When Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor was stripped of his titles last October, it was presented as a final act: a disgraced royal cut loose to protect the monarchy. The Epstein files suggest otherwise. Photographs and emails released by US authorities place Mr Mountbatten-Windsor deep inside Epstein’s network of favours. And they reveal an intimacy that goes far beyond poor judgment by the former prince.
This is no longer about salacious gossip or constitutional niceties, but about providing accountability to victims of sexual abuse. Mr Mountbatten-Windsor insists on his innocence yet refuses to cooperate with investigators. The US Congress continues to pursue Epstein’s connections. In Britain, parliament still averts its gaze. This looks untenable.
The details are jaw-dropping. Mr Mountbatten-Windsor engaged with Epstein’s offer of a “friend” for dinner, described as “26, Russian, beautiful, trustworthy”, despite the financier’s conviction for soliciting prostitution from a minor. He is pictured on all fours, looming over a woman lying on the floor. Other emails imply that the king’s brother proposed Buckingham Palace as a discreet meeting place with Epstein. He appeared to ask the financier how to dodge personal investment restrictions. As UK trade envoy, he apparently lobbied foreign states on Epstein’s behalf.
The former prince’s claim that he broke with Epstein in December 2010 collapsed last year. Fresh emails now suggest that warm, regular exchanges followed. Such confidence in asserting a provable falsehood only makes sense if Mr Mountbatten-Windsor believed himself untouchable. The allegation that he sexually assaulted Virginia Giuffre when she was 17 was denied, but resolved through a reported £12m settlement without any admission of guilt. Now a second alleged victim has told the BBC she was flown to Britain by Epstein to provide sexual services to Mr Mountbatten-Windsor at Royal Lodge in 2010. Legal records also cite an exotic dancer who says she was pressured into sex acts involving both men in 2006. He denies any wrongdoing.
These files expose an influential elite that believed itself beyond the law. That is why they matter politically. Mr Mountbatten-Windsor should testify to the House of Representatives oversight committee. His apparent closeness to Epstein after his conviction means he could help identify accomplices and institutional failures. Does Mr Mountbatten-Windsor not want to help Epstein’s victims?
Public anger is brewing against the monarchy – a keystone of a political order in urgent need of radical reconstruction, along with the electoral system and the upper house. It would seem absurd for the prime minister to ask Mr Mountbatten-Windsor to give evidence to US lawmakers, but not to MPs. The monarchy is not accountable to parliament. Commons rules bar “reflections” on the royals, rendering meaningful debate taboo. In 2011 David Cameron relinquished MPs’ oldest check on royal power: control of the purse. His government replaced annual scrutiny of palace finances with an automatic transfer of crown estate revenues.
The royal family’s defenders claim that they were once the country’s moral anchor. That was rarely, if ever, true. But the Epstein files reveal where entitlement without restraint, and privilege without responsibility, can lead. Parliament could act to reintroduce accountability and demand transparency of royal activity if it chose to. It should not take Mr Mountbatten-Windsor’s failings to see that deference is a choice; impunity is its consequence.
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 ’
