Every Christmas I remember a ticking-off from my late mother-in-law, an observant Roman Catholic, after I'd jeered at some celebrity for being as thick as brandy butter. 'It's not a sin to be stupid,' she said. Her point was that people like me attach too much weight to intelligence, treating it as a virtue akin to goodness when we ought to see it as a mere accident of birth. Those born a sausage or two short of a full English were to be pitied, not mocked.
![[On the evidence so far, the only fault of which he may be guilty in this case is being a lousy judge of character. This is hardly an offence deserving total ostracism, writes Tom Utley]](https://i.dailymail.co.uk/1s/2024/12/19/21/93328197-14211153-On_the_evidence_so_far_the_only_fault_of_which_he_may_be_guilty_-a-60_1734643475520.jpg)
Well, I can't pretend that I've always abided by my mother-in-law's stricture in newspaper columns I've written over the years. But bearing her lesson in mind, and in the spirit of Christmas peace and goodwill, I feel moved today to make what may be a most unpopular suggestion: shouldn't we try to be a bit kinder to Prince Andrew – or, failing that, at least a little fairer?.
I don't know about you but I find something ugly about the lynch mob gleefully descending on him, yet again, this time over his embarrassing association with a man now suspected of being a Chinese spy. It looks like bullying to me. Much to my surprise, I felt a pang of sympathy for him over his withdrawal from yesterday's traditional Christmas lunch at the Palace for the extended Royal Family, apparently after pressure from on high and a quiet word from his ex-wife, Fergie.
Indeed, I find myself in the same difficulty as Emily Maitlis, the interviewer whose grilling precipitated his fall into the abyss. Where this latest episode is concerned, at least, she and I both find it hard to see exactly what Andrew has done wrong.
