Tuesday, November 30

In a family so devoted to children’s charities, is Andrew now the reviled uncle? | Catherine Bennett

Balmoral: “Located in Royal Deeside”, we learn from the royal family website, this gigantic granite madness is “one of the two personal and private residences owned by the Royal Family, as opposed to the Royal Palaces, which belong to the Crown.” So apart from exceptionally cold, according to Cherie Blair, and described by a royal biographer as “scary, ugly and boring”- perfect for any member of that family who needs total privacy.

As for a royal who might require a personal and private residence in which to avoid, for example, be served with papers alleging the actual sexual abuse of a trafficked American minor, it is hard to imagine a better place.

What is Prince Andrew up to inside Balmoral? Thanks to The crown and several memorable stories and photographs, one showing David Cameron almost succeeding in his attempt to re-roof the place at a competitive price, we can easily imagine him huddled by a two-bar fire, wrestling with a puzzle or killing one of the symbolic wounded deer that abound on this vast estate. At some point, even in the picturesque swirling mists, you might run into a yet-to-be-prosecuted child sexual predator; the late Jeffrey Epstein, a friend of Prince Andrew, was supposedly a guest there in 1999. Perhaps he felt at home with the heads and horns of dead animals, his own home being in Manhattan, as Julie K Brown writes in Perversion of justice, his impressive account of exposing Epstein’s “dark and sinister” crimes. The interior featured individually framed glass eyeballs, with one room he called “the leather room” and another the “dungeon.”

However, it remains unclear why the prince enjoyed keeping this charmless and sinister – even if he never saw a succession of young girls – financial advisor who, when he was not being massaged, liked to share his dream of seeding a superior race with his DNA. Although Epstein’s mysteriously acquired wealth was convenient when, in 2010 (after being jailed for soliciting sex with minors), Fergie needed a loan.

As for Balmoral today, even with attractions including his ex-wife and thousands of convicted grouse, Andrew surely can’t hide there forever or not without addressing the civil lawsuit started last week by Virginia Roberts Giuffre. The most recognizable alleged victim of Epstein’s sexual assault and trafficking, says she was sexually abused by the prince in 2001. After escaping from a squalid home, foster and institutional care, and incarceration by a trafficker, Giuffre appears to have been the one. kind of isolated person ”. character, ”as Prince Charles calls struggling teens, which some of the best-known royal charities were set up to support. Epstein liked to pose as a benefactor, varying threats and intimidation with promises to pay for college or groom his victims with modeling careers.

Prince Charles reveals that for Andrés, whose perseverance of “slings and arrows” arouses his sympathy, there is now no return to public life. Since the life of the royal family is routinely public, that could mean anything. Andrew is welcome, his name unclear, at Balmoral’s semi-public retreat and, presumably, later at his subsidized mansion on a crown estate. You wonder what I would have to do to lose these royal approval signifiers. Horse meat trade? Because a family brand so invested in children’s charities and whose image is deeply grounded in this connection is unlikely to escape contamination, as more details emerge, of Andrew’s closeness to a prolific pedophile and partner. of that pedophile, Ghislaine Maxwell. His trial, on the charges of procuring girls for Epstein, is due this fall.

Are they aware within Balmoral of what Epstein, their former party guest, did to the girls? Or simply, as he seems more and more, indifferent? In the United States, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology finally apologized, with you resign, for its shameful association with Epstein, and MIT, at least, had not previously advertised itself as the savior of the young and dispossessed – their prey.

At least since the time of Prince Philip, British royalty have identified themselves, especially, as the protector of children and young people – an apolitical, attractive, and largely docile demographic that could come to feel loyal as they grow up. If Diana is often portrayed, as with the new statue and the Diana Award, as having a special calling, the Duke of Edinburgh awards preceded it, followed by Charles’s Prince’s Trust, Prince Harry’s Sentebale, the Cambridges Place2be, Kate’s early childhood foundation and, according to her mythology, Sarah Ferguson’s work as a “philanthropist for children.” The Queen is the patron saint of Scouts and Princess Anne of Save the Children, which fights against child trafficking. Charles last year appointed Katy Perry a British Asian Trust ambassador against the same crime. If it weren’t for Giuffre’s lawsuit, there might have been more coverage of William’s support for another royal plan focused on children last week. Future forward, to “unlock the potential of young people.”

His uncle has previously fired him, despite the photograph of him holding her aside, Giuffre’s account of being trafficked into him when she was 17, actually on Epstein’s old side. His preference, Brown reports, was for “neglected-looking prepubescent girls with troubled backgrounds who needed money and had little or no sexual experience.” Giuffre seemed old enough to enter Vagabond, for example, where the prince, in his catastrophic interview with Emily Maitlis, he refused to accompany her.

As absurd as they were, Andrew’s various excuses and pizza alibi offered the royal family and their supporters an exculpatory narrative, to the point of allowing Harry to replace him. “Memories may vary” – as the official blood fabulist, hell-bent on spoiling the Queen’s upcoming jubilee. Andrés, on the other hand, was restored to us this year, praising his father: “We have almost lost the grandfather of the nation.” What makes him the creepy guy in the nation? Or worse?

The longer Andrew remains silent about Giuffre’s lawsuit, the more his immediate family will want to revise, if only for consistency, his traditional concern for marginalized youth. Perhaps the old ones would be less troublesome.

Catherine Bennett is a columnist for Observer


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *