The sad truth is that we are witnessing a legacy of the over-indulgent late queen: an organisation unable to meet today’s challenges

Curious that the Epstein scandal, which has caused such an overwhelming furore in the US, should so far have done more to damage the British royal family than the US presidency. Even though many Americans have an obsession with the minutiae of the monarchy and all its works – despite proudly revolting against the institution themselves 250 years ago – their concerns have understandably focused more on their own big beasts, Donald Trump and the Clintons, than ours. It’s as if King Charles and his brother, the artist now known as Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor, are some quaint curlicue, a baroque adornment to the main event. Which, of course, is how they see the British monarchy anyway.

Kings and queens have always been susceptible to men with money and power. In the past they were able to bestow both on their loyal followers. Now it is more transactional. It is evident that what appealed to Epstein was access to class and status: the chance to sit jokily on the throne in Buckingham Palace or have a weekend in Balmoral or Sandringham and thereby tie a susceptible royal into his web of contacts and obligations. What appealed to Andrew and his importunate and permanently hard-up former wife, Sarah, was access to cash and the luxuries that went with it. Hard to believe given the royal family’s wealth, but what probably appealed most was cosying up to the sort of money that has brownstone mansions in Manhattan to stay in and private islands for holidays in the Caribbean.

Stephen Bates is a former royal correspondent of the Guardian

Do you have an opinion on the issues raised in this article? If you would like to submit a response of up to 300 words by email to be considered for publication in our letters section, please click here.