PRINCE Andrew – the royal whose behaviour has been more disgraceful than most, and in a family of pampered hypocrites that's quite the achievement … indeed, it's the only distinction that he has ever achieved by his own efforts – made a surprise move yesterday.
He announced that he had reached an out-of-court settlement with Virginia Giuffre, the victim of his friend Jeffrey Epstein's sex trafficking who had accused him of sexually abusing her when she was a teenager.
Despite his repeated denials that he'd ever even met Virginia Giuffre, despite a photograph of him with his arm around her while his friend the convicted sex trafficker Ghislaine Maxwell smiled on, Andrew yesterday reached a settlement which will entail the payment of an undisclosed sum to Giuffre, plus a "substantial donation" to a charity looking after the victims of sexual abuse.
Although he has still not admitted responsibility, it seems that Andrew was sweating after all.
In their defence of Andrew, whose settlement will undoubtedly be paid by his mother, the royal family have shown themselves to be every bit as lacking in principles as the hierarchy of the Catholic church, which was far more concerned about any reputational damage that it might suffer than achieving justice for those who had suffered at the hands of abusers who were sheltered and protected by powerful figures in the church, just as Andrew has been sheltered and protected by the royal family.
Even now, all that the gushing sycophants in the British media who surround the monarchy seem to care about is that a woman who claims she was sexually abused by a senior royal who continues to enjoy the protection of the royal family won't "embarrass" the monarchy during the Queen's Platinum Jubilee.
The £12 million that is being paid so that Andrew will not have to explain his actions to an American court and lawyers who will not be as witteringly deferential as the British media will come from the Queen. Although apologists for the monarchy will claim that the money will come from the Queen's private income from the Duchy of Lancaster, this is in fact really a public fund which the royals have annexed to themselves over the years.
The royals only enjoy their huge wealth because for the past 200 years they have successfully blurred the line between state money and private money, benefiting from tax exemptions and the ability to intervene to prevent legislation impacting on their wealth. Ultimately, it is all of us who will pay the bill so that the miscreant prince can escape the consequences of his actions.
Today we learned of another example of the royal family's graft, which in any other country would be condemned as rank corruption. Prince Charles's charity The Prince's Foundation is to be investigated by the police over allegations that the Saudi billionaire Mahfouz Marei Mubarak bin Mahfouz paid tens of thousands of pounds to fixers with links to Prince Charles in order to secure British citizenship and an official honour. The billionaire was awarded a CBE at a private ceremony in Buckingham Palace in November 2016.
Bin Mahfouz has donated more than £1.5 million to royal charities and partially funded the renovation of royal residences used by Prince Charles. Last year, Michael Fawcett, a close aide of the prince, stepped down as chief executive of The Prince's Foundation after questions were raised about Bin Mahfouz's CBE. A spokesperson for Prince Charles has denied that the prince had any knowledge about what his closest aides were doing in his name. Presumably he was just happy to accept the money and didn't think to ask where it was coming from or whether there were strings attached.
If – and it's a big if – this police investigation goes anywhere, some minor lackey will carry the can and the royal who received the benefit will be declared entirely innocent. It's the British way.
This piece is an extract from today’s REAL Scottish Politics newsletter, which is emailed out at 7pm every weekday with a round-up of the day's top stories and exclusive analysis from the Wee Ginger Dug.
To receive our full newsletter including this analysis straight to your email inbox, click here and tick the box for the REAL Scottish Politics
Why are you making commenting on The National only available to subscribers?
We know there are thousands of National readers who want to debate, argue and go back and forth in the comments section of our stories. We’ve got the most informed readers in Scotland, asking each other the big questions about the future of our country.
Unfortunately, though, these important debates are being spoiled by a vocal minority of trolls who aren’t really interested in the issues, try to derail the conversations, register under fake names, and post vile abuse.
So that’s why we’ve decided to make the ability to comment only available to our paying subscribers. That way, all the trolls who post abuse on our website will have to pay if they want to join the debate – and risk a permanent ban from the account that they subscribe with.
The conversation will go back to what it should be about – people who care passionately about the issues, but disagree constructively on what we should do about them. Let’s get that debate started!
Callum Baird, Editor of The National
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel