The palace has left Prince Andrew to fight his own battles

The silence from the palace has been deafening since Jeffrey Epstein victim Virginia Robert Giuffre filed her bombshell lawsuit against the Duke of York, claiming that he sexually abused her when she was 17.

The language of the legal claim could not have been more lurid, saying: "Prince Andrew's actions... constitute extreme and outrageous conduct that shocks the conscience.

"Prince Andrew's sexual abuse of a child who he knew was a sex-trafficking victim, and when he was approximately 40 years old, goes beyond all possible bounds of decency and is intolerable in a civilised community."

The Duke, 61, vehemently denies the allegations, which have been filed under the New York Child Victims Act, which was signed into law in 2019 to prosecute historic childhood sexual abuse offences.

Yet despite him being very publicly accused of battery, sexual assault and the intentional infliction of emotional distress, neither the place nor the Duke's lawyers have been willing to issue a response.

While it may be a legal strategy to remain silent, staying schtum somewhat plays into the hands of US prosecutors who for months have complained about a lack of co-operation from the Queen's second son.

With the palace press office having seemingly washed its hands of the saga since Andrew stepped back from public life following his disastrous Newsnight interview in November 2019, he is effectively on his tod.

While his 95-year-old mother may be providing emotional support – having invited both Andrew and his ex-wife Sarah Ferguson, the Duchess of York, to Balmoral this week – he appears to have been completely divorced from Her Majesty's advisers.

Instead, he is being counselled by a tight-knit external PR team working hand in glove with his lawyers in a bid to clear both the air and his name.

Yet the ramifications caused by his gravely misjudged decision to visit Epstein in New York in December 2010 after he had been jailed for for procuring a child for prostitution and of soliciting a prostitute are still being felt by the institution, let alone the latest lawsuit.

It is fair to say the Duke was not a popular figure behind palace gates before his relationship with the billionaire padephile started making headlines, which may explain his growing sense of isolation.

Even his brother Prince Charles, mindful of the collateral damage caused by the scandal, cannot see a way back for him in the Royal family. The heir to the throne believes that – whatever the outcome of the civil claim for damages brought by Ms Giuffre – he still poses a reputational risk if he returns to public life.

As one source close to the future king put it: "He has long ago concluded that it is probably an unsolvable problem. This will probably further strengthen in the prince's mind that a way back for the duke is demonstrably not possible, because the spectre of this [accusation] raises its head with hideous regularity."

The problem for Andrew, and by association his royal relatives, is that despite protesting his innocence he has already been found guilty in the court of public opinion.

Even if Ms Giuffre's claims remain completely unproven, the general consensus is that we, as a country, have for years been victims of a pompous, arrogant fool who has spent much of his time since serving in the Falklands on a series of jollies, clocking up Air Miles at taxpayers' expense.

Even without the spectre of a two-year legal battle, Andrew remains a distinctly objectionable figure on the periphery of an establishment whose very survival depends on the popularity of its members.

Ultimately, the decision won't even be Charles's when he becomes king. If his subjects don't want the grand old Duke of York back in the royal fold, he's finished.