Prince Andrew's settlement reveals the damage monarchy does to us

Giuffre’s claim against Prince Andrew was for damages in the US, claiming to have been trafficked aged 17, a minor under US law, by Jeffrey Epstein, to have sex with the royal. Andrew has denied all allegations.

Legally, this settlement is not an admission of guilt; the lawyers of both Giuffre and Andrew jointly wrote they had “reached a settlement in principle”, and the duke has agreed to make a “substantial donation” to Giuffre’s charity that supports victims’ rights. The Queen will donate £2m to the charity.

Buckingham Palace declined to comment on the £12m settlement and Andrew’s representative also declined to give details on how this donation would be funded.

This has led to an outpouring of outrage and a strong public feeling that the royals do not deserve taxpayers’ money, especially if the crown is allowed to conceal how it is spent.

READ MORE: Scotland tops the charts with the best educated workforce in Europe

With so much media coverage – particularly on the BBC – fawning over the royals, it can be easy to forget exactly why so many people want to see the royals lose their status. Here’s a reminder of some of the questions raised by this settlement.

DODGING THE LAW AND SCRUTINY

CAN we all now pay our way out of jail and act like we are a philanthropist to the victim?

With an out-of-court settlement, potentially the compensation for damages is less, a victim may not get closure without a “guilty” verdict and, perhaps most importantly, there are no punitive damages – simply meaning, there is no outcome for deterring others from acting in the same way.

Not only is this settlement an inadequate punishment if Giuffre’s allegations are true, but it has also allowed Prince Andrew to avoid giving an out-of-court testimony under oath, just weeks before this had been scheduled.

Prince Andrew, Virginia Giuffre and Ghislaine Maxwell

The ludicrous fact is that he will pay an enormous settlement to shy away from standing trial for something he resolutely denies, claiming in his interview with Emily Maitlis that he didn’t remember her [Giuffre] and it didn’t happen.

It seems implausible that an innocent man would not want to defend himself and his reputation from an accusation so grave: this settlement – of which details of the full amount and where the money is coming from have been deliberately concealed – to many only raises further questions.

THE COST TO THE TAXPAYER

THIS settlement is like a drop in the ocean for the royals. Forbes estimates they are collectively worth £20 billion; although Andrew may be running low on money, selling his holiday home in Verbier he bought for £16.6m.

Many are calling for complete clarity over where this £12mis coming from, as using taxpayers’ money to buy Andrew out of this case would be a further disgrace.

Virginia Giuffre

His only punishment, it seems, is having to cower at his residency in the Royal Lodge in Windsor, which he has spent £7.5m on refurbishing since moving in in 2003, where he can now enjoy early retirement, free from trial.

Until 2019, Prince Andrew was the recipient of £250,000 a year for his royal duties, eight times what the average royal receives according to the Mirror, as well as his annual £20,000 Royal Navy pension, which he still pockets.

READ MORE: Sarah Smith: Tory MSP attacks Nicola Sturgeon over male colleague's tweets

Yet this royal who was accused of abuse is still ninth in order of succession; he retains his title as Duke of York and Earl of Inverness and remains a prince. The UK Government has the power to strip him of his titles by an Act of Parliament, and it has not.

MAINTAINING OUT-OF-DATE TRADITIONS

TIMES have changed – but the traditions so associated with the monarchy, such as the deference that must be shown to them in person, has not. Despite these emerging at a time so starkly different than that in which we live.

For example, MSPs must still swear allegiance to the Queen to be sworn into parliament, which many do under protest, believing they should pledge to serve the Scottish people, not the monarch.

The likely reason for this hurried settlement, with negotiations lasting only 10 days according to the Telegraph, was to make sure media attention moves on from this before the Queen’s platinum jubilee celebrations in June, where the archaic traditions will be on full show.

The law and justice for victims of sexual abuse apparently cannot be allowed to interfere with the infallible image of the Queen and her family.

CAUSING REPUTATIONAL EMBARRASSMENT

FIGUREHEADS like Boris Johnson and Prince Andrew represent the UK on the world stage – in the worst kind of way.

As long as Scotland remains part of the United Kingdom, it must by default also suffer from association to the Crown and its culture of using money to shy away from scandal.

Would an independent Scotland want to be tarnished with this institution that is allowed to live above the law, perpetuates archaic traditions and class divisions, and is a large tax burden to Scotland? It’s a question the national will face.

SETTING AN AWFUL PRECEDENT

ONE of the most tragic elements of this out-of-court settlement is that it has let down other victims of human trafficking and abuse.

After the horrendous abuse and cover-up that surrounded Jimmy Savile came to public attention, a royal family doing its duty to the nation would be expected to join in with a determined push to eradicate a culture of silencing victims and allowing the accused to escape trial.

And yet, when one of the state figureheads is accused of abusing a minor, the crown’s chief concern is to hush up the matter, possibly using public money to do this.

The BBC’s Nicholas Witchell suggested that Prince Andrew could return to public life by campaigning against sex trafficking. This was met with anger by the public.