The Afterword

Musings on the byways of popular culture

Menu

Navigation

You are here: Home / Forum / Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor arrested

Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor arrested

by 151 Comments

It’s felt like a long time coming, but the “artist” formerly known as Prince is getting his collar felt. For “misconduct in public office”, so likely as a result of his activities as a trade ambassador rather than for any other improprieties it seems. And on his birthday too.

I bet he’s sweating now….

0

Comments

  3. It’s almost as though bunging someone you’ve never met £12 m of your mum’s untaxed publicly provided wedge no longer buys you a pass ! This used to be a country..

  6. At the rate he’s downsizing he’ll be living in a matchbox by the end of the month. Of course we should be cautious discussing the alleged crimes as I suppose they are now sub judice.

        • Sorry – by “the crimes”, I meant the specific acts under the misconduct in public office charge, and what exactly the police are currently searching for. We also don’t know whether this is the hook they’re using to lay hands on evidence of other crimes.

          • It’s going to be legally very interesting (appreciate you know all of this) as it is a common law offence. This allows for a degree of interpretation I presume unless there is a very similar case in the past. Which is unlikely I would think given his position at the time of the alleged offences.

            • Apparently, civil servants have been charged with misconduct in public office before, mainly for sharing confidential documents with unsavoury characters. I don’t think any got life. At the time, Andrew was an official trade envoy for the government, a civil servant.

              I suspect plod is using this to get more evidence on the nonce stuff as well. (Nice of them to choose his birthday to arrest him.)

              Mandy is probably better at covering his tracks.

              • I may be wrong, but I strongly suspect Andy MW wasn’t a civil servant at the time and so wouldn’t be covered by that contract and the civil service code. As I understand it, a royal has never been charged with this offence before. And it would be interesting to understand exactly what he was doing and how he was rewarded. And did he sign any contract of employment.

  9. I find it very strange how the right wing crazies in the US believed that the democrats were running a child abuse ring. They almost got it right, even the detail of a Pizza place being somehow involved (even if only in Andrew’s excuses). And the people named are not far off their conspiracy theory! Of course it’s a complete coincidence, but it’s still bizarre.

    I hope that all involved in Epstein’s Kompromat operation are dragged into the law enforcement investigations, and that the victims get justice.

  10. According to the News Agents, working as a protection officer for Randrew was seen as definitely the shortest straw.

    The email chains between him and Epstein, basically handing over insider information, surely must be enough to be the Capone tax evasion that brings him down. If not, I could imagine, now he’s been dumped by his brother into police hands, stories will emerge.

    • Spot on.

      We’ll all be encouraged to focus on the single bad apple now fallen from the tree, when there’s also an equally important question to be answered about the institution that empowered him to act in this fashion and protected him even after it was apparent what he’d been up to.

      The long and short of it is that the Queen bunged £12m to a woman with a credible accusation of rape against her son so that her jubilee party wouldn’t be sullied. People were arrested for simply shouting the accusation in his vicinity.

      I think the public is entitled to ask who else has been paid off down the years to make these little irritations go away, and to avoid anyone’s good time being spoiled. How else has power, granted at the behest and expense of the British public, been leveraged to escape accountability and finesse justice?

      • He’s not the only bad apple, didn’t Harry marry a black woman and move to Canada, or something? That was considered very bad indeed by the royalists that I know.

  14. The cynic in me wonders just how bad what he’s done actually is.

    A certain degree of misbehavior seems to be allowed for Royals -Brenda covering him for Giuffre being a prime example.

    He’s been cut loose now, completely; one of reading of Charles’ statement could be that prosecution would even be welcomed.

    Is it just that he might be seen as “betraying” Britain, or is there worse to come?

        • Great question.

          Victims of the Epstein trafficking ring were as young as 9 years old. That’s 9 years old.

          The US DOJ previously sought Andrew’s assistance in investigating the matter/establishing the extent of his own participation, and reported that they received “zero cooperation”. He has refused all previous requests from law enforcement to be interviewed.

          He continued to socialise with and support Epstein even after he was convicted for soliciting a 14 year old. His ex-wife continued to have her extravagant lifestyle supported by Epstein.

