Curious that the Epstein scandal, which has caused such an overwhelming furore in the US, should so far have done more to damage the British royal family than the US presidency. Even though many Americans have an obsession with the minutiae of the monarchy and all its works – despite proudly revolting against the institution themselves 250 years ago – their concerns have understandably focused more on their own big beasts, Donald Trump and the Clintons, than ours. It’s as if King Charles and his brother, the artist now known as Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor, are some quaint curlicue, a baroque adornment to the main event. Which, of course, is how they see the British monarchy anyway.
Kings and queens have always been susceptible to men with money and power. In the past they were able to bestow both on their loyal followers. Now it is more transactional. It is evident that what appealed to Epstein was access to class and status: the chance to sit jokily on the throne in Buckingham Palace or have a weekend in Balmoral or Sandringham and thereby tie a susceptible royal into his web of contacts and obligations. What appealed to Andrew and his importunate and permanently hard-up former wife, Sarah, was access to cash and the luxuries that went with it. Hard to believe given the royal family’s wealth, but what probably appealed most was cosying up to the sort of money that has brownstone mansions in Manhattan to stay in and private islands for holidays in the Caribbean.
There is no evidence that King Charles or his heir knew of, or even met, the egregious Epstein but, more than six years after the American’s death, he still sticks to and smears the institution. The king may have gone as far as he can in distancing the family from his brother, removing his titles, kicking him out of his grace-and-favour home in Windsor Great Park and moving him to the agreeable wilds of Norfolk, but the malady lingers on. Humiliation isn’t enough – what kills the monarchy is entitlement. The entertaining royal soap opera has reached a bitter stage.
Will we see Mountbatten-Windsor testifying in court, or even to Congress? Despite years ago professing a wish to be helpful to the inquiry in Washington, he has shown absolutely no sign of being willing to do so, even by video link, and it is hard to know how he can be made to comply as a foreign national. Judging by his interview with Emily Maitlis in 2019, he would make an unimpressive witness and perhaps that has finally been brought home to him, but his continuing absence and refusal to testify say nothing for the honour he was so proud to claim to the BBC. Perhaps our abiding image of him will be from that photograph released late last week of a glistening (so he does sweat), startled, plump middle-aged man looming over the body of a recumbent woman at some shadowy party somewhere, sometime.
But even without Andrew – who of course denies all wrongdoing and doesn’t even properly express contrition or disgust at his former friend’s apparent industrial-scale sex trafficking of underage girls – the royal family is in a mess.
The king, in his late 70s, is hobbled by his cancer diagnosis and ongoing treatment, realising that his reign may be short. Meanwhile, Prince William is not on speaking terms with his younger brother, with little sign of reconciliation – if that is even possible after all the disobliging things Harry said about his relatives in his book and intermittent interviews. It’s hard to remember now, but a decade ago the brothers, riding a tide of goodwill, were the bright hope of the institution: the pair who would take over the bulk of royal duties from their granny and their ageing relatives and conduct the endless round of visits and events that are meant to maintain the royals’ visibility and public popularity. The longevity that used to be part of the institution’s strength is on the wane and it will be at least 15 years before the next generation of royals – George, Charlotte and Louis – can step up. That’s even if they want to do so.
Some of the sins of the current institution lie with the late queen, who followed her parents in comfortable complacency. It was not her fault that she lived too long, but it was that she did not rein in the excesses of her second son, who had been known to be a liability for at least 20 years. The monarchy must change now, radically. But will it? To do so would go against its nature.
Do you have an opinion on the issues raised in this article? If you would like to submit a response of up to 300 words by email to be considered for publication in our letters section, please click here.
‘ The preceding article may include information circulated by third parties ’
‘ Some details of this article were extracted from the following source www.theguardian.com ’
