Why royalty always goes unpunished: Prince Andrew's sex scandal and royal sovereign pardon

Text/Harriet Williamson; trans

Editor's note: Speaking of the British royal family, prince Andrew, Duke of York, has also attracted the attention of public opinion in his personal relationship with sex offender Jeffrey Epstein. As a Member of the British Royal Family, Prince Andrew's long-term duty was to play a "charismatic tool". With this scene of corruption exposed, his role is more questionable than ever. Sovereign immunity has helped royals escape justice in the past, but it is unclear whether it will help Prince Andrew's sensitive personal relationship with Epstein. Once again, The British public may begin to ask the stark question: Why are members of the royal family able to go unpunished? Harriet Williamson is a journalist, mental health activist and artist. This article was originally published in Foreign Policy.

Prince Andrew

"Epstein didn't act alone, so my next step is to put others in charge: those involved in this and those who were really involved... The monsters are still at large, and they are abusing others. ”

That's what Virginia Roberts Giuffre said in a Netflix documentary about the late Jeffrey Epstein, a financier, socialite and sex offender. She said Epstein trafficked her, raped and abused her for years, eventually fleeing to Australia.

She also accused Prince Andrew, Duke of York, of being a participant in Epstein's horrific abuse network.

With the advent of new documents in the Epstein case, the allegations became a time bomb for the British royal family. Andrew is not ahead of the curve in the order of succession to the throne, but the "toxic world" revealed by his relationship with Epstein has cost him and the rest of the Windsor family dearly. The existence of petty royals has long been intended to act as a "charismatic tool" in the world of international relations; as corruption is exposed, their role is more questionable than ever.

"I can tell you definitively that I don't remember seeing her at all." The prince said of Roberts Guiffer. Despite the photographs as evidence, the "haphazard dismissal" of its accusers reveals the terrible truth. Even before the scandal, however, andrew's activities were problematic, including his involvement in "arms sales to corrupt and repressive regimes with a long history of human rights violations"; his 12 separate meetings with the President of Azerbaijan forcing the prince to resign as Britain's trade envoy; and his corruption of securing £385 million ($500 million) in Contracts for Swiss and Greek clients in Kazakhstan for his own economic gain.

However, in securing the arms deal and currying favor with the powerful, Andrew (in a way) did just what a small royal family should do. "Candidates" (rather than "heirs") have long been used as a diplomatic and trade tool for Britain, sent to add some charm to a tyrant or oil millionaire somewhere. Their charity work received more attention – not just because of buckingham palace propaganda – but "warm hospitality for those who were bad" was a key part of royal diplomacy.

But the Epstein affair was much more than that, especially since it was beyond the normal affairs of the state. Friendships with Central Asian oligarchs and Middle Eastern princes may be morally problematic, but at least under the cover of government obligations. Meanwhile, Andrew's relationship with Epstein was purely personal. When he was interviewed on 16 November 2019 by BBC journalist Emily Maitlis on a "car accident", he denied having sex with Roberts Geefer, saying he and his daughter Beatrice were at Pizza Express in the Woking area at the time. This spawned a whole new series of memes and tweets that mocked this "very specific" denial.

In the interview, he also admitted to living in a mansion in Manhattan for three days in 2010, even though Epstein had been convicted two years earlier for sexually assaulting minors. But Andrew said it was a "convenient place to live."

Four days after an interview with the BBC, Buckingham Palace announced in a statement that Andrew would be suspended from public office for the "foreseeable future", which was agreed by the Queen. Soon after, he relinquished his position as chancellor of the University of Huddersfield and resigned from 230 patrons. In January, the Interior Ministry proposed to lower the prince's security level. All activities of the Prince Andrew Charitable Trust were also halted. Andrew is now a permanent "inactive member" of the royal family and does not require him to assume any public appearance duties.

But that may not be enough. As events unfold in the United States, the legal issues surrounding Andrew's actions — and the implications for other family members — could be crucial. A woman named "Anonymous Three" was listed on the new documents as the subject of charges against Andrew. She could be Roberts Giver again, or she could be another victim. New evidence is also emerging in support of her allegations, with former Epstein employees talking about his work at St. James (Epstein's private island) and how he identified Roberts Giffer as the young woman who was naked and "grabbed and rubbed on her" by Andrew around 2004.

The FBI claims Andrew was not helpful in his investigation into Epstein and Maxwell and has publicly called on Prince to come and speak with investigators. Audrey Strauss, the acting attorney in Manhattan, said at a July 2 news conference that prosecutors "welcome Prince Andrew to speak with us." We hope to be able to draw useful information from his statement. ”

Sovereign immunity (the principle that States and persons acting on their behalf are not liable when acting in their national capacity) has helped members of the Royal Family escape justice in the past. Take, for example, Sultan Abu Bakar of Johor, who, during an anonymous visit to Britain in the 1880s, established a relationship with Jenny Mighell, a young woman, and promised to marry her. After he left the country, Miguel prosecuted him for "breaching his promise" — a serious civil offense at the time. But because Johor had its own navy, its own courts and post office, British judges concluded that Johor, like other countries, had its sultan acting in this capacity, so Miguel was "unlucky".

Such royal excuses, though, did nothing to Help Andrew. Despite his high status, he does not enjoy the same immunity as his mother as head of state. While this sovereign immunity can be extended to other members of the royal family, such as Prince Charles, "informal duties" like making friends with super-wealthy pedophiles are not included in this function when they perform formal diplomatic duties. Technically, the Queen could not have been prosecuted even if she went on a killing spree on Fifth Avenue; but Andrew was gone, and he must be shaking in his (custom-made) boots at the moment.

The British royal family has experienced many scandals, from having children out of wedlock, to having links with the Nazis, to covering up murders – this is just the story of Edward VIII alone. But it has never had its members tried in criminal courts, let alone foreign ones. The UK government will put a lot of effort behind the scenes to ensure that doesn't happen. But if that's the case – or if the cover-up becomes more and more apparent – The British public may once again begin to ask the thorny question: Why are members of the royal family able to get away with it?

Editor-in-Charge: Han Shaohua