[imagesource: Richard Pohle / AFP via Getty Images]

A mother’s love knows no bounds.

For example, let’s say somebody settled out of court for around £12 million to avoid a jury trial on claims that he sexually abused and raped someone on three separate occasions when she was 17.

If the son was unable to pay, perhaps the mother would step in and fork out on his behalf, or something to that effect.

The recent release of Tina Brown’s book, The Palace Papers: Inside the House of Windsor – the Truth and the Turmoil, also paints a rather unflattering picture of Prince Andrew, saying he was “as oversexed as a boob-ogling adolescent”.

Queen Elizabeth II may be 96 but she’s still sticking up for her boy, with NewsAU reporting on news breaking “of not one but two extraordinary steps Her Majesty is taking to prop up the fragile ego and try and fix the tattered-beyond-repair reputation of the duke”.

Firstly, the man described as a “62-year-old unemployed father-of-two” (nailed it) is set to join the Queen for next month’s Garter Day ceremony on June 13.

There is no higher honour for a person, HRH or not, than to be made a Knight of the Order of the Garter, a chivalric order that dates back to 1348 and of which only 24 current members.

…not only will Andrew, who is a Garter Knight be front and centre, he will be listed the following day in the Court Circular using his styling as an HRH…

While the line the Palace has been seemingly trying to spin is that Andrew will only be taking part in the Garter ceremony in “a private capacity as a Royal Knight” that is nothing short of risible. Garter Day is the epitome of monarchical splendour and pomp and trying to sell his inclusion as “private” would be like trying to argue that Buckingham Palace is little more than fixer-upper.

In January, Buckingham Palace announced that Prince Andrew had been stripped of his military titles and had agreed to no longer use his HRH title in any official capacity.

There are fears that the Duke of York’s presence could overshadow events, with the current headline-grabbers being his attendance and Prince Harry’s non-attendance.

It is still possible that both Harry and Meghan attend a service at St Paul’s Cathedral to mark the Queen’s 70 years on the throne on Friday, June 3.

Then there’s the fact that the Queen doesn’t intend to appoint a new Colonel of the Grenadier Guards, a position Prince Andrew was also forced to give up:

The reason for Her Majesty’s demurring? Her son’s fragile ego.

While it had been rumoured that the sovereign would give the role to Kate, Duchess of Cambridge, now she is going to leave the position vacant “to spare the Duke of York’s embarrassment”.

“Military officials hoped a new royal colonel would be appointed before Trooping,” the Times’ royal editor Roya Nikkhah has reported, however, “the Queen is delaying the appointment to avoid ‘a dagger to the heart’ for her second son”.

Imagine pandering this much to a man who has brought such disgrace to the Royal Family?

In March, it was also reported that Her Majesty allowed Prince Andrew to remain a Vice Admiral in order to “cheer him up”.

“Chin up, old chap, forget about those sexual assault and rape accusations and remember that you’ll always be a Vice Admiral in mommy’s eyes.”

Regarding Harry and Meghan’s possible attendance, here’s royal historian Dr Ed Owens chatting to inews:

“This would seem to me to be an attempt at reconciliation.

“The Queen would prefer, as she nears the end of her reign, that old wounds are healed and that she leaves Prince Charles to take on the leadership of a family that is functioning and cohesive, even if some members of the family are no longer working royals.

“This is a way of using the spectacle of the Jubilee to expunge – at least publicly – the bad blood that has built up. This way the House of Windsor looks as though it is moving on from the past by putting on a united front.”

Allowing Prince Andrew to publicly appear alongside the Queen during her Jubilee celebrations is viewed by many as a possible serious misjudgement for the monarchy.

Really? Who would have thought?

[sources:newsau&inews]