The dark, disturbing rumours being whispered from Buckingham Palace, by RICHARD EDEN. I’m disgusted by the Andrew saga… what I’m now hearing is truly immoral

While some children had posters of pop stars pinned to their bedroom walls, I had photographs of Prince Charles and Lady Diana Spencer cut from magazines on mine in the build-up to their wedding.

Imagine my shock when a dour Yorkshireman told me he wasn’t interested in watching their wedding on television while I was on holiday at my grandmother’s home in Wakefield in 1981.

It was scarcely believable to me that not everyone shared my excitement about the royal event at St Paul’s Cathedral.

When it came to Andrew and Sarah Ferguson’s wedding at Westminster Abbey five years later, I was among the crowds in The Mall, armed with a periscope that my parents had given me to help catch a glimpse of the newlyweds above the shoulders of the adults in front.

So, as a lifelong monarchist, I couldn’t have been more disappointed and appalled to discover the extent of the friendship between the Duke and Duchess of York – as they still are, legally – and the late sex offender Jeffrey Epstein.

There is no need for me to repeat here the endless stream of tawdry, revolting disclosures over the past couple of weeks from the Epstein Files released by the US authorities.

Like me, you have probably become weary of reading any more about how Andrew and Fergie sucked up to the American financier even after he had been jailed for procuring a 14-year-old girl for prostitution. Andrew has always denied any wrongdoing, but the pair’s greed and lies disgust me.

What I now find worrying are the rumours that reach me from Buckingham Palace about King Charles’s response to the crisis.

After his brother’s arrest last week on suspicion of misconduct in public office, the King issued a statement expressing his ‘deepest concern’ about the news and making clear that the ‘appropriate authorities’ had his ‘full and wholehearted support and co-operation’.

However, Andrew remains eighth in line to the throne and, unbelievably, is still a Counsellor of State. This means he is, in theory at least, one of seven members of the Royal Family legally entitled to deputise for the Monarch if he is unwell or indisposed.

When I ask royal sources why this has not been addressed, the answers I receive are disturbing.

One tells me that it is because the King is deeply reluctant to ‘meddle’ with the line of succession.

‘He thinks it would be opening up a can of worms,’ a friend says. ‘For example, if Andrew is removed, would his daughters have to be, too? He thinks they are blameless and do not deserve to be punished.’

Another source tells me the King does not want to do anything which could be seen as prejudicial to his brother.

‘If he strips him of his place in the line of succession, this could be interpreted as a sign that he thinks Andrew is guilty,’ the source claims.

Both of these excuses are concerning. The King needs to take control of the crisis surrounding his brother. He could do this by stripping him of his role as a Counsellor of State and of his place in the line of succession. It would require an Act of Parliament of course, but I find it shocking that the King has not already started the process.

He demonstrated how simple it is to make changes to the list of Counsellors of State back in 2022 when he asked Parliament to add his sister, Princess Anne, and youngest brother, Prince Edward. This was done immediately with a minimum of fuss. It was reported at the time that he decided not to remove Andrew or Prince Harry because he didn’t want to escalate family tensions.

Although removing Andrew from the line of succession would take more effort, it could also be done easily with, I suspect, no objections from any of the King’s other realms, which would also have to give their approval. Indeed, the prime ministers of Australia and New Zealand already eagerly expressed their enthusiasm for such a move this week.

Doing so would not ‘open a can of worms’, it would indicate that the King appreciates how serious the situation is for the future of the monarchy. When Andrew is removed from the line of succession, his daughters, Princesses Beatrice and Eugenie, should be removed, also. They are only included in it because of their father, and it would be absurd for them to remain.

None of this would give the impression that the King considers his brother to be guilty of a crime. But it would make clear that Andrew’s behaviour, in consorting with a convicted sex offender and lying about it to the nation, is morally repugnant.

The King needs to remember that he is Supreme Governor of the Church of England and it’s his duty to provide moral leadership.