The Fall of the House of Windsor
This story should end the monarchy. Frantic efforts are being made to diminish the affair, or to re-frame the crisis as (hilariously) one that just goes to show how strong our institutions are, or as a personal crisis between brothers. But, as Andrew Lownie, author of The Mountbattens, puts it: “Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor arrest is bigger than the abdication and the most serious Royal crisis in modern history.”
Andrew Mounbatten-Windsor is the first senior royal in modern history to be arrested, the last being nearly 400 years ago: King Charles I, who was arrested in 1647 during the English Civil War, and later executed. He may go to prison.
Thames Valley police said it had arrested “a man in his 60s from Norfolk” on suspicion of misconduct in public office and was carrying out searches at addresses in Berkshire and Norfolk. Nine police forces are investigating Andrew. The investigation relates to the former Prince forwarding to Epstein confidential government reports from visits to Vietnam, Singapore and China, including investment opportunities in gold and uranium in Afghanistan.
Despite all this, the political establishment is in deep denial.
Because we are surrounded by a torrent of sleaze and corruption we are sleepwalking into the fall of the House of Windsor. The drip-drip of accusations and the steady flow of revelations from the Epstein Files make us inured to shock and scandal. But this is a far bigger Royal scandal than the Abdication in 1936.
The Royal family can’t contain the Andrew scandal because they are deeply implicated in it, financially, morally, and legally. They enabled his behavior and protected him. They, in particular the King, attempted to put clear blue water between them by acting in October, but in that action, they betrayed their own knowledge.
Queen Elizabeth gave Prince Andrew £7m to settle a sex-abuse case pic.twitter.com/9PbuWyTrR0
— Ounka (@OunkaOnX) February 19, 2026
Surrounded by the embedded sycophants – ‘Royal Correspondents’ – the monarchy has survived for decades while mired in sleaze. But now it’s pouring out and even the British state propaganda can’t contain it.
As Tina Brown writes [Epstein and the New Dirt on Andrew]:
“One might think that the erstwhile Duke of York had no reputation left to lose. Virtually everything he said in his ruinous 2019 BBC interview about ending his ongoing friendship with Epstein has now been exposed as a lie. But the January 30 file dump reveals that Andrew’s conduct as UK trade envoy from 2001 to 2011 has new abominations for us to savor.”
“Flashback: For a full decade, HBH, “His Buffoon Highness,” as he was known around the British Foreign Office, was allowed to swan around the world on a private plane at government expense, brokering nefarious self-dealing side deals with dodgy oligarchs and partying at their homes with big-breasted beauty queens. Andrew’s adhesive contact with a string of international lowlifes like the late Saif Gaddafi, son of the Libyan despot, and the onetime Tunisian dictator’s billionaire son-in-law Mohamed Sakher el Materi, later sentenced to sixteen years for corruption, was the despair of the British diplomatic corps.”
What is now happening is the media is desperately trying to either ringfence the rest of the monarchy, or to frame the discussion as concern for the Queen or the mental health of Andrew himself.
As Steve Howell, who writes for the Big Issue put it: “The BBC is already churning out damage-limitation talking points, courtesy of hand-picked pundits: – We have to distinguish between the monarchy as an institution and the family (David Dimbleby). – William wanted to be tougher on Andrew earlier (@indiamctaggart). And so on.”
They seem desperately unable to keep up with the reality of the situation. Jonathan Dimbleby went on the World at One to claim that the arrest of Andrew: the king’s brother would “strengthen the monarchy.” Simon Jenkins in the pages of the Guardian stressed that: “King Charles, who apparently was not warned in advance that his brother was to be arrested, has been scrupulous in his response.” Adding: “The latest turn in the royal saga adds to the urgency of reform.”
But if the parade of sycophants seem incapable of realising the gravity of the situation, the story is leaking out and questions remain which make it impossible for the wider institution to extricate itself from it.
.@GrahamSmith_: “Its not just Andrew, there are serious questions being asked, we’ve heard hecklers asking them, BBC journalists not so much, about what did William & Charles know, when did they know it”
The BBC presenter did not like that. pic.twitter.com/mKf12glWOw
— Saul Staniforth (@SaulStaniforth) February 19, 2026
The attempt to diminish the scale of this crisis, and its constitutional implications won’t work. In reality, Buckingham Palace spent years ridiculing Virginia Giuffre’s allegations from 2015 and the Queen personally intervened to buy her silence in 2022.
