Why King Charles should call on Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor to testify about Jeffrey Epstein to US Congress
Questions remain over what Buckingham Palace knew, and when
Were it not self-evident at the time, it is now blindingly obvious that the decision to strip Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor of his baubles and grace-and-favour comforts in no way insulates the monarchy from ongoing criticism amidst one of the biggest scandals in its history.
Last week, Thames Valley Police said it was assessing allegations that Jeffrey Epstein sent a woman to Mountbatten-Windsor’s then residence, Royal Lodge in Windsor, for a sexual encounter. The latest tranche of files released by the US Department of Justice also suggested that the former Duke of York appeared to have knowingly shared confidential information with Epstein stemming from his official role as a trade envoy.
It is no coincidence that in the wake of these disclosures, key members of the Royal Family chose to make their first interventions in the Epstein affair. Kensington Palace said William and Kate were “deeply concerned” at the continuing revelations, and that their thoughts “remain focused on the victims”, while Buckingham Palace said King Charles had made clear his “profound concern” at the allegations, and was “ready to support” the Thames Valley force with its investigations.
Existential questions remain
These statements may have been unprecedented, but they tell us nothing. One exchange contained in the slew of newly released files underlines this point – an email from Epstein to an associate of Mountbatten-Windsor, asking him about arranging a dinner with a “beautiful friend” in London.
No further correspondence confirms whether any meeting took place, but the email was sent more than five years after Epstein’s 2008 conviction for soliciting sex from a minor. Other emails indicate that the associate regularly communicated with Epstein between 2009 and 2017. That in itself is not evidence that they were aware of what went on, and Mountbatten-Windsor himself has denied any wrongdoing in relation to Epstein.
But the whole affair raises existential questions that the monarchy must address. Chief among them is exactly what Buckingham Palace and members of the Royal Household knew about Mountbatten-Windsor’s conduct in his dealings with Epstein, and crucially, when.
A useful starting point would be for the king to publicly call on his brother to testify before the US Congress. He should also approve the full disclosure of any internal investigations that were carried out by Buckingham Palace – whether with or without the Cabinet Office’s assistance – and release every recorded visit by Epstein to royal residences.
Time for parliamentary scrutiny
When he ascended to the throne, the mood music indicated that Charles's reign would be one of modernity and openness, but the only concession to transparency to date has surrounded his own health issues. In any case, the release of information about the monarchy’s knowledge of Mountbatten-Windsor’s conduct should not be dependent on the king’s impulses, or prompts from an active police investigation.
It is time, surely, to sweep away another few outmoded traditions, and ensure that the royals are no longer afforded a shield from parliamentary scrutiny, allowing Mountbatten-Windsor and other members of his family to appear before MPs, and to be subject to freedom of information requests.
Such calls have been advanced previously by those who wish to see greater accountability of royal spending. That argument has merit, but the deepening Epstein scandal is a uniquely compelling case for letting daylight flood in upon the magic.
Comments
Want to join the conversation? Please or to comment on this article.