I can't link it because I can't find it but The Times (British broadsheet) came out with a strong editorial today, referring to the Andrew mess and calling for a slimmed down monarchy. The leader stated 'no royal family is permanent or indispensable.'
Finally found it! I subscribe to "The Times" online but it's only in the last half hour that I have learned how to search for articles. I have been under-utilising the resource!
Starts by summarising the allegations against Epstein, refers to photos of Andrew with the topless girls on the yacht, to claims evidence against Epstein has been covered up following lobbying by "political and social connections", that women have refused to answer questions about Andrew's involvement, noting names of persons listed in Epstein's contacts book, the claim prosecutors are refusing to release important evidence, refers to the plea bargain and allegation US attorney’s office promised Epstein that he would not be prosecuted for the sexual abuse of 30 under-age girls if he admitted a lesser charge, to letter from Robert's lawyer to Attorney-General in 2008 in which he said Epstein “may be the most dangerous sexual predator that the country has ever seen”, refers to the three women who refused to give self-incriminating evidence when interviewed about Prince Andrew and other matters, and sets out the terms of the questions they would not answer.
It then goes on to talk about Andrew's life since he left the navy. Then says:
"Whatever the veracity of these claims, it is clear that while Prince Andrew’s life out of uniform has not been short of entertainment, it has been short of structure. He has been content to craft for himself the portfolio existence of a freelance royal. He has depended too much on his friends to help to support a lifestyle that, even as a scion of one of Britain’s richest families, he could not fund himself. And he has chosen those friends poorly."
Then discussion about the changes over the last 2 decades with HM starting to pay tax, cost cutting and savings including the sale of the R.Y. Britannia, and proceeds to say the RF is too big and needs to be streamlined, for the sake of the family and the country.
"As elected leaders wrestle with tight budgets and taxpayers struggle to fund them, it is only right that the royal family cuts its cloth accordingly. This is not only a question of funds, but of expectations and an evolving sense of what the monarchy stands for. It has endured as a symbol of constancy and as a ceremonial focal point at times of national mourning and celebration. To go on enduring it must become more like the royal families that coexist comfortably with modernity elsewhere in Europe, and less like the retrograde clichés foisted on it by an endlessly fascinated media."
It then says that the monarchy's official duties should be performed by HM and those in direct line to succeed her, that others (Anne, Harry and Andrew) have set inspiring examples but have been most constructive when gainfully employed. "Outside such roles they represent more of a risk than a benefit to the royal family."
[Comment: Don't understand the remark about Anne, who is one of the most productive and impressive, since she has never been "gainfully employed". Maybe she's the exception that proves the rule.]
"For too long Prince Andrew has lacked a real role. He has tried and failed to find one because he has been looking in the wrong place. It is not unreasonable to suggest that his predicament is a by-product of this fruitless search; or to exhort younger members of the “firm” to learn from this urgent cautionary tale, forget their lineage and make their own ways in the world."
Concluding paragraph points out that, according to its website, Britain’s royal family has 18 official members, notes that Sweden’s and Belgium’s have nine, Denmark’s seven and Norway’s five, all keeping official numbers low by making clear distinctions between those with representative duties and those without, then says, "The House of Windsor needs more clarity along these lines. More importantly, it needs a clearer vision of itself, not as a crisis-prone family business but as a family led by the head of state. Last year Spain’s king abdicated; this year his daughter could face trial for fraud. No royal family is indispensable, or permanent."