Prince Andrew is in a jam! Well, that is saying it lightly. It seems that no one wants to be seen with Andrew anymore after his interview with the BBC, which focused on the speculation about his relation with Jeffrey Epstein -- a sex offender and a paedophile.
Epstein committed suicide in police custody, which means that the man is no longer here to answer questions about the depth of his depravity.
But the presence of the sex offender is in the news and his apparition seems to be haunting the prince.
Of course, we know this and there is condemnation all around directed towards Andrew; the prince has also been called arrogant and haughty while talking to the BBC.
Perhaps the ire of the people plus the slating by global media emanates from the fact that Andrew appeared slightly supercilious with BBC and failed to carry an expression of remorse.
At times, he looked very confident which may have been interpreted as a sign of invulnerability. But, why do we forget, royalty have always been taught to conceal their feeling and hundreds of years of training does not die out in a day.
Whatever the case, the interview can be looked at from several angles and perspectives may vary as how the prince appeared.
Was he haughty or just assertive?
Before prince Andrew is called vain, one should ask why he adopted such a stance during the interview. In fact, its society, which has mollycoddled the royalty along with the undying tendency of the British government to present royal family under a halo which is responsible for making Andrew and others like him feel that they have the right to adopt a superior stance.
Even during the BBC interview, the interviewer seemed daunted at times. She started the programme saying "We are here in unusual circumstances," which was totally unnecessary.
This benign and conciliatory opening remark indicates that a member of the royal family being asked of possible moral transgressions is something out of the ordinary.
Well, people just need to go to the past to unearth the list of dissipated acts. In fact, the ‘hushing up’ of peccadilloes has often been done with the help of the government. Anyway, whether one is royalty or not, the fact remains, they are no different than others and have all the human frailties. Once we look at them as people with flaws, the desire to put them on top of a pedestal will cease.
The placement of royals on an elevated social place has its disadvantages and that’s exactly why Prince Andrew said in reply to a question about sex with an underage girl: I have no recollection whatsoever of the incident.
This line is utterly vague, if not totally conceited and can have a wide number of meanings. In general terms, when someone is drunk and then wakes the next morning, s/he may not have any recollections of the night before.
Even if that person had a wild orgy ten hours earlier, the memories may be blurred. In such a case, one will never remember the persons with whom s/he had sex the night before.
Did the prince mean that he took part in sex but was so inebriated that he cannot remember? Or, did he mean to say that ‘no’, I did not have any physical relation with an underage woman?
Whatever the truth is, Andrew left us guessing and he was not pressed for a straightforward ‘yes’ or ‘no’ answer.
Andrew actually sanctified the meaning of ‘friendship'
Do we choose our friends after carefully looking at their profiles or do we just like someone and get close to him/her because deep within us an instinctive feeling gives the nod?
Obviously, friendship happens between people of similar social backgrounds and the upper class tend to mix with people who have similar tastes. This formula is followed at all social levels because otherwise, someone with too much money or too less may be the odd person out in a group and create uneasiness.
Andrew was drawn to financier Epstein, a rich businessman, and there’s nothing wrong in that. When rich people unite there will be luxury which may border on hedonism at times. Admit it! That is the rule everywhere in the world!
But, in this case it was the involvement of underage girls which made the issue complicated. Epstein was proved to be a sex offender and then after he was released from prison, Andrew went and stayed at his place – an act which is now being condemned.
Well, I don’t not know how people are looking at this but the definition of friendship often means trying to stay by a friend and also exerting pressure on him to discard his/her vices.
Yes, Epstein was vile and utterly debauched but civilized society does give people a chance to reform.
Slating Andrew for going and staying at Epstein’s home after the latter was released from prison does not sound right as far as the values of friendship are concerned.
A friend is someone who supports in time of adversity, but in private, points out the faults and remonstrates for misdeeds, exerting pressure for renunciation of vices.
Whether Andrew stayed at Epstein’s house to offer advice as a friend is not known but he could have said that he regretted the alliance with Epstein. But didn’t.
Again it’s the superior feeling of being a royalty who cannot be seen to be remorseful in public that possibly prevented him from doing so.
The blame in the end is on British society because it keeps on glorifying the royal family to such an extent that its members tend to feel that they have a right to take a morally superior stance.
Reportedly, the FBI may now want to talk to Andrew which should be aired live because the deliberately created and sustained mystique of royalty must end.
Like many of us, royals are just as flawed and there’s no reason to feel that they are superior to any other person.
In the end, Andrew needs to come out and apologise in front of the press like any other guy who has made a blunder. This will certainly exorcise the demon of Epstein.
Towheed Feroze is a news editor at Bangla Tribune and teaches at the University of Dhaka.