{"id":2271076,"date":"2026-02-07T07:19:24","date_gmt":"2026-02-07T07:19:24","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/celebrity.land\/en\/?p=2271076"},"modified":"2026-02-07T07:19:24","modified_gmt":"2026-02-07T07:19:24","slug":"the-guardian-view-on-andrew-mountbatten-windsor-driven-by-a-belief-that-his-status-made-him-untouchable-editorial","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/celebrity.land\/en\/the-guardian-view-on-andrew-mountbatten-windsor-driven-by-a-belief-that-his-status-made-him-untouchable-editorial\/","title":{"rendered":"The Guardian view on Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor: driven by a belief that his status made him untouchable | Editorial"},"content":{"rendered":"

<\/p>\n

\n

W<\/span>hen Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor was stripped of his titles last October<\/a>, it was presented as a final act: a disgraced royal cut loose to protect the monarchy. The Epstein files<\/a> suggest otherwise. Photographs and emails <\/a>released by US authorities place Mr Mountbatten-Windsor deep inside Epstein\u2019s network of favours. And they reveal an intimacy that goes far beyond poor judgment by the former prince.<\/p>\n

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<\/a> yet refuses to cooperate with investigators. The US Congress<\/a> continues to pursue Epstein\u2019s connections. In Britain, parliament still averts its gaze. This looks untenable.<\/p>\n

The details are jaw-dropping. Mr Mountbatten-Windsor engaged with Epstein\u2019s offer of a \u201cfriend\u201d for dinner, described as \u201c26, Russian, beautiful, trustworthy\u201d<\/a>, despite the financier\u2019s conviction for soliciting prostitution from a minor<\/a>. He is pictured<\/a> on all fours, looming over a woman lying on the floor. Other emails imply that the king\u2019s brother proposed Buckingham Palace<\/a> as a discreet meeting place with Epstein. He appeared to ask the financier how to dodge personal investment restrictions<\/a>. As UK trade envoy, he apparently lobbied<\/a> foreign states on Epstein\u2019s behalf.<\/p>\n

The former prince\u2019s 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<\/a> when she was 17 was denied, but resolved through a reported \u00a312m settlement<\/a> without any admission of guilt. Now a second alleged victim has told the BBC<\/a> she was flown to Britain by Epstein to provide sexual services to Mr Mountbatten-Windsor at Royal Lodge in 2010. Legal records<\/a> also cite an exotic dancer who says she was pressured into sex acts involving both men in 2006. He denies any wrongdoing.<\/p>\n

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 <\/a>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\u2019s victims?<\/p>\n

Public anger<\/a> is brewing against the monarchy \u2013 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<\/a> 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 \u201creflections<\/a>\u201d on the royals, rendering meaningful debate taboo. In 2011 David Cameron<\/a> relinquished MPs\u2019 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.<\/p>\n

The royal family\u2019s defenders claim that they were once the country\u2019s moral anchor<\/a>. 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<\/a> of royal activity if it chose to. It should not take Mr Mountbatten-Windsor\u2019s failings to see that deference is a choice; impunity is its consequence.<\/p>\n