This is very interesting from Norman Baker about QE2 insisting on the TE role for favourite soon. (I have copied and pasted, it was from an interview on R4 with Evan Davis). It's interesting and Baker has hit the nail on the head AFAIC
Norman Baker: He was appointed because the Queen was very keen he should be appointed. And that, I suppose, is not a surprise because he was her favourite son, although it’s the first time it’s been confirmed. It’s also been strongly rumoured and not denied that Prince Charles, as he then was, was against the appointment of Andrew, knowing what he was like.
And it was also clear from the papers released recently that there was no proper procedure to vet him or assessment.
Evan Davis: I mean, he was a member of the royal family. You probably find that for lots of royal postings of this sort of ambassadorial kind, they’re not vetted and there’s no security procedure or anything like that, because they’re — well, they’re members of the royal family.
Norman Baker: Well, I think Andrew’s position was a bit different because, you know, when the Queen or Prince Philip or Charles or anyone else went abroad to represent the country, they were going to a specific country for a particular purpose, on the instructions almost, and direction from the Foreign Office. Andrew was not in that situation. He was loosely associated with the Department of Trade and Industry, as it then was, and he was seen to make up his own schedule.
He decided which countries he would go to. But the other factor is that very soon it became apparent — there was ambassadorial representation to the Foreign Office — that he was totally unsuitable for this role. He was known by ambassadors abroad, our ambassadors, as “His Buffoon Highness” One of them actually wrote that and said, please take him away from this role.
So that was happening in 2002, 2003, and he was allowed to carry on for a further 8 or 9 years.
Evan Davis: And there are obviously questions that should be asked around whether he did the job and people should have managed him through that role differently. What’s the bigger conclusion you make? I mean, the Queen lobbied for her son to get the job. Does she have to take responsibility for him having that role when it’s not her job to appoint the trade envoy? She can lobby for whatever she wants, no?
Norman Baker: I think the problem here is one of deference — deference from successive governments to the royal family. If the Queen made it known she wanted that appointment made, no one would stand up and say “that’s not a good idea, ma’am.” They would have gone along with it. And I think the lesson really is that it should be much more professional in terms of how you handle the royal family, rather than letting them have a free rein to do what they want.
Evan Davis: Where does this go now, Norman? I mean, obviously we’ve now seen what we’ve seen. The history is history, it’s all been done. Where does it go?
Norman Baker: I think we need to know exactly what happened. Rather than relying on bits and pieces emerging here and there, from the United States and everything else, the British government will have records of where he went, who he met, what deals if any were struck. And we need to have that released for information. Of course, the royal family has largely exempted itself from freedom of information, but here’s an opportunity to correct that. Let’s have the facts as to what exactly happened during his trade envoy time — time to find out, frankly, whether there’s any cause to take any particular matters further.