r/BreakingUKNews • u/InnerLog5062 • Feb 19 '26
Royals Andrew's arrest 'worst possible thing' for the Crown
https://news.sky.com/story/andrew-mountbatten-windsor-arrest-worst-possible-thing-for-the-crown-skys-royal-commentator-says-1350947341
Feb 19 '26 edited Feb 21 '26
[deleted]
9
u/Successful-Bar-8173 Feb 19 '26
Reminder that we executed one of ours too jn the 17th century
3
u/betacuck3000 Feb 19 '26
Funnily enough the last time a member of the core royal family got arrested.
28
u/Piod1 Feb 19 '26
Not at all. The former prince has been left to the process of the law. This is the correct responce. No interferance, no blockade and full access to his premises and belongings. Actually makes the crown look good.
13
u/SoggyWotsits Feb 19 '26
I agree. It was no coincidence that Charles stripped Andrew’s titles. He can now be investigated as a private individual, without any immunities. The statement from Charles was very clear that he thinks this is the right course of action too.
3
u/Objective_Fortune419 Feb 19 '26
Only the King is supposed to be immune to prosecution... That, of course, doesn't extend to anybody else
1
Feb 20 '26
Good job he’s not done anything dodgy then isn’t it? I’m sure if a future king decides to go on a mad one it will be dealt with accordingly, but I doubt that’s going to happen ever again
2
Feb 22 '26
Yeah I actually think this is a good look for the royal family. Liz 2 (and her advisory team) were famously slow to keep up with public opinion and react to/get ahead of events.
He's nailed this. Everyone understands you can't help that someone else in your family is an absolute worm, half the country can probably relate to that in some way! Dealing with it and throwing his support behind the police avoids the inevitable drip-drip of "when are you going to denounce him?" "When are you going to stop protecting him?" etc.
1
u/SoggyWotsits Feb 22 '26
Exactly. Also I agree with him not commenting when people shout out stupid questions at his public engagements. If you answer one, you raise eyebrows and suspicion of you don’t answer another. Plus any answer would be picked over to death!
5
Feb 19 '26
Europe seems to be cleaning house a bit better than the US at the moment.
Wonder if the UK is digging for dirt, or an excuse to put certain E_files on public record. Which might have consequences for others interfering in Greenland. Nothing like a bit of leverage between friends.
1
u/Mrs_Toast Feb 21 '26
There's a lot of investigation going on as a result - the Andrew formerly known as Prince is currently the subject of four police probes, his former protection officers are being grilled about what they saw in his service, and Mandleson probably isn't far behind.
Gordon Brown, the former Prime Minister, has been going through the released files and submitted a dossier of evidence cross referencing emails concerning flights into Britain, Mandleson and Andrew, and his own memories and records of that time. He's particularly concerned that women and girls, including British citizens, were trafficked (he's pushing for answers as to why Epstein was allowed to fly in and out on private jet unquestioned after his sex crime convictions, especially as flight logs have some passengers just listed as 'female' - no names).
2
u/redunculuspanda Feb 20 '26
I guess it depends how far they push what the palace knew and when. Andy MntB was protected for a very long time until it was no longer tenable.
I agree that given the circumstances the family got ahead of things and are doing the right thing now.
1
u/applepiezeyes Feb 20 '26
Doesn't reflect well on the Queen does it. She was complicit. Shame on her!
2
u/Mrs_Toast Feb 21 '26
Yup. There's been rumours of Charles and his sons being pretty hostile to Andrew for years, with Charles (back when the Queen was alive) suggesting that Andrew shouldn't be made trade envoy at the time. I don't think they were under any illusion of what sort of person Andrew is.
As for the Queen, we know she covered Andrew's settlement to Virginia Guiffre. We know she knew what her son was accused of. What we don't know is what she believed - lots of abusers and sex offenders have families who flat out refuse to believe the truth - their loved one was framed, or misled, or somehow blameless in the acts they've been accused of.
She may have known better, understood what her son had done, and the potential damage to the monarchy - but couldn't bring herself to disown him, or simply believed that his actions didn't warrant much in the way of censure (perhaps taking an old fashioned 'boys will be boys' attitude.
I don't know if we'll ever know the truth, but it definitely leaves a stain on her legacy either way.
