Ferguson leave Royal Lodge are clear: a chance to stem the endless stream of bad publicity his younger brother is attracting.

Courtiers, too, are disquieted and want an end to all those photographs of Andrew hacking in Windsor Great Park or scowling behind the wheel of his Range Rover.

Set in 40 hectares in the middle of Windsor Great Park, Royal Lodge, is one of the last remaining elements of royal status Andrew can command. Extracting him from there would be symbolic and, for his frustrated senior relatives, very helpful.

Beyond the innermost circles of the monarchy, however, there is little understanding for Andrew or his reported demands – and still less for Fergie.

Even the cosy terms on which the prince first moved into Royal Lodge back in 2003 are raising eyebrows. He acquired the 30-room mansion following the death of its previous occupant, the Queen Mother, in 2002.

He paid a fee of £1million for the lease and spent a further £7.5million restoring it but with no rent charged thereafter – a fact only recently revealed.

It is not as if Andrew, 65, has been short of income. The prince inherited money through a series of royal trusts and made large sums from various business interests.

The more visible of those ‘interests’ have included a partnership with shadowy banker David Rowland and a 2 per cent commission that Andrew has taken on investments made through Pitch@Palace, the Dragon’s Den-style charity he used to run.

But quite what Andrew was given by the many foreign potentates he met while travelling as a trade envoy for Britain remains unclear.

In light of this, members of the public want to know why the King should be responsible for accommodating two non-working royals who have brought such shame on the monarchy.

And why, in particular, does Charles feel any need to support Sarah Ferguson (it has been reported that Andrew could move into Frogmore Cottage, while Fergie gets Adelaide Cottage), who has been divorced from Andrew for almost 30 years? Fergie, 66, received a generous divorce settlement which was meant to last her lifetime.

She has had a lucrative business career making money from her royal status – from writing children’s books to promoting WeightWatchers in the US – and has just sold a house in Belgravia for £3.85 million. It is thought that for many years the late Queen helped pay off her debts – perhaps to the tune of £5million. Surely, the Royal Family’s obligations to her are thoroughly discharged?

The alleged demand (or offer) that Fergie be given a house of her own seems the most inappropriate aspect of the whole distasteful trade-off.

If Sarah has been the architect of her own downfall – and in quite spectacular terms – she has played no small part in dragging down Andrew with her. Her vast debts cast a long shadow.

While Andrew must remain responsible for his own disgraceful actions, few now doubt it was an attempt to clear those debts which drove the prince and Sarah into a malign friendship with millionaire financier and sex offender Jeffrey Epstein in the first place.

And it was this association which, more than any other factor, has destroyed their once-comfortable lives at Royal Lodge.

Fergie’s spending was, from the outset, quite extraordinary. As a newlywed, flying back to England from New York in 1986, she was reportedly fined £950 for bringing 51 pieces of excess luggage aboard. They are said to have contained £33,000 worth of brand-new purchases – including six pairs of shoes at £562 a go and a £515 teddy bear.

When Fergie rented a holiday villa, Domaine La Fontaine near Cannes, for £20,000 in 1994, she took her own staff, including a butler, two housekeepers, a dresser, a general assistant and a nanny, as well as two taxpayer-funded protection officers to watch over her daughters. A truck drove to France from England with loungers and inflatable pool toys.

Even while pleading poverty, she kept a butler, chauffeur, cook and secretary.

By November 1995, Fergie had debts of more than $5 million. And still the spending continued. In a disturbing email to Epstein recently unearthed by The Mail on Sunday, she described the convicted sex abuser as ‘a steadfast, generous and supreme friend to me and my family’. One can only speculate why.

There are other questions, too.

If they do move to properties on the royal estate at Windsor, will Andrew and Sarah pay market rent? In such circumstances, could it really be said the couple had been banished?

And why is it that ‘the happiest divorced couple’ in the world, who have cohabited for years at Royal Lodge, should now wish to live apart?

Cynics have suggested Andrew might appear less attractive to his former wife now his titles are in abeyance. But certain practical considerations may explain why the couple are attempting to call the shots – and why the King’s hand is not as strong as the public might think.

The only way Andrew can be forced to leave Royal Lodge is if he breaks the terms of his lease by, for example, failing to maintain the fabric of the building.

Bear in mind, too, that although Andrew has said he will never write a tell-all book revealing royal secrets, Sarah has given no such undertaking. Indeed, she has a long history of threatening to do so. No longer titled and no longer welcome at royal gatherings, there might be a temptation.

This is especially true if the couple move abroad. Various destinations have been mooted: Switzerland, where Sarah once hoped to be a tax exile and the couple owned a ski chalet; Spain, a regular holiday destination because of its golf courses; and even Abu Dhabi, where it is claimed Andrew has been given a palace by members of its royal family.

Whatever decision is made, it needs to happen quickly as questions are now being asked in Parliament and the media about wider royal finances.

How much are other members of the family paying for their own Crown Estate properties?

There are growing calls for a royal register, for royal wills to be unsealed, more Parliamentary scrutiny and the royals to no longer be exempt from Freedom of Information legislation.

No wonder the King and those around him want ‘the siege of Royal Lodge’ brought to a swift conclusion. This is a dangerous moment for the monarchy.

Andrew Lownie’s new biography of Prince Andrew and Sarah Ferguson, ‘Entitled: The Rise and Fall of The House of York’, is published by Harper Collins, price £22