Epstein Scandal Exposes Constitutional Rot in UK's Monarchy and Lords
The recent revelations from the Jeffrey Epstein files have cast an unforgiving light on the decaying foundations of Britain's constitutional arrangements. From beyond the grave, the convicted sex offender has exposed fundamental weaknesses in the hereditary monarchy and the unreformed House of Lords that only the most naive observers could imagine changing anytime soon.
A System Vulnerable to Grifters
Epstein demonstrated a ruthless capacity for identifying and exploiting titled grifters at the pinnacle of British society. His manipulation of both Prince Andrew and Lord Mandelson has revealed how easily these supposedly venerable institutions can be compromised by wealthy predators with sinister intentions.
The royal family faces particular embarrassment through Prince Andrew, who continues to mock the hereditary principle that has determined monarchs since King Aethelstan in 927. Despite being stripped of his HRH title and military affiliations, Andrew remains technically the Duke of York and eighth in line to the throne due to complex legal arrangements dating back to 1931.
Removing him completely would require consent from every Commonwealth Realm, including tiny nations like Tuvalu with populations under 11,000. This absurd situation highlights how antiquated constitutional mechanisms protect even the most compromised individuals.
The Lords' Hypocritical Standards
Meanwhile, the House of Lords presents its own contradictions. While members express outrage at Mandelson's association with Epstein, they recently welcomed Baron Matthew Doyle into their ranks despite his public support for Sean Morton, a former Scottish councillor convicted of possessing and distributing indecent images of children.
Doyle, who served just nine months as Keir Starmer's communications chief, now collects £371 daily for life simply for attending sessions. His admission to the Lords demonstrates how political patronage trumps moral standards in Britain's upper chamber.
Mandelson's situation proves equally troubling. Though he has decided to leave the House of Lords, he clings to his title while the Prime Minister consults Whitehall's finest legal minds about how to return him to commoner status. Simultaneously, there are late-night machinations about removing him from the Privy Council, a medieval advisory body to the monarch.
Constitutional Incoherence on Display
These cases reveal a make-it-up-as-you-go-along constitution that privileges political convenience over coherent principles. The system's incoherence becomes particularly apparent when examining prime ministerial appointments to the Lords.
David Cameron appointed 245 peers during his tenure, Boris Johnson 87, Theresa May 43, Rishi Sunak 51, and Liz Truss managed 29 despite serving just 49 days as Prime Minister. Keir Starmer, who has described the bloated House of Lords as "indefensible," has himself created 96 new peers.
When Nigel Farage recently asked Starmer to address the "democratic disparity" of his Reform Party having zero Lords, the Prime Minister refused. BBC sources familiar with the appointment process noted there are "no set rules and the decision is ultimately up to the prime minister of the day."
This lack of established procedures raises alarming questions about what might happen if Farage achieved power. Would he create tens, dozens, or even hundreds of new peers to balance political representation? Given the precedent set by previous prime ministers, who could legitimately complain?
No Meaningful Reform in Sight
The Epstein scandal has exposed Britain's true Ruritanian colors—a nation clinging to medieval constitutional arrangements while wealthy predators manipulate the system for personal gain. The royal family has always contained bad eggs, and generations have known the House of Lords requires abolition or drastic reform.
Yet meaningful change remains elusive. The grifters continue their ascendancy, protected by antiquated titles and hereditary privileges that resist modernization. While the Epstein files rightly focus on personal tragedies and criminal behavior, they have inadvertently revealed structural weaknesses that undermine Britain's constitutional integrity.
Only the most naive observers can imagine these deeply entrenched systems changing significantly in the foreseeable future. The institutions may still stand, but their foundations have been thoroughly exposed as rotten to the core.
