In just the same way that phone hacking was, for as long as it was possible to do so, blamed on “one rogue reporter”, it feels as if the walls have closed off Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor, leaving him on the outside as “one rogue Royal”.
Mountbatten-Windsor, the brother of the King, continues to deny any wrongdoing in relation to his longstanding friendship with Jeffrey Epstein and accusations of abuse by Epstein’s victims. But despite that, Mountbatten-Windsor has been stripped of his royal titles and forced out of his grace-and-favour home in Windsor Royal Park. He now lives in “exile” in a cottage in Norfolk.
These actions by the monarchy serve an implicit narrative: whatever Mountbatten-Windsor has done to bring himself into disrepute is on his own head. When Buckingham Palace learned of the various scandals, it took action. The problem isn’t with the system, but with Mountbatten-Windsor as an individual.
The disclosure by the Government of papers relating to Mountbatten-Windsor’s time as trade envoy for Britain – forced by a humble address to Parliament by the Liberal Democrats – shows up the many holes in this narrative for all of us to see.
The former Queen herself intervened directly to secure the role for Mountbatten-Windsor, long said to be her favourite child, and his royal office set out the terms upon which he would be willing to carry out his royal trade duties. “He tended to prefer the more sophisticated countries,” the head of the protocol division noted in one startling observation and preferred “ballet rather than theatre”.
The Government and monarchy alike were attentive to Mountbatten-Windsor’s every need, big and small. The indirect effect of this was far more powerful than just making sure Mountbatten-Windsor got the entertainment of his choice on official trips.
It was widely known that he had the personal backing of the Queen, and through his official trade role, the Government of the day. Anyone going up against Mountbatten-Windsor – such as Epstein’s victims – would be all too aware of that, and of the magnitude of what they would be up against if they tried to take him on.
I encountered this myself when I wrote in 2015 about Mountbatten-Windsor being named in a US court case brought by Virginia Giuffre. Buckingham Palace itself handled the media response for Mountbatten-Windsor. First, it sniffily claimed that it would “never comment on an ongoing legal matter”.
When we published the story anyway, Buckingham Palace changed its mind. An official spokesperson for the Royal Family then said that “any suggestion of impropriety with underage minors is categorically untrue”.
For years, Mountbatten-Windsor had the benefit of both the royal and the Government machinery behind him. When, much later, he paid a multi-million-pound settlement to Giuffre, it was the late Queen who provided the majority of the money.
Epstein’s victims, and those who claim to have been abused by Mountbatten-Windsor, have had to do everything for themselves. By contrast, until very recently, Mountbatten-Windsor has had the machinery of the British state at his beck and call. These new files are a brutal reminder of that – and of the need for us to reckon with it, so that it can never happen again.
‘ The preceding article may include information circulated by third parties ’
‘ Some details of this article were extracted from the following source inews.co.uk ’