As the story unfolds, the questions need to be asked: what did they know and when did they know it? Who paid off Virginia Giuffre and what did they know when they did so? We are led to believe that Andrew Mountbatten- Windsor was loaned £12million by his parents and brother Charles to pay off Giuffre. The late Queen is said to have stumped up £7million for the 2022 settlement, with another £3million coming from Prince Philip’s estate — a year after his death. Some £1.5million was paid by the-then Prince Charles with other royals also chipping in. None of this has been properly investigated or revealed. This is what happens when you don’t have a proper press, but a coterie or Royal Correspondents and professional sycophants.
One of the astonishing things about this affair is that Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor is being investigated for “misconduct in public office” but not for his sexual conduct. It’s astonishing that we don’t know who this person is, where she is or whether she’s okay? As the police investigate him passing sensitive information to Peter Mandelson during the time when he was ‘UK trade envoy’ but we seem to have conveniently forgotten his other behaviour.
The monarchy is only sustained by institutional sycophancy and a culture of deference that is curated among the dim and deluded. But I’m not sure the institution can survive without its totemic matriarch, and the slew of revelations that will surely follow? We don’t live in the 1950s anymore, despite the best efforts of many.
If the war generation grew up with the mythology of the Blitz, and the kindly Queen Mum, and the Balmoral photo-shoots, and the 80s weddings, the current generation has grown up just with relentless sleaze. ‘Randy Andy’ isn’t viable anymore and neither is his entourage.
Andrews exploits stem directly from the sense of entitlement, which flows seamlessly from the illusion that some people’s blood alone entitles them to do more or less everything they want. I’m sorry, but Generations X through Z won’t buy that story anymore.
The BBC and the wider Brit media seem to think they are talking down to the masses and people aren’t buying it. Expect the Royals to be heckled and harassed at every public event, and people to be arrested for not bowing down to this rotten, exposed feudal relic.
Abolish the Monarchy.
If we abolish the monarchy what do we replace it with?
ANY form of elected official is subject to political pressure and will temper their policies to get elected rather than trying to do the best for the nation.
Yes I know the monarch is a figurehead but one with considerable influence. That influence must not be directed to one party, say Reform.
‘If the monarchy is abolished what do we replace it with?’
Personally I’d like to see Lorranie Kelly as an unelected head of state, do wonders for the Union!
Incidentally I hear prisoners throughout the UK are queuing up to be the first to Mount Batten.
Given the reality you are presented with, I’d choose a different argument? Literally anyone would be better than this shitshow
You can vote out a President. How do you remove a monarch ?
Apply the Declaration of Arbroath – tell him we no longer want him or his corrupt crew – just as Barbados and other Caribbean islands have done. Remember – in Scotland we are citizens, not serfs
Bill
The elected president would be subject to political pressures – well maybe aye maybe no. The reality of the current monarchy however is that the elected politicians are subject to pressure from and are deferential to the unelected monarch.
The monarchy is the coat hanger upon which the class system in UK rests. I have no doubt that if Scotland became an independent republic there would still be a form of class system as it seems inbuilt into human nature. It will though have some reference to an individual’s contribution rather than being based on hereditary.
What do you replace them with? A written constitution, a bill of rights and a president ( like the Irish model). England can keep them. Surely in Scotland we have people of the caliber of Mary Robinson, Mary Macaleese and Michael Higgins plus the present Irish president. Declaration of Arbroath – activate now.
Bill
Obviously, there’s just the sheer satisfaction of the Arse formerly known as Prince getting his comeuppance. And while the travails of the British monarchy are not the most significant event in the world today, it would be very welcome if this does indeed trigger at least the beginning of the end of this rotten, costly and undemocratic institution. Of course it should be replaced by an elected president, who does not lead a government or represent a political party, along the lines of the Irish republic, at least as long as we need a ‘head of state’ role at all. And the current monarch should be questioned closely about what he knew and when – so much to date has been about damage limitation for the Royal Family (yukky term) rather than transparency or accountability.