          Maybe this new development will give him an opportunity to clear the air and establish the actual extent of his involvement with Epstein so that we can rule out the possibility that he participated in/had knowledge of child abuse.

          Until he does so, the suspicion will (rightly) follow him. The sole downside of having been able to evade his day in court thus far.

        • Guiffre was underage when Windsor first met her, how old was the Russian flew into the U.K. for a night at Buck House and how many more have there been? I doubt it was just the 2 the creep is a paedophile, a coward and and a liar

          • Yes, but they have all expressed their concern for the victims. I’m sure they will soon demonstrate their concern by revealing everything they know.

            I’m sure they were equally concerned about the victims of another former friend of the Royals, Jimmy Saville.

          • He may well be, but I don’t think you can claim these things without more knowledge. And this site needs to be a bit careful about what is posted as apparent fact

            • While there’s certainly a moral argument that we shouldn’t rush to assume guilt, there is close to zero legal risk attached to the above statement. And there is a corresponding moral argument that we should all be saying this until the guy sees justice.

                • I know I’m talking to a lawyer here but surely you can’t bluntly say out loud in public that Andrew is guilty of anything until he is found guilty in a court? Is innocent-until-guilty not the tenet our legal system is based on? It really does seem that Andrew is obnoxious and repellent in every possible way but…

                  • These are good questions.

                    The presumption of innocence is a cornerstone of our criminal justice system and it’s absolutely something that should always be kept in mind. Even in this case.

                    But it should also be kept in mind that it’s the standard required for criminal conviction, not whether we think someone is likely to have committed a crime, and particularly not whether we think someone should be urgently investigated for potential criminality (which is really what we’re discussing here).

                    This is an unusual case, where the accused is sufficiently powerful and protected that there are genuine concerns he might be essentially beyond prosecution. In that context, it’s worth keeping the accusation out there, and stressing the gravity of the crimes he appears to have been involved in/around and which he has refused to assist in the investigation of. The presumption of innocence becomes a more active concern if and when he ever stands trial.

                    There’s also a defamation angle to consider, but I don’t think that’s a realistic concern here because (a) as pointed out above, the whole world is saying it, and (b) Andrew’s entire strategy appears to be to avoid investigation/the inside of a courtroom, which makes the chances of his launching a defamation claim almost entirely negligible. He wouldn’t want to invite the scrutiny.

                    • In my simple, very simple, mind, just because Andrew wouldn’t dare sue anybody for saying “You are a paedophile nonce” that doesn’t mean we should say it out loud in public?

                    • My point about defamation was a legal, rather than moral analysis.

                      On the moral front, you have to balance the need to respect the presumption of innocence (which, again, applies to trial in court, not to whether or not an accusation is made or repeated) with the risk that this specific individual is going to escape proper investigation/trial for a fact pattern that would have seen most other people up on trial.

                    • Yes, Leedsboy all that we know points Andrew to be an imbecilic, privileged, paedophile nonce but that’s not my point.
                      There’s the faintest of faint possibilities Andrew was just a gullible fool who loved being feted by a billionaire, was given the opportunity to have sex with beautiful young women all of whom consented and were at least eighteen (no law breaking there) , thought there was nothing wrong accepting bribes and freebies (possibly broke a few laws there),really was in Pizza Express that night and really can’t sweat any more and “Don’t forget, I’m a war hero”. Everything points to him being a proper, proper wrong ‘un who should be flung into a cell with Bruiser Bates who has been in solitary confinement these last ten years and has run out of porn mags but until the trial shouting out “He’s a nonce” is just plain Wrong.

                    • “Until the trial”.

                      What if there is no trial? That’s the entire point.

                      These allegations against Andrew are now 12 years old and he’s evaded all previous attempts at investigation. Even the current arrest isn’t for rape.

                      Why would the public be morally obligated to avoid making accusations against a man who is seemingly impervious to justice?

                    • If he wishes to he can sue. He can afford it financially. His silence is deafening though. I think the current situation is probably as assertive about his innocence as he will be. His strategy, bar the Newsnight interview, has been to keep his head down and hope it goes away. To Bingo’s point, the accusations and the generally held belief that he has committed crimes are the main things that are potentially holding him to account.

