The arrest of Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor the king’s brother, should be the moment deference ends and accountability begins – a correction long overdue. For more than 15 years, allegations surrounding Mr Mountbatten-Windsor were managed away by silence, an out-of-court settlement and his withdrawal from royal duties. In short, his behaviour was viewed as an image problem to be handled privately. That era now looks to be over.
That the eighth in line to the throne was sitting in a police cell on his 66th birthday shows how far he has fallen. The formal investigation means that the question is no longer about protecting the monarchy but one of what happened, and who might be responsible for unlawful acts. Mr Mountbatten-Windsor’s descent into ignominy has unfolded slowly but inexorably. His stupidity and arrogance led him to believe that he could talk his way out of his relationship with the convicted child sex offender Jeffrey Epstein. Instead, he faces a legal and constitutional reckoning.
Thames Valley police arrested the royal on suspicion of misconduct in public office, following a complaint by the anti-monarchy group Republic. The offence carries a maximum sentence of life imprisonment. Within the 3m files and messages released by the US Department of Justice are emails that appear to show Mr Mountbatten-Windsor forwarding documents and commercial information to Epstein while serving as trade envoy. The king’s brother denies any wrongdoing.
A single 2001 photograph plunged the monarchy into crisis. It showed the then Prince Andrew with 17-year-old Virginia Giuffre and lent credibility to her trafficking allegations. The visual evidence made it hard to dismiss her statements as implausible. Though he denied knowing her and rejected the claims, a £12m settlement followed and the image shaped a scandal that shook the House of Windsor. More women have come forward alleging abuse, which Mr Mountbatten-Windsor denies.
Ms Giuffre died by suicide last year. Her family said that Mr Mountbatten-Windsor’s arrest shows that “no one is above the law”. MPs should not bend the knee before inheritance and rank. As this column has long argued, it cannot be right to call for the king’s brother to give evidence to US lawmakers, but not to parliament. Liam Byrne, the Labour chair of the cross-party business and trade committee, was correct, in a constitutional sense, that Mr Mountbatten-Windsor could be questioned by MPs. His public office as trade envoy answers to parliament. It is not the law, but convention – including Commons rules barring “reflections” on the royals – which restrains politics.
Mr Mountbatten-Windsor is still a counsellor of state, theoretically able to stand in for the king. He will never wear the crown. Parliament should now debate whether hereditary privilege can coexist with democratic accountability.
Symbolically, this episode surely marks the end of the assumption that being part of the royal household is a badge of impunity. Practically, it should deliver more victim-centred accountability. The story of Mr Mountbatten-Windsor’s Epstein connections is only beginning. If there are no charges, it becomes a story about institutional reform. If prosecution proceeds, he will answer to 12 jurors who will judge him by the evidence, not by his birth. Either way, the old model – of discreet exile and silence – seems finished.