Meanwhile, in Gaza, Yemen, USA, etc., etc……
I share the preference for a Republic and utterly deplore the way that our present system fails to draw a clear distinction between the Monarchy and the person currently holding the office and their private interests. One of the advantages of a President would be the withdrawal of prerogative powers from the Ministers of the current government exercised without Parliamentary oversight. Constitutional reform has once again been kicked into the long grass by a “reforming,” administration.
Obviously you favour a non- executive Presidency which seems to be the least likely to be corrupted. We only have to look across to France to see a model far more corrupt and full of self-importance than our Monarchy. Whether we manage to separate a Presidency from Party politics is entirely down to the electorate but in most countries where non-executive Presidencies exist candidates are supported by political Parties, including in Ireland, even if they are not members of any. The usual Left-Right positions are still in place.
Is this the worst scandal ever? Looking back at Victoria’s reign her sons gave her worse ones: a boy brothel, adultery, gambling among others. The family’s marriage links with Germany, Denmark and Russia became a considerable embarrassment in 1914. Edward VIII openly flirted with the Nazis before and after the Abduction Crisis. The Government sent him to Bermuda to prevent his possible use as a puppet King. I’d also note that Thatcher hardly seemed damaged by son Mark and the al Yamamah scandal. Mark has had to avoid the US ever since. Trump gets away with outrageous abuse of office and self-, enrichment without losing much support.
Fine example, your comment, about the point Mike is making… denialism…
You intrevene to argue our monarchy is less corrupt than the French Republic – you must be kidding – and the scandal is bad, but there have been worse…
Seriously?
The only thing I can think of as worse than being indicted for the trafficking of minors, if that charge is eventually brought as Andrew Lownie speculates it could well be, would be murder…
What could be worse than ruining the life of a child?
Douglas – what a lot of people don’t seem to understand is that this is just the beginning of the scandal for Royal Family.
More information will come out about child trafficking and prostitution and these are the offences that the public really want to see Andrew held to account over. These offences will almost inevitably lead to questions about how much the King and late Queen knew especially as they coughed up £12,000,000 to Virginia Guiffre for her silence during the late Queen’s platinum jubilee year.
Most royal historians see this as potentially the biggest scandal in royal history for last 300 years. Nobody knows how this will play out but bearing in mind the monarchy lacks popularity in under 50’s it is not fanciful to think that this scandal could finish the monarchy.
There is a lot of straw clutching going on by monarchists such as Jonathan Dimbleby as they try to process what has happened.
It might be a bit difficult to make charges of trafficking and child exploration stick. It was Epstein who brought the young women to the UK and all those he brought to Andrew were of the legal age of consent under English Law. He’s sleezy but proving the young women were being prostituted and he paid for them in money or favours might be more difficult. Are there any complaints laid in the UK by victims? There are no US warrants against him only a Congressional Committee enquiry that would have to halt for a criminal case.
I don’t think any French President personally murdered anyone ,but going back to de Gaulle’s secret Gaullist party interrogation cells during the Algerian Crisis, they have certainly been behind political violence for personal and party gain. De Gaulle encouraged CAR President Bokassa to liquidate his principal opponent. Giscard d’Estaing had France fund Bokassa’s coronation and got an infamous jewel set in return. Through ELF there was a circular funding system between France, former colonies and French politicians, sometimes resulting in coups and deaths.
Sarkozy just became the first former French President to be jailed for corruption.
The photo iincluded in this article of Andrew and what looks like a child is pretty damning I think anyone would say…
Again, from what I gather from Andrew Lownie, there are solid grounds for thinking there could will be a wider investigation and charges about the sex trafficking ring,… the details of which we don’t know except for the case of Virginia Giuffre, but there are plenty of victims willing to testify it seems…
These people were travelling to a place known as “pedo island” on a plane called “the Lolita Express”… there was no secret here…
Lownie also talks about a menage-a-trois between a former British PM, G Maxwell and Prince Andrew, which, while not illegal, is still something I think we should know about because if it’s connected to Andrew and G Maxwell then it’s connected somehow to Epstein, who recorded EVERYTHING, and quite possibly could use something like that as Kompromat…
Everything the French did in Algeria, the British did in Kenya, Cyprus, and Ireland, to name but three countries..
Sarkozy was indeed convicted for dodgy dealings with Gadaffi, but Blair did the deal in the dessert and also the totally corrupt arms deal with the Saudis about 25 years ago now, then declared it of national interest, and shut down the investigation…
That someone like yourself feels the need to intervene on a story like this to defend the estbalishment only serves to demonstrate just how deeply the denial runs for certain British people…
Douglas/Ian – to some extent it doesn’t matter particularly whether Andrew is prosecuted over sexual charges. More information about what Andrew was up to with young women is almost bound to come into public domain and in some ways if Andrew isn’t prosecuted on this matter this will only heighten public discontent.
If and when more information about the young women come out the questions are going to intensify as to what the late Queen, Charles and possibly even William knew, when they knew about it and what they did about it or more importantly didn’t do about it.
Nobody is suggesting the UK, or Scotland, adopt the constitution of France’s 5th republic. There are plenty of far better options.
Just trying to point out that as in several other constitutional issues like PR we cannot be over optimistic about the outcome of change. They only create an opportunity.
Andrew Lownie, by the way, has been absolutely brilliant on all of the shows he has done – and credit to Peter Geoghegan from Democracy For Sale for getting the ball rolling on Lownie’s work and getting it out there months before it turned into a scandal of such dimension… Peter is a fantastic journalist…
Lownie has been unflinching in the face os so many waffling TV presenters and interviewers who refuse to put two and two together and draw the only conclusion which is that, not only are the King and his mother, the late Queen compromised, but the entire British elite….
Mandelson didn’t know about Andrew’s antics? Come on, that seems highly improbable… if Mandelson knew, Blair knew and Starmer knew…
So, we have the chief architect of New Labour being investigated, along with a person still in line to the throne, and then all these other things around Starmer like Labour Together and Starmer’s henchmen informing GCHQ that serious and law-abiding investigative journalists are actually on the pay roll of the Kremlin… disgusting…
And then the more casual, consented corruption, which is Mandelson’s firm, whose partner was Benjamin Wegg-Prosser, ex former adviser to, yes, Tony Blair, brokering a contract with Palintir for 200 million pounds which Keir Starmer signs up to after an unminuted meeting…
The whole thing is corrupt from top to bottom, Epstein is almost certainly a Mossad asset, Mandelson quite possibly too,…
And then there’s all the stuff still to come out…
What a disgraceful country Britain is, with its morally bankrupt elite…
While the point of a crime family capturing the state to live as royalty must be largely to enjoy the spoils and perks, their immunities and their empire’s are entwined. When these crimes come to light, the nature of both royalty and empire begin to be exposed.
As others have ably pointed out, you cannot have a security state where the royals are the pinnacle of authority and secrecy without creating a monstrous flaw at its centre (and our security apparatus should know about all the skeletons uncovered so far and have all along been providing appropriate details to civil authorities).
The more revelations rip apart state secrecy, the clearer the reasons why foreign states who have long held compromising archives on our British royal family hold onto them; our British royal family are foreign assets (perhaps unwittingly so, but definitely pals with many the worst rulers abroad, who often send their kids here to be educated, not fearing any democratic sensibilities are imparted). But as the revelations mount, the value of suppressing those compromising dossiers in exchange for favours fades…
But surely these royal scandals have largely been wargamed by the security state, as the odd spook show has suggested. I agree with the article that this a constitutionally-challenging moment and cannot reasonably be undone. This is why I have always advocated for critically investigating the royals, if you want to end the British Empire. Royals are the capstone, the commanders, and the key.
On the question of alternatives, the British public has indeed been conditioned to believe a false dichotomy: either a hereditary royal ruler or an elected head of state. But you don’t have to have studied politics to realise how bogus this is. Politics, how we arrange to live in groups large enough to include strangers, is extremely open-ended. My favoured solution is to eschew theocratic and humanist organising principles and adopt a biocratic constitution which acknowledges the primacy of the living planet. Health, not will, should be the guiding principle of good government.
#biocracynow
‘the kindly Queen Mum’ wis notorious for nivir paying her bills & many businesses folded as a result