                    • Apart from his official call code which was Purple Four-One it appears his security detail had a nickname for him.

                      “He was called the c**t,” says ex bodyguard Page. “Plain and simple.”

                    • I’ll stop now but just surprised we seem happy to convict somebody without a fair trial even though the defendant has done everything in his power to avoid such a trial

                    • With all the love in the world, that’s a pretty wild characterisation of the discussion above.

                      It’s not worth arguing over though, so have some beautiful music instead.

  16. I wouldn’t expect any further activity as exciting for a while after this. Given the high profile of who he was/is and the global media interest any potential charge will be painstakingly put together. The CPS will be sweating on this as much as he may be.

  17. He’s going to do a runner soon as they let him go, isn’t he? Off to a mate’s private island probably. That’s if he’s got any mates left. We demand remand!

    • It’s the “spare” phenomenon as described by Harry in his book. If you’re not taking the top job, your role is not so well defined. As a young man, Andrew was a relatively popular figure due to his active service in the Royal Navy and this seemed to indicate a focussed and loyal person. However, the wheels became wobbly at around the time of his divorce and then when he was given the Trade Envoy role, an inflated sense of importance.

      • The last 3 spares have been Margaret, Andrew and Harry. It does seem to be a position that drives you nuts* , being raised for a position that you get further from as you progress if the heir apparent starts breeding.

        * Even without what happened to Harry’s mother.

  22. I’m going to make a prediction that no charges will come of this. It’s a bit of theatre to show that the King has distanced himself from his brother and that the police are ‘doing something’. A search of his residences will, of course, find nothing and just be used to defend him later. I’m guessing that this has been heavily negotiated with Charlie for a week or two (police are unlikely to arrest his brother without giving some sort of heads up to the Royal establishment) and that Andrew knew the hour and minute that they would turn up and was waiting politely for them too arrive (just like the media).

    • It will quit likely to come to nothing since, as The Times’ Legal Editor reported yesterday, it’s very difficult to purse a successful prosecution for misconduct in a public office. The first hurdle would be to establish that a trade envoy is a public office, given there is no clear legal definition of what constitutes a public office in this context.

  23. btw, I love how the standard photo doing the rounds in the Australian media is of Andrew looking like he’s been taxidermied, reclining in the back of a vehicle with one red, glowing eye!

  24. Hmm. Whilst the Police have an obligation to investigate historical wrong-doing, I can’t help wondering it this will turn into another side show that attracts more attention and resources than current abuse affecting far more people. The BBC reported earlier in the week on the widespead abuse and exploitation of young girls a d women by criminal gangs in London. I am told something similar happens in Bristol. Perhaps J do them a disservice and the Met and other forces are pursuing this with the same rigour as the nine forces said to be investigating Epstein related trafficking. Time will tell.

    • Leaving aside the fact that they’re not ostensibly investigating the rape claim, if the police aren’t there to investigate the abuse of up to 1,000 people, potentially by some of the country’s most powerful individuals, then I really don’t know what they’re there for. The scandal isn’t that they’re giving this too much focus, it’s that it’s taken this long. And I’m sure they’re capable of doing more than one thing at a time.

      • As I am sure that you are aware, the Police make choices every day about where to target their resources. I doubt that a fraction of the 1,000 people were abused in the UK, whereas there are most definitely that number and more cureently at risk in London, Bristol and elsewhere as we speak. Even in the small regional probation office where my wife works, they are currently dealing with one offender who trafficked women into sex work in 50 locations across the country; three arrested abroad in November suspected of trafficking over 20 women into the UK; four people arrested for human slavery in July 2025; 3 who were jailed for trafficking and forced labour in 2024. Other offices within the region are dealing with the aftermath( 2023) of 48 arrests for gang related activity which included drug dealing, the sexual exploitation of children and nearly 30 attempted murders. And so on. These are cases that they could, to their credit, make stick. There are others where they simply don’t have the resources to pursue. This, by the way, in a force which is about 30th out of 40 plus in terms of size.
        If, however, you have evidence that the police do have sufficient resources to manage all these competing demands, then I will be interested to hear it.