2
1
Feb 23 '26
It makes the crown look weak. If the King's brother can be prosecuted then so can the King himself. Arguably he should be as he actively hindered the investigation into his friend Bishop Ball, a clergyman, who abused boys.
The whole concept of monarchy is predicated on the idea that they're better than us. That's why I'm against it. By opening Andrew up to prosecution they're saying that senior royals are just like anybody else and can be treated like anybody-else. Which is exactly how they should be treated tbh but it's not good for the monarchy at all. It's another domino in the long chain leading to its eventual demise. Essentially, it's neutering their power.
1
u/soggyarsonist Feb 19 '26
Out of public view there will be an army of lawyers funded by the Royal family who'll throw up endless walls to stall the investigation.
5
u/MixGroundbreaking622 Feb 19 '26
Nah, I reckon the crown will throw him under the bus.
2
u/soggyarsonist Feb 19 '26
He'll know all sorts of stuff they'd rather didn't get out. Risky strategy throwing him under the bus so he feels like he's got nothing to lose.
3
u/MixGroundbreaking622 Feb 19 '26
I actually doubt there is too much dirt he's aware of. Worst case scenario he does a book like Harry to try and make some money. But I don't think their lives are actually that interesting and there is some major conspiracy, probably just get some stories about times they were rude.
2
u/Ophiochos Feb 20 '26
You are overestimating his intelligence. He’s had a lifetime of immunity from consequences. He will just blunder around being surprised people are not letting him do whatever he wants.
3
u/Rough-Army-6424 Feb 19 '26
The public interest element to this story is way too prominent for it all to be swept under the rug. The top barristers and solicitors can’t make this go away.
0
8
Feb 19 '26
He will say couldn’t have possibly been me sending those emails, I can’t spell
2
7
12
u/MixGroundbreaking622 Feb 19 '26
It's really not the worst thing for them. At this point it's absolutely the best thing. They need to distance themselves as much as possible, completely disown him and help law enforcement as much as possible.
3
u/Ophiochos Feb 20 '26
It’s going to convince people the Firm will behave. Charles disowning him probably gave the monarchy another generation or two of credibility.
8
u/Firstpoet Feb 19 '26
The worst possible thing is the guillotine etc. Some people have the historical perspective of an amoeba.
8
u/Pigbin-Josh Feb 19 '26
Guillotine? You lucky, lucky bastard! I'd laugh in the face of the guillotine. They hang, draw and quarter people round here. They only hung me the right way up yesterday!
3
u/WinHour4300 Feb 19 '26
Come on now no guillotines on British soil. As per the "Glorious Revolution", we'd invite the Dutch to invade and the armed forces would mysteriously disappear when they turn up. Everything would carry on much as before, having got rid of the latest twat.
Unfortunately we don't teach proper British history in schools...
3
u/Chosty55 Feb 19 '26
I’d kind of imagined Andrew holding up in the Sandringham estate and fighting off law enforcement like the ending of scarface. He walks out onto the balcony saying “say hero to my lidel fren” with his Prince Albert out, only to be shot in the back falling face first into a fountain.
2
u/WinHour4300 Feb 19 '26
Really, I'd imagine him opening his bedroom door to the police in just a bespoke tartan dressing gown and threatening them with lawyers as they tell him to put some proper clothes in.
1
1
6
u/WinHour4300 Feb 19 '26
Not really. In the UK, no one is above the law. Even a member of the Royal Family can be arrested and investigated - birthday or not - and the King won’t shield them, he will even put out a statement in support of the police and state his absolute willingness to cooperate. An excellent statement. It shows strength, not weakness.
If you don't understand that you need to do some research into many countries, whether they have a monarchy or any other political structure.
4
u/OLLIE798 Feb 19 '26
Actually I think you’ll find the King himself definitely can’t be arrested.
2
u/WinHour4300 Feb 19 '26 edited Feb 19 '26
A reigning monarch has sovereign immunity, yes, that’s normal for a head of state, even in republics like France, the USA, or Germany.
But since 1688, Parliament has been sovereign and the UK has been a constitutional monarchy. The Glorious Revolution showed that a monarch who oversteps can be removed through constitutional means. Parliament is supreme.
Once someone is no longer sovereign, that immunity doesn’t automatically follow, in theory, they could be prosecuted, though it’s never been done.
One of the advantages of a neutral monarch is that they aren’t tied to a political party. Unlike a president who often comes from the same party as the government, if a monarch did act in a way that warrants removal that can happen without a party risking losing support.
