Prince Andrew can’t outrun Epstein’s shadow or America’s questions

He’s holed up in Windsor, but Prince Andrew can’t hide from the shadow of Epstein – or the growing calls for accountability abroad, writes Jon Sopel

If I start this column by declaring I want to talk about two different committees – one, the public accounts committee at Westminster, and the other the congressional oversight committee in Washington – you would have every right to roll over in bed and go back to sleep, or indeed embark on those DIY jobs that you’ve been putting off for months.

But if we throw the name Prince Andrew into the mix, and the threat that both could pose to him as he stays holed up in Royal Lodge, then I think it might just get your attention. In Britain this week – with what looked like a coordinated move from the leader of the Liberal Democrats and the prime minister – Sir Keir Starmer, in reply to a carefully crafted question from Sir Ed Davey, seemed to indicate that he was open to a parliamentary select committee examining the lease granted to the prince for his pad in Windsor Great Park – and yes, talking to the tenant himself.

Will it happen? I frankly doubt it. Parliamentary tradition is that you don’t go near the royal family. You can scarcely mention the sovereign without the speaker crying “order”. Look at it this way: the last time a member of the royal family was summoned before parliament, it was Charles I – and that didn’t end well for the king.

Donald Trump, his girlfriend (and future wife), former model Melania and Prince Andrew pose together at the Mar-a-Lago estate, Palm Beach, Florida, 12 February 2000 (Getty)

This looks more like a way of increasing the pressure on the disgraced prince to leave the sprawling mansion on which he pays a peppercorn rent. The present King Charles can’t impose internal exile (maybe a more humble ghillie’s cottage on the Balmoral estate) but the political class can add a little pressure by suggesting an appearance before a Commons select committee.

But in America, there is no need for such deference. What’s more there isn’t any. This was a country that came into being by getting rid of our royal family. It is also worth underlining that the Jeffrey Epstein saga still rages. There is fury – on right and left – that among all the powerful men who cavorted on Epstein’s island, the only person convicted is a woman, Ghislaine Maxwell.

Has anyone’s death in recent history cast such a long shadow on those who still live as Epstein’s? The first thing to say is that there are two classes of people who continue to feel the repercussions of their associations with Epstein. There are those once young women – maybe girls would be a better description – whose lives have been forever scarred by this evil man. They must be at the forefront of our thoughts. And then there are the others – the kings of the universe – whose once mighty reputations are being shredded as details of their contacts with him emerge into an unsparing sunlight. Luthiers have yet to construct a violin small enough to lament their demise.

When news emerged that Epstein had committed suicide (or at least that’s what the authorities said was the cause of death), I dithered over whether I could write that a lot of powerful men would be breathing a sigh of relief. But it hasn’t turned out that way: Lord Mandelson, humiliatingly fired as our ambassador to Washington when his fawning emails to Epstein emerged (“yum, yum”). The one-time titan of Wall Street and former chief executive of Barclays, Jes Staley, was banned from holding executive positions in Britain’s financial services industry after his less-than-candid declarations.

The dark shadow of Epstein is even reaching into the heart of the White House and questions over Donald Trump’s longstanding relationship with him.

Trump and his wife with Prince Andrew in Westminster Abbey in 2019 (AFP/Getty)

Then there is Prince Andrew. It’s not just that his reputation has been destroyed; it is that he is now a source of shame for the royal family itself. In the terse statement issued the Friday before last, Prince Andrew announced he would no longer be using his title of Duke of York, that he would be giving up the Garter, whatever that means, and that he was doing this because he was an honourable man, whose only interest was what was best for the royal family. It was accompanied by the vigorous denial of all accusations against him.

The statement from the now untitled, but deeply entitled prince was designed to kill the story and extinguish all interest in him. What an epic fail. This brings us to another death and someone who is utterly determined that her passing should cast a shadow. This week saw the publication of Virginia Giuffre’s memoir, a searing and heart-rending account of abuse and exploitation. Though she took her own life, her book – and the ghostwriter who helped her write it – makes clear she wants to see justice served on those who abused her and the others who were trafficked as playthings for the wealthy and powerful. The book includes the most vivid allegations against the prince.

She was the recipient of an out-of-court settlement reported to be in the region of £12m from Andrew, which is a lot of money to shell out for someone you claim you cannot remember meeting, as the prince has insisted. The FBI wanted to speak to him in connection with the Epstein inquiry, but according to the New York state attorney at the time, there was “zero cooperation” from him.

You can see the long list of detailed questions congressmen and women would have for Andrew. Why did you cough up millions of pounds if you say you can’t remember meeting her? What about the orgy she details in her book? Why did you tell my co-presenter, Emily Maitlis, in that infamous Newsnight interview, that you broke off all contact with Epstein in December 2010, but were apparently emailing him in February 2011, talking about how “we are in this together”? What did you mean in that email when you wrote “we’ll play some more soon”? How long did contacts carry on? Were you lying in that interview, and if you were, why should we believe anything else you say?

Then there are the questions about Ghislaine Maxwell and his close friendship with her. In the Giuffre book, she describes Maxwell as the “apex predator”. What would he say about that? It would be excruciating; it would be blockbuster. It would be electric.

But what does the prince do if the committee invites him to give evidence? Sure, you can’t compel a foreigner to give testimony as you can a US citizen. But imagine the optics if he declined. A British prince pleading the fifth would not be a good look. He has no good options, and none of this is going away.