MARIANNE Taylor (“Arrogant Andrew must face consequences of his actions”, The Herald, August 26) summarises a national widespread reaction to Prince Andrew’s defence of his association with Jeffrey Epstein very adroitly.
Prince Andrew clearly believes that his position allows him exemption from any explanation or justification for his previous relationship with the deviant, but now sadly deceased, Mr Epstein.
His hubristic attitude is typical of a member of the royal family when challenged about actions that may be excessively damaging to other ordinary and allegedly less important beings.
There is an archaic and absurd assertion that the royal family are above the law on all matters and that, whether it is concerned with Prince Philip’s renowned ability to offend or his recent driving episode, the extravagance of the younger royals or Prince Andrew’s current situation, the taxpayer will continue to fund the “Firm” and its thousands of hangers-on, cheerfully and without question.
Our royal family continue to represent privilege, inequality and the unacceptable spectre of a class system that ought to have been extinguished centuries ago.
The Brexit process has, however, released aggressive and pent-up feelings of English nationalism amongst some of the population that are embodied by rose-tinted wartime nostalgia that lauds the royals, somewhat ironically, as the embodiment of an English identity.
This deference is amply demonstrated by the Prime Minister’s defence of the Prince, unmistakable evidence that, when self- interest is threatened in any shape or form, the establishment will always defend the status quo.
If further proof was required that Britain remains a land where the wealthy and privileged are permitted to ride roughshod over lesser mortals, then look no further than the recent news that the young Duke of Westminster, a billionaire who owns more land than the Queen, intends to indulge in his own form of social cleansing by evicting 40 families from their homes in order to build luxury flats.
The fact that many of the residents are elderly, have resided there for over 30 years and that some are disabled, does not appear to have deterred the Duke one iota from his plans to add to the billions of pounds that he has inherited.
Ms Taylor highlights the core of the quandary we have with our royal family. They, and those who benefit from their position, expect to be treated in a preferential way from other British citizens- those who pay taxes to support them- regardless of deeds or circumstances.
Prince Andrew must be held to account. Having a title does not make you immune to justice or liability.
Owen Kelly,
Stirling
PRINCE Andrew’s statement about his involvement with Jeffrey Epstein leaves more questions to be asked rather than providing satisfactory answers to wrap the matter up.
He has had the support of the Queen in that the Palace rejected any impropriety on his part.
Andrew is now showing himself to be naive or dim, or maybe even both. If he has stayed in several of those houses designated by many as being of ill-repute, it defies reason that our royal was unaware of the insalubrious activities attributed to Epstein. If he was, then he was either totally blind or impervious to what apparently was in plain sight.
Moreover, either he was failed by his advisers, who surely take precautions to make sure a royal is not caught up with dubious people in case it brings publicity better avoided, or he chose to ignore their warnings.
Princes are better informed than the man in the street and so should be held accountable for major errors of judgment. No longer is deference paid to royals as was the case in the past. In today’s world, with the proliferation of social media, everyone comes under the microscope - without exception.
Andrew’s defence of his behaviour leaves many holes to be filled in this sorry saga.
Denis Bruce,
Bishopbriggs
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel