The Duke of York faces an “uphill struggle” to combat the impact of the sex offences allegations made against him and has already lost in the court of public opinion, leaving his reputation “highly tarnished” and a return to royal duties impossible, experts have said. Following a damaging two weeks in which Andrew’s accuser Virginia Roberts Giuffre lodged a civil lawsuit in New York alleging he had sex with her when she was 17, and a source claimed he was a “person of interest” in the Jeffrey Epstein investigation, the duke is now caught “between a rock and a hard place,” said one expert. There has been silence from Andrew – who denies all allegations against him – and his legal team over the latest twists in the long-running case. A day after Giuffre lodged her claims, he headed for Balmoral with his ex-wife Sarah, Duchess of York, in time for the opening of the grouse shooting season. Buckingham Palace has consistently distanced itself from Andrew’s travails, referring any inquiries to the duke’s personal legal and PR teams. However, that the Queen invited him to Balmoral, and that she authorised him to lead public tributes after the death of Prince Philip, indicates her personal support, royal observers believe. Prince Charles, who is staying at nearby Birkhall, his Scottish residence, has also remained publicly silent. The gathering in Scotland should not necessarily lead to conclusions the family are addressing the crisis, said the royal author Penny Junor. “The Queen is not good at confrontation. I don’t think Charles enjoys it either. It may be they did nothing but talk about grandchildren. It’s not a family of communicators,” she said. Of Andrew’s future, she said: “I think he does not really have a future as a working member of the royal family. Because, whatever the reality, the PR has been so bad that I think his reputation is damaged for ever. The public perception is he’s a condemned man.” Giuffre’s lawyers filed the civil suit at a New York federal court last week seeking unspecified damages, with documents claiming she was “lent out for sexual purposes” by Epstein, including while she was still a minor under US law. Andrew is named as the only defendant in the 15-page suit, though Epstein and his ex- girlfriend Ghislaine Maxwell are also mentioned throughout. Nick Goldstone, the head of dispute resolution at the international law firm Ince, said he did not think Andrew would engage with the civil claim, which left the duke’s reputation “highly tarnished”. “I see the civil claim as being a way of trying to flush him out, because they have tried other ways and it’s not worked,” he said. “I don’t think he will engage. Silence shouldn’t be taken as an admission of guilt. But in the court of public opinion, I think he’s already lost.” Giuffre’s case was brought under New York legislation with no equivalent in English law, and because it is a civil case, Andrew is not compelled to engage as he would if there were criminal proceedings against him, Goldstone said. Giuffre could succeed in obtaining a default judgment against him for damages, which would not necessarily be enforceable under UK law, he said. But it would be enforceable in New York. “Therefore the defendant will effectively have to stay away from the New York jurisdiction for the rest of his time. He could be served with an enforcement order as soon as he steps across JFK’s customs line. And if he has any assets in New York, they could be subject to enforcement.” Mark Stephens, of Howard Kennedy law firm, who was an adviser on the Harry Dunn case, said Andrew faced an “uphill struggle”. “He’s caught between a rock and a hard place. If he gives an interview, like he did with Emily Maitlis, he is condemned out of his own mouth. If he stays silent, he’s damned by his own silence. So neither is a good option.” But a worse option could be Andrew having to go into detail about his private life, which could be “far more harmful that this kind of Neverland of opprobrium that he’s got at the moment”, Stephens added. “And so his legal strategy, combined with the reputational strategy, is it can only get worse by giving an account. Therefore, ‘we don’t do anything, we just sit tight.’” There was more headache for the royals as lawyers for the Duke and Duchess of Sussex denied suggestions the couple had “reignited a rift” with the Queen with an updated version of their unauthorised biography Finding Freedom. A new epilogue to the book says the Queen’s comment that “some recollections may vary” over the couple’s grievances “did not go unnoticed by the couple, who a source said were ‘not surprised’ that full ownership was not taken.” Lawyers acting for the Sussexes have said the comments did not represent a new development from the couple. The Sussexes have previously said they did not collaborate with the book’s authors.