The Guardian view on Prince Andrew: entitled, obtuse and shamefully silent over Epstein’s victims
There was a moment towards the end of Emily Maitlis’s extraordinary interview with Prince Andrew when she was unable to conceal her astonishment at what she was hearing. Did he, Ms Maitlis had asked, feel any sense of shame at his association with the convicted paedophile, Jeffrey Epstein? “Do I regret that he [Epstein] has quite obviously conducted himself in a manner unbecoming? Yes,” was the prince’s reply. “Unbecoming?” said Ms Maitlis incredulously. “He was a sex offender.”
It was an exchange that summed up a grotesque mismatch between the Duke of York’s language and demeanour, and the gravity of the allegations which continue to surround him; between the obtuse self-absorption of a prince and what we know of the appalling sexual exploitation of teenage girls by his friend. Not once did Prince Andrew’s thoughts turn to the sex trafficking victims who found themselves forced to perform sexual acts with Epstein and others. No sympathy was expressed on their behalf; no sense of outrage. This lack of empathy revealed a man focused only on his own exculpation. It gave a damning insight into a sense of entitlement that hardly helped his cause.
The single mistake Prince Andrew admitted to was his decision to visit Epstein in New York in December 2010, following the financier’s release from prison. This was, he claimed, to break off relations face to face, though he was unable to convincingly explain why he stayed for four days at Epstein’s home, even attending a dinner party held in his honour. Again, the sense of entitlement came through. It was just, he said, “a convenient place to stay”. Even the mistake of visiting Epstein was down to an excess of virtue. The desire to speak directly to Epstein was attributable to his “tendency to be too honourable”.
When questioned about Virginia Giuffre, who alleges that she was forced to have sex with Prince Andrew when she was 17, the prince flatly stated that he had no recollection of ever having met her. He did not remember an evening in the home of Ghislaine Maxwell, Epstein’s girlfriend, when he was photographed with his arm around Ms Giuffre’s bare waist. On the supposed night in question, in March 2001, he did though remember that he was at home with his family, having been to the Pizza Express in Woking.
Perhaps the most remarkable aspect of this disastrous interview was that an entitled lifestyle, and its consequences, formed part of Prince Andrew’s case for his own defence. According to Ms Giuffre’s legal team, “you could not spend time around Epstein and not know what was going on”. But people often acted differently around royals, observed the prince. Perhaps Epstein had changed his behaviour patterns. And living in an institution like
Buckingham Palace, one grew used to lots of people coming and going without really taking it in. This at least rang true. Prince Andrew came across as a man rendered incapable by privilege of normal processes of discernment, moral judgment and empathy. This interview did not in any way achieve the closure he intended it to deliver.