Copyright news18
Sherlock Holmes’ recorded career as the world’s most famous fictional sleuth began in 1891 with his investigation of ‘A Scandal in Bohemia’. The intention was to save the blushes of a peccadillo-prone European royal, as his mistress had some compromising photos of them in her possession. Holmes did the needful back then, but another similarly inclined British prince may have been better off if some Holmesian character had been around for the Epstein Scandal. But no one, it seems, sought such help for Prince Andrew, the beleaguered second son of the late Queen Elizabeth II, and hence he now stands stripped of his Duke of York title and apex royal honours such as the Order of the Garter and the Royal Victorian Order. And all because he got embroiled with the highly dubious if rich American Jeffrey Epstein and did not fully extricate himself even as damning evidence emerged of his trafficking young girls and other shady activities. It appears to be a case of supreme stupidity, enhanced by an overweening sense of entitlement; and of course, plain greed. And at the heart of it lies the principle of male primogeniture practised in the British royal family for centuries, which meant the eldest son (or barring a male heir, the eldest daughter) inherited pretty much everything. That always left the others at the mercy of their reigning parent and then the one sibling destined to be monarch, for their very livelihood. Now it is no longer male primogeniture. After King Charles III, his first-born son Prince William will be monarch, whose son Prince George is next. In the latter’s case, though, it is no longer because he is the eldest male but because he is the eldest child. If George then has a first-born daughter she will reign after him. But that does not resolve the issue of impecunious younger royal siblings, totally dependent on the monarch for their rozi-roti and even permission to marry. In the case of Prince Andrew, it was easier when his mother was Queen as she was inclined to give him plenty of leeway when it came to finances, even getting him a palatial mansion on lease from the Crown Estate (at a “peppercorn” or paltry rent), even allowing his wife to live there with him after their divorce. And the Queen also allowed him to maintain “business links” with questionable people from dubious countries till the press got wind of financial impropriety. No wonder the pampered prince thought he did not need a Holmesian brain to help extricate himself from the scandal of Virginia Guiffre’s allegations and the simultaneous implosion of Epstein’s shady empire. He either misjudged the resourcefulness of the British press when it came to unearthing secrets about him or was too stupid to realise the implications of such revelations. Why else would he have posed with the girl for photos or sent telling emails to Epstein? He also made the fundamental mistake of applying the now outdated unofficial Windsor family motto of ‘Never Complain, Never Explain’ even when the first photo emerged in the media of him with his arm around the then under-age Guiffre and obstinately maintained he had nothing to do with her even as Epstein collapsed under the weight of financial and criminal scandals. He mendaciously promised (as did his wife) that he would abjure Epstein’s company too. Only now, emails and texts have come to light showing that the former Yorks both maintained fawning contacts with Epstein during and after his spectacular fall from grace even as they pretended to have shunned him “forever”. Once a lie is exposed, everything that a person has ever said or will say in the future becomes doubtful. And hence all of the Yorks’ frequent protestations of innocence and assurances of probity are now being openly discounted and challenged. The Metropolitan Police in London has announced it will probe the recent media report that Prince Andrew had asked his personal protection officers (part of the police force) to obtain Guiffre’s US social security number and date of birth, which he then passed on to Epstein in order to ferret out potentially adverse information with which to smear his accuser. This was just the day before the telltale photo of Andrew and Guiffre was splashed in the UK press. Virginia Guiffre was no Irene Adler but nor was the British media. Ignoring the lethal power of that photograph featuring a smiling Andrew with his arm around her waist as Epstein’s girlfriend (and alleged procurer) grinned in the background was also a monumental mistake. Once the photo came into the public domain (which Holmes averted in ‘A Scandal in Bohemia) and more revelations followed, it threatened the very integrity and credibility of the monarchy. Clearly decisive and visible action was necessary. The royal family’s institutional memory would have recalled that the silence during the disintegration of the Charles-Diana marriage and the Charles-Camilla affair merely made the British media even more determined to unearth “the truth”, often with very sordid results. And silence and inaction in the initial days after Princess Diana’s death were even more deleterious, as Queen Elizabeth II finally realised and remedied. There is no doubt that the Andrew-Epstein saga has dragged on for far too long, hogging headlines and diverting attention from whatever King Charles III wishes to be his legacy as monarch. It has not been pleasant for his heir Prince William either, who has his own controversial brother to contend with, albeit not for the same kind of transgressions. Father and son surely want definitive action to be taken. And if the crime was princely, the punishment has to be princely too. Divesting Prince Andrew of titles and ‘orders’ appears to be a redundant exercise to those who have not been born to or lived amid feudal splendour. But in a family where the rather archaic sounding ‘His/Her Royal Highness’ or ‘His/Her Majesty’ is crucial to their sense of self, the removal of such accoutrements is akin to stripping them naked in public. The horror of being ‘common’ for a ‘prince of the blood royal’ cannot be imagined, presumably for the general public. Though Prince Andrew did not go on trial for contravening the law proscribing sex with minors (as a member of the plebeian populace may have done for similar transgressions) he was put in the dock by his own peers—senior members of the Windsor family—and been given the ultimate death-like penalty of being divested of not his head but all the letters that come before and after his name. Only other royals will be able to fathom the exquisite humiliation of it. Prince Andrew (now without any further suffixes) and his ex-wife (with not even a princess tag) Sarah Ferguson face a bleak future, bereft of Christmases in Sandringham, summers in Balmoral and Easter at Windsor along with the “Family” and other royal perks. Their ability to generate incomes to live in their 30-room royal mansion in Windsor without their titles is also moot. They must regret not getting a latter-day Sherlock Holmes to do the needful in time. (The author is a freelance writer. Views expressed in the above piece are personal and solely those of the author. They do not necessarily reflect News18’s views)
