The Guardian’s view on the price of a prince: What Virginia Giuffre’s story says about palace accountability | Editorial
TThe tragic story of Virginia Geoffrey raises the question of who rules when royal privilege and public outrage collide. As a vulnerable teenager, she was drawn into the world of sexual exploitation by disgraced financier Jeffrey Epstein. Ms Giuffre claimed she was trafficked by Epstein and that she was forced to have sex with Prince Andrew on three occasions, including when she was 17 years old. He has denied all these allegations. Despite previously insisting he had no recollection of meeting her, the prince is said to have paid £12 million to settle her civil case in 2022. The money was said to have come from his mother, the late Queen – who was appointed just six weeks later. Photographed She walks beside him at her husband’s memorial service.
Through her posthumous memoirs, Ms. Giuffre brought the issue back into the spotlight. In his bombshell 2019 Newsnight interview, Prince Andrew claimed he cut all ties with Epstein after their December 2010 meeting in New York. But it leaked Emails Only two months later he told a different story; With Prince Andrew asking to stay in touch and writing “We’ll be playing more soon!!!!” The Metropolitan Police are now looking into allegations that King Charles’ brother asked his protection officers to investigate Ms Giuffre’s condition. He has agreed not to use his royal titles, particularly Duke of York, but this is a voluntary abdication, not a legal one. Across homes, bars and radio phone calls, people debate whether he should be stripped of his titles. But the subject is taboo in Parliament, prohibited by rules against “Reflections“On the royal family.
Even if representatives were able to discuss the matter, their hands appear to be tied. The Royal Duchy is created by Letters patent under royal privilege It can only be repealed by another act of the Crown or by Parliament. However, because the Crown cannot act against itself, only Members of Parliament can strip the royal title – and even then, by convention, only with “King’s approval“This circle of respect leaves MPs powerless to curb royal prerogatives without royal permission. Lord Faulks has challenged this democratic absurdity. Supported by independent MP Rachel Maskell, the Scottish National Party and Plaid Cymru, he has urged a review of the rule banning ‘royal’ questions. Public roles and finances should not be outside the scope of scrutiny.
The current immunity is not an ancient relic of the Constitution. It is the result of deliberate political choices – in the first place subordination Which was made in 2011 when David Cameron reformed royal finance. In 1760, George III handed over the profits of the Crown estate to Parliament in exchange for a fixed bonus, establishing democratic control over the royals. But Cameron backed out of this deal. He returned a share of those profits to the Crown, without obtaining the annual vote of the House of Commons that ensured accountability. What is it Named The “painful discussion” and “tabloid-led” debate became an automatic 15% reduction in the profits of Crown estates. The result? The Sovereign Grant has more than Tripled Auditing also disappeared no one He knows who pays Prince Andrew’s bills.
Parliament has abdicated the oldest democratic check on royal power – control of money – and that must change. A young woman’s plight should not have required exposing how isolated our monarchy is from the standards expected of the rest of society. Mrs. Geoffrey’s story did not end with her death. It leaves the living with a duty: to ensure that privilege does not trump accountability.