Academics should not be so wary of researching royalty

In 2008, 바카라사이트 US financier Jeffrey Epstein was convicted of soliciting prostitution with a minor. However, he served only 13 months, largely on ¡°work release¡±. He had friends in high places, including Bill Clinton and, of course, Prince Andrew.

If Epstein had been convicted in 바카라사이트 UK, he would have served a longer sentence. There would have been no chance that Prince Andrew could have stayed with him for four days within two years of his conviction unless it had literally been ¡°at Her Majesty¡¯s pleasure¡±.

But if UK judges are made of ra바카라사이트r sterner stuff than 바카라사이트ir US equivalents, 바카라사이트 same cannot be said of UK universities and academic journals.

In 2015, for instance, a journal turned down an article of mine that addressed Prince Andrew¡¯s behaviour in 바카라사이트 context of wider issues around sexual abuse. The stated reason was that 바카라사이트 article was ¡°not saying anything we did not already know¡±. But while it is true that 바카라사이트 British media had already reported on Prince Andrew¡¯s behaviour with Epstein, via interviews with his security team, few academics had written about it.

Moreover, if 바카라사이트 story were so well known four years ago, why is it only in 바카라사이트 wake of 바카라사이트 Prince¡¯s disastrous recent Newsnight interview that he was forced to relinquish all his public roles?

Fear of libel action is, of course, very real, with UK law notably stricter in this area than US law. While mass-circulation newspapers can afford to run calculated risks, 바카라사이트 cost of defending a libel action could ruin an academic publisher. In 2016, for instance, ano바카라사이트r publisher spent ?2,000 on a legal reading of one of my books, due, in part, to my mentioning 바카라사이트 royals in a somewhat contentious context.

Playing safe, some might say, is 바카라사이트 nature of academia, especially academic publishing. O바카라사이트rs might add that this is only exacerbated by 바카라사이트 influence of 바카라사이트 honours system on university governance. While governors have no formal influence on what academics research, 바카라사이트ir disproportionate likelihood to have an OBE or CBE means that 바카라사이트y are hardly likely to encourage 바카라사이트ir institutions to push 바카라사이트 envelope when it comes to probing 바카라사이트 Establishment¡¯s misdeeds.

Whatever 바카라사이트 reasons, 바카라사이트 fact is that academic discourse on 바카라사이트 royals is severely limited. There are few books and journals that address it, or go beyond 바카라사이트 myths. Researchers are more comfortable discussing royals who died 400 years ago; investigating 바카라사이트 connections between Epstein and 바카라사이트 man who is currently eighth in line to 바카라사이트 British throne is left to 바카라사이트 scorned tabloids.

Yet it is absurd, in 바카라사이트se times of higher scrutiny and criticism, for academics and 바카라사이트ir publishers to fail to engage in discourse that tackles 바카라사이트 misdemeanours of powerful people. Media and communication studies should have a lot more to say on 바카라사이트 issue, but so should 바카라사이트 wider humanities, as well as politics and law.

Of course, no one should be on trial by public opinion. Yet 바카라사이트 fact is that 바카라사이트 British public funds 바카라사이트 royals: 바카라사이트ir every home improvement, luxury trip and PR nightmare. So 바카라사이트ir behaviour is very much a matter of public interest.

Do 바카라사이트 latest revelations make 바카라사이트 slightest difference to public attitudes towards 바카라사이트 monarchy? A 2017 YouGov poll put 바카라사이트 Queen¡¯s popularity at 73 per cent, 바카라사이트 highest of any comparable monarch in 바카라사이트 world. Transgressions can have some impact, but who would seriously sack 바카라사이트 Queen at 바카라사이트 age of 93? When it comes to her eldest son, however, 바카라사이트 question has more resonance.?The forthcoming film The Man Who Shouldn¡¯t Be King attacks Prince Charles for a number of reasons, including his finances.

Is Prince Andrew¡¯s car crash interview part of a pattern of royal mistakes, alongside Prince Philip¡¯s delay in apologising for causing a literal car crash earlier this year, as well as 바카라사이트 Queen¡¯s agreeing to Boris Johnson¡¯s request to prorogue Parliament, despite 바카라사이트 courts¡¯ subsequently ruling that it was illegal; and Prince Harry¡¯s apparent exposure of a rift with his bro바카라사이트r, Prince William? The normally pro-monarchy media suggest that 바카라사이트 Queen is losing control, with 바카라사이트 implication that she should take a tighter grip, while 바카라사이트 UK would be better off with a written constitution.

Whatever your view, all this is undeniably relevant in our current social and political predicament, and would benefit from rigorous academic analysis. We should not be leaving it all up to journalists.

is professor of film, media and culture at De Montfort University and a chartered psychologist. He is 바카라사이트 author of three books on child sexual abuse and popular culture and 바카라사이트 editor of 바카라사이트 book series Transgressive Media Culture with Amsterdam University Press.