During a visit to Dubai this week, Prince Edward became the first high-ranking member of the royal family to publicly comment on the Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor controversy.

His remarks, however, seemed to carry a hint of reluctance, edged with a tone of sanctimonious annoyance. At a time when the monarchy is in need of all the grace and poise it can muster to enhance its public image, his response appeared as an unnecessary misstep.

One might wonder what motivated his approach. Has the royal family not learned from the past lessons of maintaining a stance of “never complain, never explain” during closed-door crises?

While attending the World Government Summit on Tuesday, Prince Edward faced a question from a CNN journalist regarding how he was managing the repercussions of the Epstein-related revelations. Considering the global impact of the news, it was a pertinent inquiry.

Prince Edward replied with evident irritation, pointing out that the audience was there to discuss educational issues and future solutions. His response, comparing it unfavorably with the public approach often associated with Meghan and Harry, seemed dismissive of the serious nature of the question.

He then briefly acknowledged the gravity of the situation, stating, “I think it’s always important to remember the victims, and who are the victims in all this? There are a lot of victims,” before swiftly moving on. His handling of the situation suggested a lack of awareness of the significant weight of the royal scandal at hand.

Is that enough comment from the family on this hideous matter?

I think not. Courtiers, of course, might argue that actions speak louder than words. Andrew, formerly known as Prince Andrew and the Duke of York, was stripped of his royal titles last October. This week he was finally exiled to deepest Norfolk; cast out like a pestilence; a grotesque Quasimodo unfit for public life, a fright-sight too foul for the public gaze to fall upon.

King Charles has never mentioned the scandal surrounding his brother while Prince William has dodged questions

He was removed from his grand Windsor residence under the cover of darkness, perhaps even muzzled and strapped to a sack truck, like Hannibal Lecter in The Silence Of The Lambs. However, it is the silence of King Charles and Prince William that is so utterly deafening here.

Charles has never mentioned the scandal while William has dodged questions, only once mumbling something along the lines of it being ‘too deep’ for comment. Yet the Prince’s disdain for his disgraced uncle was clear for all to see on the steps of Westminster Cathedral following the Duchess of Kent’s funeral last September.

It’s not as if William is privately supportive or even conflicted. He’s clearly just as revolted by Quasimodo as the rest of us – and was probably the driving force behind his banishment.

The problem is that the continued silence from the Palace looks like a complacency – or something even worse. For one of the astonishing things about the Epstein scandal – which has now brought down Peter Mandelson along with Andrew – is that it’s becoming clear that many of those involved didn’t believe Epstein and all his horny pals sleeping with underage girls was much of a crime in the first place. No big deal!

Imagine if Epstein had been jailed for premeditated murder, on rape charges, or was guilty of genocide, aggravated assault, treason, take your pick. Friends and associates might have been rightly horrified and cut him out of their lives forever.

But somehow, everyone from Bill Clinton to Sarah Ferguson to Peter Mandelson to Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor clearly thought, on some level, that the wholesale harvesting of young girls for sexual purposes was fine and dandy, certainly socially acceptable in their circles. Child prostitution, sex trafficking, paedophilia? What’s the problem, Your Honour?

And unless the Windsors say something in public to support the victims and condemn the decades of lies and the lack of apology or remorse from the rotten apple currently still festering deep within their royal barrel, they look like they don’t care much, either.

Prince Edward urges us all to remember the victims, but how could we forget them? If it hadn’t been for the courage and resilience of the Jane Does and all the broken and lost girls who floated through the Epstein residences on a tide of ‘fresh, firm and creamy’ delight – to use his own revolting phrase – this fetid situation might never have come to light.

The first victims – they prefer to call themselves survivors – surfaced in 1996, the first lawsuits began in 2007, and the civil suits followed in 2008. Virginia Giuffre, who was trafficked to the former Prince Andrew and pictured with him in the infamous photograph, filed a civil sexual assault lawsuit against him in 2021. Mountbatten-Windsor settled the following year for around £12 million – without any admission of wrongdoing.

I’ve barely recovered from reading Giuffre’s sad, haunting book about the affair, which was published posthumously after she took her own life last year. Andrew denied her claims to the end, but like the other survivors she battled on for justice and vindication.

These women were the loose stitches who unravelled the whole tawdry tapestry. Without them, the Epstein files might never have come to light, Epstein might still be alive, Andrew might still be a prince, Ghislaine Maxwell might still be a free woman, Fergie would still be a freeloader, Mandelson might still be an ambassador, Keir Starmer might still have a political future, Bill Gates might still have a wife and on and on it goes.

There is never going to be an explanation or any shame from Andrew. In the absence of an admission of guilt from him, shouldn’t there be some sort of apology from the Windsors on his behalf? An acknowledgement, an expression of regret, a note of grace, a hint of remorse for raising such a total stoat in their ermine enclave? It might only be a little but it’s not too late.

