The alleged sexual abuse scandal involving Prince Andrew and Jeffrey Epstein, and their alleged victim, the late Virginia Giuffre, shows no sign of abating. The full release on Tuesday of Giuffre’s posthumous memoir detailing her suffering will add further fuel.
Yet as it applies to Westminster parliamentarians, the first rule about scandals involving Britain’s royal family is that they don’t talk about scandals involving Britain’s royal family. This has muzzled formal debate among UK politicians about their embarrassing and, now, widely-despised prince of the realm.
In general, MPs and peers are not allowed to discuss in parliament issues that reflect badly on the royal family, according to the rule book known as Erskine May that outlines the arcane procedures governing the House of Commons and House of Lords.
Erskine May specifically states that “questions that cast reflections on the sovereign or the royal family” are banned in parliament. MPs and lords are generally only allowed to ask about taxpayer spending on the royals or their attendance at events.
RM Block
There is widespread unease this week in Westminster over this inability to even debate whether to formally scrap Andrew’s royal titles, which would need an act of parliament. Some MPs and lords are demanding a rule change to let politicians intervene.
Under pressure from his brother King Charles, Andrew last week announced he would voluntarily stop using his royal titles, such as Duke of York or Baron of Killyleagh, a small Co Down village with an old royal castle.
This followed the release last week of disturbing extracts from the memoir of Giuffre (41), who took her own life six months ago. She alleged that she was forced by the convicted sex offender Epstein to have sex with Andrew three times over 20 years ago.
The prince has always denied this, or that he even met her. But details have emerged of emails he allegedly sent to Epstein that appear to cast doubt over elements of his wider story.
It has also emerged that London’s Metropolitan Police are investigating reports that in 2011 Andrew allegedly passed his close protection officers Giuffre’s personal details and essentially asked them to dig up dirt on her.
This followed the publication that year of a now-infamous photo that showed Andrew with his arm around the bare midriff of a 17-year-old Giuffre, at the mews house in London where she alleged she was first forced to have sex with him.
So, to recap: a book is being published alleging the brother of Britain’s king sexually abused a teenager; documents cast doubt on elements of the prince’s story; police are investigating if its officers were asked to dig up dirt; and MPs cannot debate any of this.
Buckingham Palace hoped that ending Andrew’s use of his royal titles last week would take the heat out of things, but this has not happened.
Andrew remains a prince unless Charles strips him of the title. He is no longer called the Duke of York but retains the dukedom. Only parliament can take that away, yet parliament cannot discuss it.
Rachael Maskell, a Labour MP for York, says her constituents want Andrew stripped of his association with the city. She has also called for Westminster to pass a law allowing Charles to remove the dukedom.
Meanwhile, George Foulkes, a Labour peer, wrote to clerks of the Commons and Lords on Sunday night asking for the rules muzzling questions about royals to be changed. The Scottish National Party is also laying down a motion seeking debate.
A spokesman for Downing Street refused to be drawn on the affair at a briefing with Westminster reporters on Monday. He repeated the mantra that it was a matter for Buckingham Palace, even though stripping Andrew of his dukedom appears to be a matter for MPs.
When the spokesman was asked what the government was afraid of, he said it wasn’t afraid of “anyone or anything”.
The royals, meanwhile, must be terrified of what revelations could come next.
