The BBC’s Emily Maitlis forensically chased Andrew through his excuses for his long friendship with Jeffrey Epstein, and allegations involving the abuse and exploitation of young women and girls. Some highlights. Interviewer: “In 2008 [Epstein] was convicted of soliciting and procuring a minor for prostitution, he was jailed, this was your friend, how did you feel about it?” Andrew: “It was one of those things that somebody’s going through that sort of thing well I’m terribly sorry I can’t be ... see you.” Interviewer: “[In] December of 2010 you went to stay with him at his New York mansion, why?”

Loading Andrew: “I went there with the sole purpose of saying to him that because he had been convicted, it was inappropriate for us to be seen together… and I felt that doing it over the telephone was the chicken’s way of doing it.” Interviewer: “Yet you stayed at that New York mansion several days.” Andrew: “It was a convenient place to stay.” Interviewer: “Do you regret the whole friendship with Epstein?”

Andrew: “Now, still not and the reason being is that the people that I met and the opportunities that I was given to learn ... I could easily have gone and stayed somewhere else but sheer convenience of being able to get a hold of the man.” Interviewer: “One of the Epstein’s accusers, Virginia Roberts, says she [had] sex with you in a house in Belgravia.” Andrew: “I was with the children and I’d taken Beatrice to a Pizza Express in Woking… going to Pizza Express in Woking is an unusual thing for me to do.” He deployed as alibis the claims he does not sweat or “hug”. Then the kicker: Andrew: “Do I regret the fact that [Epstein] has quite obviously conducted himself in a manner unbecoming? Yes.”

Interviewer: “Unbecoming? He was a sex offender.” Andrew: ‘Yeah, I’m sorry, I’m being polite.’ Prince Andrew pictured with Virginia Roberts in 2001 at Ghislaine Maxwell's townhouse. But most damning, for most, was what the prince didn’t say – any unqualified statement of remorse and sympathy for Epstein’s victims. The response has been universally damning: disgust, mockery and withering criticism.

Former Buckingham Palace press officer Dickie Arbiter predicted damage to the Duke of York’s relationships with various charities – his work concentrates on entrepreneurship and education and he has more than 200 patronages. The episode was also a case study in royalty’s worst personality traits: the sense of entitlement and amused detachment from responsibility. It impacts more than just Andrew's reputation. There are reports the Queen gave the prince approval to do the interview – a theory backed up by the use of the palace as the backdrop. Others say it was Andrew’s bullheaded insistence that made it happen; the Queen was “aware” of the interview but had not approved it. Jason Stein, the Duke’s press secretary, left the Palace by mutual agreement last month, reportedly after disagreements over the handling of the Epstein allegations. Certainly the interview broke the cardinal rule of crisis PR: if you have nothing to say, don’t say it. And it’s hard to find a useful message for Andrew in this 45 minutes apart from a few firm denials (which had already been done by press release).

Loading It is likely to encourage, rather than discourage, calls for him to give evidence to the ongoing investigation in the US. On the other hand the bland PR-speak of modern public life is a blight on society and a barrier to transparency. If Andrew is to be praised for anything, it’s making himself available and answering questions instead of engaging lawyers, let alone his brain. In the end, what you think of the interview and the implications depends almost entirely on what you think the royal family is for. As recent events in the UK have shown, the constitutional role of the Queen is now just a cipher for government’s executive power.