The humbling of the House of Windsor

How deference failed the Crown — and why silence is no longer an option

On his 66th birthday, Andrew Mountbatten Windsor has been arrested on suspicion of misconduct in public office. He denies all wrongdoing. The presumption of innocence applies. The courts, if charged, must determine the facts. Whatever happens, this is a seismic moment for the monarchy. Not in modern British history has a senior member of the Royal Family been placed under arrest.

The fact of the arrest necessarily limits what can be said about the specific allegation while proceedings are active. Nothing here speaks to Andrew’s criminal liability, that is for the institutions of the law to determine. But whatever happens if and when it comes to court, the institution into which he was born will have questions to answer and a public relations nightmare to manage.

The questions surrounding Andrew's conduct — as trade envoy and more broadly about his relationship with Jeffrey Epstein — will not go away. They will define and dominate the short reign of Charles III, just as he is afflicted by cancer. He must know this in his bones. He and the rest of the family must now do something, that they never, ever do: answer questions about their conduct and way of doing things. This will be uncomfortable- they do not do scrutiny. They represent the last part of the British state which, through reasons of deference, entitlement and supine media culture, has appeared to consider itself above it. That is part of the reason why they find themselves in such jeopardy now.

The allegations concerning Andrew and his relationship with Jeffrey Epstein stretch back over 15 years and have been extensively reported. During that time, as a matter of public record, Andrew stayed with Epstein, dined with him, travelled with him. Andrew was rarely operating in isolation; he was accompanied by private secretaries, advisers, and security officers — all part of the machinery of the Royal Household. And yet, as far as we are aware, the Royal Family has never commissioned an internal inquiry into how those relationships were assessed, what concerns were raised, who knew what when, or what action was taken.

Consider that for a moment. Andrew has been stripped of his titles and patronages. And yet the Palace did not publicly explain the reasoning. It offered generalised expressions of sympathy for victims of abuse, but no substantive account of its own decision-making. That silence may have been intended to draw a line. Instead, it has fuelled speculation. This is not about declaring Andrew guilty of a criminal offence, that is for a jury, if it ever comes to that. It is about institutional responsibility and accountability. In any other public body, serious reputational concerns of this scale would prompt formal review, documentation, scrutiny, an account as to how and why they’ve acted as they’ve done. Not a single interview has been granted on the subject, beyond Andrew’s disastrous 2019 outing. Taken in the round, that fact alone is remarkable.

There are serious questions about how the Palace’s briefing culture functioned when Andrew’s conduct was under scrutiny. Over several years, unattributed briefings cast doubt on the credibility and motives of his accuser. Questions remain as to whether that reflected a coordinated institutional approach, a failure of oversight, or something in between. The Palace has never addressed it.

Moreover, we still do not know the full provenance of the reported £12m civil settlement with Giuffre. The Palace has said, again via background briefing, that no public funds were used. But with the royals’ finances shrouded in secrecy as they are, it is always hard to tell where private money ends and public money begins. You would think our Parliament might want to check. You would think it might want to ensure that not a penny piece of public money — directly or indirectly — was used to settle a civil claim involving serious allegations. But MPs remain, apparently, incurious.

Indeed, for weeks now, British journalists have been asking British politicians the same question: should Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor testify before the United States Congress? It is a remarkable question. Not because of the scandal itself, but because of what it reveals about the increasingly insipid nature of our own political culture. The question which matters is, why is that the first question? Why are we looking to Congress to provide answers to what should be central questions for the British political system?

It has suited both Parliament, government and Palace to outsource these questions to Andrew personally and to Congress. For the monarchy, to try and hack Andrew off as a gangrenous limb. Meanwhile, Parliament and successive government(s) have looked away, perhaps for fear of what they might find about how the monarchy, beneath the bonnet, really works. One of those ridiculous, portentous things people say about the role of prime minister is that it is his job “not to embarrass the monarch”, as if that’s some sort of eternal constitutional principle. It’s no longer good enough.

In my view, this is the worst crisis for the House of Windsor since the Abdication. At least, with the advice of Stanley Baldwin and parliament, Edward VIII had the sense to do something about it. As taboo as it is to say, Elizabeth II was a complacent monarch. Her son and heir, in his short reign, is paying the price for that complacency. He could yet manage the fallout, but he must be willing to do something she rarely did: act. Whatever happens to Andrew, he should have an inquiry, open himself to scrutiny, invite parliamentary investigation, send a signal to the public that he gets it- about how the institution can and should work differently in the 21st century. He could reform the extended family, forgo the need for “a spare” and move to a Crown Prince model, of the Scandinavian or Dutch style, open up every penny of his accounts to MPs. And if the monarchy won’t do it, Keir Starmer and Parliament, via a special select committee should do it for them, for their own good.

A constitutional monarchy survives not by mystique alone, but by consent. Consent depends on confidence. Confidence depends on scrutiny. If the Palace continues to treat scrutiny as optional, it should not be surprised if consent begins to look the same way. Never complain, never explain the late Queen reportedly used to say. It was arrogant then. For this millennium old institution, it could be suicidal now.