Published by The i Paper (21st February, 2026)
The Epstein explosion is extraordinary. Shock waves sparked by the exposure of a dead paedophile’s illustrious circle of contacts are rocketing around the globe. This epic scandal – revolving around horrific abuse that was hidden in plain sight by money and power – has ruined careers and soiled reputations by revealing the sordid activities of prominent people in the harshest of lights. So will it now destroy the world’s most famous Royal Family?
Suddenly – and despite the enduring popularity of the Windsors in Britain – this is a valid question following the arrest of a foolish former prince who was second in line to the throne for the first two decades of my life. We remain in the foothills of this mountainous scandal with critical questions swirling around the Royal Family over its role in paying off an abuse victim, knowledge of Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor’s appalling deeds and the blanket of protection thrown around a man accused of betraying his nation.
So far the King has made the right moves by declaring no one is above the law and offering support for investigations into his younger brother – who could end up imprisoned at His Majesty’s pleasure. But the path ahead is potentially treacherous. More daylight must be shone on the monarchy, shredding any remaining mystique and reminding us about the inherent absurdity of a political system founded on a family born to rule over the rest of us.
This feudal concept relies on their adaptability and our consent in a democracy, so public support would be threatened by any evidence of palace involvement in a cover-up. Yet the royals are protected also by the challenge of seeing who might be better suited to their role in representing the state and unifying a riven country. This is a strange question to ask, say republicans, since the answer is “who we choose”. But they are simply ducking a valid question, especially in these divided times.
Certainly voters would not want to pick a serving politician. There is deep contempt for Westminster after a succession of inadequate prime ministers failed to solve profound problems while their parties engaged in pathetic tribal games. It is hard to feel much hope looking at the current crowd, with a Prime Minister plumbing historic levels of unpopularity, an Opposition Leader floundering badly and an insurgent populist force intent on stirring fresh divisions. Perhaps a few deluded folks might fancy Nigel Farage for president but most citizens would recoil in horror at the idea.
I suspect egotistical former prime ministers such as Tony Blair or Boris Johnson would love a crack at the presidency, although both remain immensely toxic given deservedly-tarnished legacies. Gordon Brown has retained dignity since leaving Downing Street and – unlike some other incumbents – not focused on leveraging the post to boost his own bank balance. And he played a key role in this royal debacle. It is hard, however, to envisage this complex, driven and dour character spending his days making polite chit-chat with dignitaries in a largely ceremonial role.
Perhaps a former minister such as Harriet Harman or Rory Stewart might emerge a contender. The late Menzies Campbell, a one-time Liberal Democrat leader, might have suited the position. And there is no doubt Peter Mandelson would have loved the post to add to his collection – especially given all the pomp and circumstance and contacts to exploit – before his downfall. But polls in the past, such as one asked five years ago by YouGov over whom voters would elect as head of state, suggest that Prince William trounces any politician or public figure in popularity.
The one prominent person who almost matches the royals in public affection is Sir David Attenborough but even this energetic man might feel a tilt at the presidency is beyond him at the age of 99. Sir Richard Branson’s name has been mentioned in the past as a candidate – and he would have no trouble funding his own campaign – but the Virgin founder is among those famous names stained by association with Epstein after asking the sex offender to bring his “harem” to a gathering.
Another billionaire – the author JK Rowling – might have been deemed a strong candidate once given her life story, success and support for causes such as single mums and abandoned children. But after taking such a stand against transgender rights, she is now another highly-divisive figure. So would Britons prefer a titled national treasure such as Dame Judi Dench, Dame Joanna Lumley or Sir Stephen Fry to play the role as head of state? Or even chatty Alan Carr? Yet as Gary Lineker demonstrated, even popular figures who seem almost woven into the fabric of our nation stir controversy if they adopt remotely political positions in this turbulent era.
This might seem a flippant question, especially at such a serious time. Ultimately, however, this is an issue of trust that was broken by a senior member of the Royal Family, raising serious issues that must be resolved by the rest of the Firm if the monarchy is to endure for future generations and not force British voters to choose an alternative head of state.