        • My main evidence that the police have sufficient resource to manage the demands on them and also investigate Andrew is that they’re currently investigating Andrew.

          If anyone in here is party to all the necessary info to second guess that decision (particularly given that we don’t even really know what they’re looking for) then fair play. ❤️

    • I suspect that the police have some idea of the links between the two cases as well. If there has been a sharing of valuable information, what was the benefit passes for that information? In 5 years time, their will be a very good ITV drama about all of this.

  26. Let us not forget that supposedly some “Prime Minister” (non-fatally) strangled one of Epstein’s harem when on the job with them. Which “Prime Minister” was that, one wonders, given how little is being said about some high-profile types in the emails. It’s also very hard to believe President Gobshite is an innocent party given his proudly-stated priapic opportunism in the past.

  29. I blame the parents.
    Paul and Linda would have done a much better job.

    Always remember…

    The father of Andrew, didn’t… wait for it… ‘suffer fools gladly’. Oh, no?
    Never, ever, forget that.

  31. This morning’s The Andrew news was something about putting an expensive “massage service” on expenses. The poor lamb’s had a terrible start to the week, let’s hope for a happy ending.

  32. Removing him from the line of succession to the throne is a giant task, for one thing all the Commonwealth nations will need to agree to it and that’ll be a long process, so….

    A few hours later…
    Australia and New Zealand – “We’re fine with it!”

  33. In my heart I’m a republican, but if it came to a choice between King Charles and an elected has-been political blowhard president, like Boris Johnson or Tony Blair, as figurehead of state, I think I’d prefer Charles.

    When you consider how easily the Great British Public were bamboozled into voting for Brexit in 2016, there’s something to be said for training someone from birth to be our national figurehead.

    • The world he was brought up to be king in has substantially changed since his early days. There’s certainly less deference shown when he’s out in public.

      Years ago I’d gone to London with my dad as we walked along we saw a large crowd of people lining the street dad asked what was going on. “The queen will be driving past soon” a large group of people just to see a woman drive past in a car. We joined them and saw a woman drive past in a car.

      Years later we were down in London with my son there was a small group of people outside Coutts Bank. Same question similar answer ” the queen is visiting the bank” My son had no interest in seeing her. We did catch a fleeting glimpse of her arm in the air waving.

    • You often hear this argument, but it’s a bit of a false dichotomy.

      Given that the “leadership” provided by the monarchy relies entirely on accident of birth, the real question is whether you’d prefer a President Boris Johnson, who can be voted out of office when he misbehaves, or a King Boris Johnson, who will be in post for life more or less regardless of what a shitbag he is and who will enjoy an entire apparatus of snivelling sycophants working to ensure his misdeeds remain private.

      • No constitution is itself a guarantee of justice, it depends on people enforcing it. But following the release of some of the Epstein files, police in the UK have arrested two prominent unelected public figures – a member of the Royal Family and a member of the House of Lords. The USA, where the Head of State and the House of Representatives, and many other posts, are democratically elected, has arrested no-one as far as I know.

        • Doesn’t seem relevant as I’m not suggesting we adopt the US system of government, and certainly not its current culture and practice.

          I’m simply observing that if you wish to make a comparison between the relative merits of an elected office of President (a position that exists in numerous non-US countries) and a hereditary monarchy, you should really be using the same individual in post. Anything else is placing a finger on the scale.

          • My point was that you really need to have people who are prepared to enforce a constitution. It is not a mechanical process which ticks over on its own as a system of checks and balances. America is just one example.

            I couldn’t care less about the royal family and the stuff around it, like the daft honours system. If anyone wants to propose changes to the constitution, which does frequently change, that’s fine by me, but they should be clear about the problems they’re trying to solve and how the changes would be enforced.

    • As I’ve probably mentioned every single time this subject comes up, I’m a big fan of Italy’s presidents. I’d take any one of them from the last 40 years over Charles.
      I asked an AI who would be a suitable British candidate to be Head of State and it suggested Baroness Brenda Hale. I’ve never heard of her, but she’ll do.

    • False dichotomy:

      “We’re an anarcho-syndicalist commune. We take it in turns to act as a sort of executive officer for the week”.

      Who needs kings OR presidents?

Leave a Reply