And dope of the night goes to…

The 68th Grammy Awards in Los Angeles provided a handy showcase for music stars’ disapproval of ICE.

‘I’m a granddaughter of an immigrant,’ said London’s own Olivia Dean, named Best New Artist (above). Well, good for Olivia, but her perspective that all immigrants are the targets of the controversial law enforcement agency seems unhelpful.

Olivia Dean’s perspective that all immigrants are the targets of the controversial law enforcement agency ICE seems unhelpful, says Jan Moir

Even worse was Billie Eilish. ‘F**k ICE,’ she said, collecting her award for Best New Song. ‘No one is illegal on stolen land.’ Most of the dopes in the audience stood up to applaud. But, under scrutiny, this rallying cry is just another piece of celeb performative politicking. Not least because Eilish herself lives behind the gates of a £4million Malibu mansion, protected by round-the-clock security.

In a luxury residence built on the ancestral grounds of the Tongva tribe, Billie controls the boundaries of her own home; a comfort and luxury she doesn’t want America to have.

If she really believed what she said, she’d live without locks and doors – and give her home back to the Tongva, who have already signalled an interest in the property.

Righteous – or just a moral mess?

Five Palestine Action protesters have been released on bail ahead of a potential retrial over a break-in at a British subsidiary of an Israeli defence firm.

The five were cleared of aggravated burglary – despite prosecutor claims their actions left a policewoman with a fractured spine, allegations which are denied – after an Elbit Systems building near Bristol was targeted in 2024.

They were also charged with criminal damage and violent disorder, but the jury reached partial or no verdicts on those counts, for which they could face a retrial. During the case, supporters plastered posters near the court explaining the principles of ‘jury equity’ – the capacity of a jury to return a verdict according to conscience, not facts.

After the trial, the grinning activists said they couldn’t be found guilty as their violent actions were ‘morally right’. But can a protest really be righteous when a police officer has been left injured in the line of duty?

Like Karl, grudges are just my style

How delicious that an unknown relative of Karl Lagerfeld is contesting his £200 million will. It’s worth a shot! Go for it, third cousin thrice removed, or whoever you are.

Karl might even approve. ‘I know revenge is mean and horrible,’ he once said, ‘but I see no reason why I shouldn’t do something back if somebody has done something bad to me. When people think it’s all forgotten, I pull the chair away, maybe ten years later.’

I’m with him all the way. Where’s the fun in forgiveness? Like Karl and Maximus Decimus Meridius, what keeps me going is the thought that vengeance will be mine, in this life or the next, amen.

Emily’s confusing new look

In a new campaign for Agent Provocateur, Emily Atack poses in red lingerie for a bondage-inspired photoshoot in a country manor.

The actress has previously tweeted: ‘Can people stop saying to girls with big knockers ‘it’s a bit boobie?!’ When trying on clothes.

‘Some people in TV make me feel like I’ve deliberately strapped on a rubber pair and said – look at these bad boys.’

In a new campaign for Agent Provocateur, actress Emily Atack poses in red latex lingerie for a bondage-inspired photoshoot

Emily also explained to a magazine in 2018: ‘My whole life I’ve been judged for how I look’ while wishing that people ‘would like me for my personality and brain’.

You have to laugh. Not just because that is a luxury wish only afforded to pretty people. And while Emily is a real beauty, this saucy Agent Provocateur campaign is grim. The cheap and nasty, readers’ wives, home-made porn vibe is obviously deliberate, but it is not doing her any favours. Especially for someone who doesn’t like being judged on her looks.

Just before closing time on Saturday I happened to pass through the Skims outlet in the London branch of Selfridges.

Pausing to admire the luxury lingerie designed by Kim Kardashian – I noted a strange emotion pulsing from the Skims staff scuttling between the racks of clothes. What was that all-too-familiar feeling?

I recognised it as pure terror. The staff tweaked the triangle bras, smoothed down leggings, folded the boy shorts, moved the hangers an inch this way, then an inch that way – before doing it all over again under the watchful gaze of a posse of equally frightened Skims executives.

Now I know why. Kim visited the store the following day, after a romantic Cotswold weekend with her unlikely new beau, Lewis Hamilton.

Perhaps we should look at her in a new light! Any boss who strikes fear into the hearts of her retail staff is deserving of a certain respect.

Its patience has been tried. Now Alton Towers has banned theme park guests who suffer with ADHD and anxiety from using a disability pass to avoid queues.

I bet they are! So many people now claim to suffer from ADHD that the disability queue might soon be longer than the non-disability one. And if you were really anxious, why would you be queuing up for a roller coaster ride in the first place?