Moral Panic Across The Pond

What's puzzling about the whole Epstein affair is that in the US, it's looking like the last few reluctant pops of a batch of popcorn, while in the UK and Norway, it's buildng to a frenzy it never remotely reached in the US. Over the past week here,

• A board member of Beta Technologies resigned because he was mentioned somewhere in the last document dump
• Lawrence Summers resigned his last paid faculty gig at Harvard, having long since been fingered as an Epstein crony
• Hillary Clinton says "ask my husband" about any Epstein questions, while insiders worry Bill himself could "have a Biden moment" in his own testimony.

But in the old country, it's become a much bigger deal:

• Former Norwegian Prime Minister Thorbjørn Jagland was hospitalized following a suicide attempt days after being charged with "gross corruption" for his part in the Epstein scandal
• World Economic Forum CEO Børge Brende, another Norwegian, is resigning in the wake of a WEF investigation into his Epstein ties
• The UK Parliament passed a "humble address" to the King that compels the government to disclose all papers regarding the creation and vetting of Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor's role as Special Representative for Trade and Investment from the Cabinet Office and the Prime Minister’s Office.

According to the UK Guardian, a "humble address" was

originally regarded as a polite, ceremonial message. . . politically weaponised in recent years by opposition parties looking for procedural back doors to force the release of sensitive documents.

This appears to be roughly equivalent to the The Epstein Files Transparency Act (H.R. 4405), signed into law by President Trump on November 19, 2025, which required the DOJ to release all unclassified, non-victim-identifying documents related to Jeffrey Epstein. While Trump regarded the whole Epstein story as a "big hoax", he always said he would sign the bill when it came to his desk, and the only revelation the files had about Trump himself was that he had reported Epstein to law enforcement as early as July 2006.

As a result, the Epstein files have posed no serious threat to Trump or his agenda, and there have been no resignations by prominent Republicans due to allegtions from the Epstein files, much less suicide attempts. Rep Marjorie Taylor Greene, however, resigned her House seat, apparently in frustration that the files did so little damage to the administration.

Not so much in the UK. Prime Minister Starmer's chief of staff, Morgan McSweeney, resigned, taking full responsibility for advising Starmer to appoint Peter Mandelson US ambassador. Mandelson in turn was fired from that position in September of last year due to revelations from earlier tranches of the Epstein files. According to Wikipedia,

Later in January 2026, a further release of documents relating to Epstein appeared to show that Mandelson and his then partner, Reinaldo da Silva, had received at least $75,000 in payments from Epstein. The documents also revealed that Mandelson, then serving as business secretary, had lobbied government ministers to amend policy on bankers' bonuses at Epstein's request. Mandelson resigned his membership of the Labour Party on 1 February 2026 due to his relationship with Epstein.

Two days later, he also resigned from the House of Lords. But as I noted earleir this week, while conventional wisdom still maintains that the Epstein crisis is the worst for the royal family since 1936, it appears already to have become a much bigger threat. According to Time,

In the wake of Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor's arrest on suspicion of misconduct in public office, some U.K. lawmakers are calling for an independent inquiry into the royal family.

“There must be an independent inquiry into what the royal family knew about his Epstein links,” said Richard Burgon, a member of the ruling Labour Party.

Burgon went a step further, suggesting it’s “time for a serious national debate about abolishing the monarchy.” He argued that even if people disagree, there should at least be a discussion over “the role of hereditary privilege in our democracy.”

. . . Zack Polanski, leader of the Green Party of England and Wales, said Friday morning that there are “lots of questions to be asked.”

. . . Polanski also raised the issue of potentially abolishing the monarchy, something which he has previously voiced support for.

“The monarchy are doing a pretty good job in themselves of not having their proudest moments over various issues we’ve seen in the last couple of years and, when the public are ready to have that national conversation about the monarchy, I think issues like this certainly don’t help the monarchy’s case,” he said.

This site compares calls for the abolition of the monarchy in 1936 to those now and suggests gthe 1936 crisis was less serious:

On 11 December 1936, the Conservative party Prime Minister Stanley Baldwin brought the Abdication Bill before parliament, allowing for Edward to be replaced by his brother George. But the radical socialist MP James Maxton then introduced a republican amendment to the bill demanding that the country ditch an outdated institution and become a republic. He was backed by four other MPs: Campbell Stephen, Dr Alfred Salter, Agnes Hardie, and Willie Gallacher. Four of the MPs were left-wing Labour while Gallacher was a Communist.

. . . The republican amendment was discussed and reported at surprising length. However, it was overwhelmingly defeated and the monarch soldiered on to the present day.

In addition to calls for the abolition of the monarchy now, there's also speculation that King Charles III could be forced to abdicate in favor of Prince William, even if the monarchy stays.

The scandal surrounding Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor could end the reign of King Charles III, says a British historian who wrote an unofficial biography of the former prince.

Andrew Lownie, who spent years researching the royals for his book Entitled, says if the King had any idea of his brother's alleged misconduct while in public office, it could be cause for an early end to his reign.

"This is far more serious than the abdication crisis," Lownie told 7.30, referring to the abdication of King Edward VIII in 1936, when he chose to marry American divorcee Wallis Simpson.

Let's keep in mind only that the 1936 crisis was resolved and tied up with a bow within a ten-day period after the first public mention. This phase of it has been festering far longer than that already.