Prince Andrew first addressed his dealings with Jeffrey Epstein in a BBC Newsnight interview with Emily Maitlis, famously using the alibi of being at a Pizza Express party in Woking instead of London’s Tramp nightclub – far from the likes of the reprehensible night he was allegedly having with Virginia Giuffre, who accused the Royal of sexual assault.
The Duke of York used a series of seemingly unfounded and ill-thought through explanations to excuse himself from any involvement in Epstein’s sex trafficking scandal, yet many of these have been questioned and refuted by experts. For example, Andrew discredited Giuffre’s claim that he was ‘sweaty’ from dancing with her at the club, as he had a medical condition from ‘adrenaline overdose’ from the Falklands War. Yet, medical professionals have disputed this response, explaining that such a condition would most likely cause the obverse to what he had claimed. Giuffre has since filed a suit against the Duke of York in the Southern District Court of New York under the state’s Child Victims Act, a law drafted to hold abusers accountable for the sexual abuse of minors under the age of 18, thus prompting a response from the Royal Family in an attempt to remedy the situation and protect their reputation. Prince Andrew has always denied any allegations of sexual misconduct.
In 2019, Prince Andrew stepped down from his royal duties, publicly stating: “it has become clear to be over the past few days that my association with Jeffrey Epstein has become a major disruption to my family’s work and the valuable work going on in the many organisations and charities that I am proud to support, therefore, I have asked Her Majesty if I can step back from public duties for the foreseeable future”. yet this was merely the beginning of the prince’s retraction from the public sphere. Last week, Andrew was stripped of his ‘HRH’ title alongside his military affiliations and Royal patronages which have been returned to The Queen. This has come following the outrage of veterans who articulated their view on the matter, stating that, ‘were this any other senior military officer it is inconceivable that he would still be in post’. The British Army upholds a strict code of moral conduct, exalting the importance of discipline, professionalism, and respect – qualities that the Duke of York has failed to possess. Lt Stuart Hunt has shed further light on the matter claiming that, “guilty or not, he has brought things into disrepute… he is not fit to serve in an honorary rank. He has forgone that right by getting into this sort of mess”.
The stripping of the Duke of York’s titles implies that he will never return to public life, yet he still retains these titles privately, much like Harry and Meghan. As a figurehead of Britain, and further yet the Commonwealth, Andrew is required to serve as a role model to us all, thus it is rightfully so that he has been stripped of any public powers. However, has enough been done to denounce the abhorrent behaviour which he has been accused of displaying? Whilst it must be noted the crimes that he has been accused of remain only as accusations, it is a known fact that the prince remained in contact with Epstein following his conviction for sex offences against a minor and the two had fostered a very close relationship since around 1990. This, I would argue, undeniably proves a large degree of moral laxity in a figurehead who is expected to uphold the values which underpin our nation. It is thus shocking that the prince still remains 9th in line for the throne.
The then 40-year-old Prince Andrew can be seen pictured next to 17-year-old Virginia Giuffre with his hand intimately placed around her waist. Due to his close relationships with both Ghislaine Maxwell and Jeffrey Epstein it would be naïve to assume that the Prince was unaware of their dealings, thus making this photo (which Prince Andrew’s legal team has claimed could have been faked) all the more incriminating. Whilst greater evidence and investigation is of course needed in a court of law to give Giuffre the justice she deserves, the evidence already available to us (not least to mention his involvement in other scandals which have since been brushed under the carpet) should be more than sufficient to procure a more appropriate response from the Royal Family by entirely expunging him from the British Monarchy. Whilst any further measures seem unlikely to be taken throughout the course of legal debates, Prince Andrew currently stands as a disgraced member of the Royal Family who, despite his place in the line of succession, receives no official income from The Queen (though it is rumoured he is still offered handouts by many of the Royals). He will thus have to fund his extravagant lifestyle through his life savings and £20,000 annual pension from the Royal Navy.
Perhaps after the publicity he has afforded them, the Pizza Express in Woking might be so kind as to offer him a job as head chef as a means of contributing towards a replacement ski chalet.