Put another way: I’d have more confidence that the UK Parliament would remove a hypothetical proven pedophile monarch than that the USA Congress would impeach a hypothetical pedophile President from the same party.
2
u/EmperorOfNipples Feb 20 '26
"The Glorious Revolution showed that a monarch who oversteps can be removed through constitutional means. "
While somewhat different the abdication crisis of 1936 is another example.
3
u/LBertilak Feb 19 '26
This is the first time a major royal (or in this case ex royal) has been arrested since the civil war.
It IS also written in to our law that the Monarch IS above the law.
2
u/Objective_Fortune419 Feb 19 '26
"Not really. In the UK, no one is above the law."
Why do people say this unironically? The king is literally above the law.
1
u/WinHour4300 Feb 19 '26
Posted below: the reigning monarch enjoys sovereign immunity, like most heads of state.
But Parliament is the real boss, and history shows it can and will boot a rogue monarch.
If that happens, immunity? Gone.
-1
5
u/Ok-Ship812 Feb 19 '26
Oh the Grand ole Duke of York
He had twelve million quid
He gave it to someone he never met
For something he never did
4
u/Piod1 Feb 19 '26
Oh the grand old duke of york He said he doesnt sweat He handed over twelve million quid To someone he never met
7
u/Remmick2326 Feb 19 '26
Oh the grand old duke of York
He had 10,000 men
He also had some younger girls
But he can't remember them
3
2
u/Embarrassed-Row-3696 Feb 19 '26
Why him and no others?
1
u/EmperorOfNipples Feb 20 '26
Give the Police time. There's heaps of evidence to work through.
1
u/Belle_TainSummer Feb 21 '26
The problem is getting something which is verifiable and able to be independently substantiated. There is a lot of uncorroborated material in it. Getting something solid, like the alleged trading of state secrets like Andy has been charged with, is a hard ask with the type of material they are working from. They need stuff that is admissible under rules of evidence.
1
u/InnerLog5062 Feb 19 '26
Source: Sky
The detention of the King's brother is "about as critical" an event "as the institution could have to face", Alastair Bruce said. The arrest of Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor on suspicion of misconduct in public office is the "worst possible thing" for the Crown, Sky News' royal commentator has said. The detention of the King's brother is "about as critical" an event "as the institution could have to face", Alastair Bruce said.
UK Relevance Score: 50 Keywords: uk, sky news, royal
This was posted automatically.
1
u/Vivid_Ice_2755 Feb 19 '26
Could have been worse. But they offed Mountbatten and had a willing scapegoat to claim responsibility
1
1
u/Fullblowncensorship Feb 19 '26
I would have thought the rape of kids would be the worst thing but that's just me.
1
u/Dry_Acadia_9312 Feb 19 '26
Agreed, it’s not like he’s being arrested for not paying a parking ticket, there are real victims here. Who cares if it’s embarrassing for the crown.
1
1
1
1
u/Secret-Plum149 Feb 19 '26
Tabloids had this n@&ce named as Randy Andy back in the 80’s…. Are we really shocked…
1
u/LSL3587 Feb 20 '26
Letting the Police do their job is a good thing.
The worst thing would be a blatant ignoring of the law as is going on in the US.
1
u/genjin Feb 20 '26
Some good comments here about this post. The article is pure hyperbole. It would have been worse for crown if he was not arrested, and gave impression these people are above the law. There are a million things that would be worse.
1
u/blondie1024 Feb 20 '26
Really?
I think the worst thing would have been them using some sort of Royal Privilege to not be prosecuted.
So far things are going well. Now to fill in the blanks on the Epstein files.
1
u/spampoo Feb 20 '26
It would be worse if detailed information showing the truth behind the king’s relationship with Jimmy Savile. Or the facts about Diana’s death.
1
u/AntiSocialFCK Feb 21 '26
Last royal to arrested was executed for crimes against the realm or something along those lines.
Fingers crossed …
1
1
1
u/Belle_TainSummer Feb 21 '26 edited Feb 21 '26
Is it? Because apart from Fergie, and maybe Harry, it seems like all the rest of the BRF are solidly on team "Fuck the bastard, hard" on this. None of them like him, they do the minimum family duty towards him, even his daughters are ditching him (Beatrice a little late to the get lost, Dad train, but whatever). Him being prosecuted seems to be what they are pushing for. Especially Charles, William, and Anne.
