U.K. lawmakers approve release of confidential documents on former Prince Andrew

LONDON — The British government will release confidential papers related to the former Prince Andrew’s appointment as trade envoy after a scathing parliamentary debate in which lawmakers called for greater accountability from the royal family and said the king’s brother had put his friendship with Jeffrey Epstein ahead of his duty to the country.

Lawmakers approved a motion Tuesday demanding publication of the documents, after the onetime prince and Duke of York, now known simply as Andrew Windsor-Mountbatten, was arrested on charges related to allegations that he shared government reports with Epstein while he was trade envoy. Prime Minister Keir Starmer’s government backed the motion, assuring its passage.

“Frankly, it is the least we owe the victims of the horrific abuse that was perpetrated by Jeffrey Epstein and others, the abuse that was enabled, aided and abetted by a very extensive group of arrogant, entitled and often wealthy individuals in this country and elsewhere,” Trade Minister Chris Bryant said for the government.

An unflattering description of the ex-prince

He described Mountbatten-Windsor as being engaged in a constant “self-enriching hustle’’ — a “rude, arrogant and entitled man who could not distinguish between the public interest, which he said he served, and his own private interest.’’

Although the government agreed to release the files, Bryant said the publication of some documents may be delayed until police finish their investigation.

A web of influence

The move comes as the U.S. Justice Department’s release of millions of pages of documents related to Epstein exposes how the wealthy financier used an international web of rich, powerful friends to gain influence and sexually exploit young women. Nowhere has the fallout been felt more strongly than in the U.K., where the scandal has raised questions about the way power is wielded by the aristocracy, senior politicians and influential businessmen, known collectively as “the Establishment.”

Mountbatten-Windsor was arrested on Thursday at his home on the private estate of his brother King Charles III. He was released later that day pending further investigation.

Then on Monday police arrested Peter Mandelson, a onetime government minister who later served as ambassador to the United States, on suspicion of misconduct in public office related to allegations that he, too, shared confidential information with Epstein. Mandelson was released early Tuesday morning. That investigation is also continuing.

Although they haven’t spoken publicly since their arrests, both Mountbatten-Windsor and Mandelson have previously denied any wrongdoing. Epstein died in custody in 2019 while awaiting trial on sex trafficking charges.

One Epstein chum reportedly lobbies for another

Ed Davey, the leader of the opposition Liberal Democrats, said he introduced the motion to shed light on why Mountbatten-Windsor was named trade envoy in 2001 amid reports that Mandelson pushed for the appointment. The episode appears to be a case of one friend of Epstein lobbying for a job for another friend of Epstein, he said.

“Can there be many people more symbolic of the rot that eats away at the British establishment than the former Duke of York and special trade envoy, and the former business secretary, first secretary of state and ambassador to the United States?” Davey asked.

“Their association with Epstein and their actions on his behalf, while trusted with the privilege of public office, are a stain on our country,” he added.

Greater accountability for the royals

During the debate, lawmakers called for greater accountability from the monarchy and a change in the rules and traditions of the House of Commons, which have historically barred members of Parliament from criticizing members of the royal family.

Davey said such changes would help shield the monarchy from the kind of fallout it has suffered because of Mountbatten-Windsor.

“The changes that we think are necessary would indeed protect the royal family, strengthen the monarchy, which in some places is being criticized,” Davey said. “And that’s why we need these reforms.”

For the House of Windsor, Tuesday’s debate was a reflection of a crisis that shows no sign of abating.

Buckingham Palace has tried to insulate the monarchy from the scandal by drawing a clear, bold line between Mountbatten-Windsor and the rest of the royal family. In addition to removing his royal titles, Charles forced his brother to move out of the 30-room estate near Windsor Castle where he had lived rent-free for more than 20 years.

But that may not be enough to quell the voices demanding change. The loudest of those comes from the campaign group Republic, which has long called for the monarchy to be replaced by an elected head of state.

Soft power role under scrutiny

Although the U.K.’s constitutional monarchy no longer wields political power, it remains hugely influential at the apex of British society. The king is a symbol of continuity who serves as head of state for Britain and 14 other independent countries with ties to the former British Empire. Working members of the royal family support him by making hundreds of public appearances each year, visiting charities, military bases and community groups that still clamor for their attention.

Commentators have compared the pressures facing the House of Windsor to 1936, when King Edward VIII abdicated the throne to marry the American divorcee Wallis Simpson.

“Unlike the last significant family crisis of the modern monarchy, the abdication of 1936, this is not an immediate matter of constitutional crisis, yet its implications may well prove more significant for the monarchy, and so they should,’’ royal historian Anna Whitelock wrote this week in the Sunday Times newspaper. “It is the last of our public institutions to face the full glare of public scrutiny, with questions raised about its role, purpose, governance, financing and accountability.’’

Kirka writes for the Associated Press.