The Jeffrey Epstein scandal has exposed a constitutional blind spot: royal privilege remains beyond democratic scrutiny. MPs must be able to question power
The tragic story of Virginia Giuffre raises the question of who governs when royal privilege and public outrage collide. As a vulnerable teenager she was drawn into a world of sexual exploitation by the disgraced financier Jeffrey Epstein. Ms Giuffre alleged that Epstein trafficked her and that she was forced to have sex with Prince Andrew on three occasions, including when she was 17. He has denied all the claims. Despite previously insisting he had no memory of meeting her, the prince reportedly paid £12m to settle her civil case in 2022. The money was said to have come from his mother, the late queen – who, just six weeks later, was photographed walking beside him at her husband’s memorial service.
With a posthumous memoir, Ms Giuffre has brought the issue back into the spotlight. In his calamitous 2019 Newsnight interview, Prince Andrew claimed that he cut all ties with Epstein after their December 2010 meeting in New York. But leaked emails from just two months later told a different story; with Prince Andrew asking to keep in touch and writing that “we’ll play some more soon!!!!” The Metropolitan police is now looking into claims that King Charles’s brother asked his protection officers to look into Ms Giuffre. He has agreed not to use his royal titles, notably Duke of York, but that is a voluntary renunciation, not a legal one. Across homes, pubs and radio phone-ins, people are debating whether he should be stripped of his titles. But in parliament the subject is taboo, barred by rules against “reflections” on the royals.
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.
Continue reading...