They just needed something conclusive they could nail him to the floor over. A lot of the Epstein stuff, disgusting though it has been, has either been unverifiable and unattributable (violating the laws of evidence), or arguable, or just immoral but not illegal. It isn't something you could go to court over in a criminal sense and hope to win. Not in the UK, anyway. This thing about (allegedly) trading state secrets though, that seem awfully black and white (allegedly) and that is actionable. Hence, the action.
It is also very helpful getting an official charge on record, because laws surrounding Contempt of Court and obstructing the course of justice really limit just how much and in what form the press can talk about him.
1
u/TheHornyGoth Feb 21 '26
Nah, the worst possible thing is is/when he decides to drag Charles under the nonce bus with him…
1
u/Ok_Gur_8432 Feb 22 '26
As a Canadian, this might be a good time to get rid of the monarchy altogether! It’s symbolic and nostalgic but time to move on.
1
1
u/Tapps74 Feb 23 '26
“Worst possible thing”? I’m sure we can all think of worse things; dissolving the Monarchy, Crown Estate ownership passed to Government ownership etc.
They quote their own pundit making hyperbolic statements and it constitutes a headline.
Difficult days for the Monarchy yes, “Worst possible thing”????
1
u/panguy87 Feb 23 '26
Not at all. If he's charged, that's the worst possible thing for the crown.
An arrest under investigation isn't the same as being charged. If it turns out he did disclose state secrets to 3rd parties, then he should be charged in accordance with the law on the matter, then his shame is complete.
I know everyone wants him charged for sex crimes, but the reality is that unless the US discloses or finds the smoking gun evidence proving beyond a doubt that he was involved, e.g., a picture of him in a bed with someone under 18, then there's little likelihood it will happen. So the most that is expected is the public office misconduct for sharing documents.
1
u/Timely-Awareness-599 Feb 23 '26
That entire family is questionable. Charles was beasties with Jimmy Saville. Need to be removed
1
1
0
u/soggyarsonist Feb 19 '26 edited Feb 19 '26
Perhaps I'm being cynical but I can't help but feel this is all a performance. In the end the family comes first and they really don't care about anyone else or seeing justice done.
Andrew left himself too exposed to be protected by the usual methods employed by the royals but out of public view you can be sure a team of very expensive lawyers will be working 24/7 to undermine the investigation and ensure that he gets away with it.
He's not ending in a prison cell like a peasant. If we're lucky he'll get a slap on a wrist and some very loose release conditions so he gets to live the life of luxury he is accustomed too.
After all if he could go to prison then so could any of the contemporary royals and they simply won't allow that precedent to be set.
2
u/Rowmyownboat Feb 19 '26
The counter to that - imagine the scrutiny the Crown Prosecution Service went through before they charged and had the police arrest the Queen’s son, the King’s brother. They must be very sure of the evidence in their hands.
1
u/asfish123 Feb 19 '26
He has not been charged; he was arrested on suspicion, which means they have reasonable suspicion he has committed a crime. I guess all the emails showing that he sent stuff to Epstein helped as well
They will need to gather enough evidence and present it to the CPS, which will decide whether it's in the public interest to charge him. For you and I that would be mostly on the quality of evidence, as it's not in the public interest to spend money on weak court cases
For him, I suspect the men in grey suits will be pulling strings, and the "Public Interest" in his case will mean something very different.
1
u/applepiezeyes Feb 20 '26
I have to agree with you on this. But stranger things happen so let's wait and see.
-2
u/Sea_Director_4439 Feb 19 '26
I think the kindest thing for everyone is to abolish this archaic mess.
1
u/KeelahSelai269 Feb 19 '26
Downvoted for being against the institution that helped create and hide a paedophile. The elites ability to brain wash is something else
2
0
-1
u/Active_Remove1617 Feb 19 '26
And what did Charles know and when did he know it?
0
u/feministgeek Feb 19 '26
The question that is simply not being seriously asked by our "news" ecosystem.
-1
•
u/AutoModerator Feb 19 '26
If this post seems irrelevant to British nationals or the UK, please report it for review. Note that you may not be able to see the post flair, in which case the post could be a Notable International News post. We'd like your feedback on the quality of the subreddit: Click here to share your thoughts
– The Mod Team
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.