It’s not far enough. But removing the dukedom from him is a good start

This is all a tremendous relief. Imagine if a friend of a convicted paedophile had remained a member of the Most Noble Order of the Garter. Think how ridiculous that would have been. The order might never have recovered! But now, praise be, its other knights can go on rendering distinguished service to the monarch without being tarnished by association.

They’re all royal too, it should be noted; accidentally grand, pointlessly deferred to. But, with the exception of Andrew, they have managed to perform public duties over the years without consorting with Jeffrey Epstein or being accused of having sex with a 17-year-old trafficked from Florida – where 17 was, and is, below the age of consent.

Andrew denies the accusation. If he wasn’t royal, that might not have cut it. He might not have been able to tell the FBI he was ready to answer its questions and then not do so. He might have faced charges. As it is, the anti-monarchy pressure group Republic is not quite right to say not using silly medieval titles is not a punishment that fits the offence, because there is only an alleged offence. Because there has been no legal process. Because Andrew is a prince.

Even now. The reason given is that a 1917 law makes him one. This is like saying Rwanda is safe because parliament says so. It’s axiomatically cobblers. But then it’s all cobblers. Him being a prince, his brother a king, his nephew trudging thronewards because he hasn’t the wit to realise he’s just a person like the rest of us with every right to a first name and a surname and an appointment at his local Jobcentre.

Maybe it’s not too late. I doubt it, but William, if you’re reading, it doesn’t have to be like this. You could still do us all a favour by doing an Edward VIII – or a Harry, if you prefer.

In the meantime, Andrew not being a duke is a start.

Photograph by Adrian Dennis/AFP/Getty