Do you believe Andrew has legitimately put the monarchy in jeopardy?
Posted by Dry_Flatworm_4533@reddit | AskABrit | View on Reddit | 180 comments
I feel like the press has painted the British monarchy as being on the brink of collapse for my entire life. There's always one scandal or another.
Do you think there's any legitimate risk of this being the straw that breaks the camel's back?
If not, why? Is there anything he could personally do that would bring the whole house of cards down?
I understand he's not particularly important in the grand scheme of things, but the royal family members who DO matter did help pay off Virginia's settlement & spent a decade trying to rehabilitate his image before kicking him out.
SoggyWotsits@reddit
I think Charles has been very clear what he thinks of Andrew. He stripped his titles which allowed the police to treat Andrew as just another person. No addressing him by anything other than his name, which might seem small to us but is huge to ‘Mr’ Mountbatten Windsor!
I think Charles, Camilla and all the others have been right not to answer the questions shouted at them too. If you answer one, you raise suspicion if you don’t answer another.
The royals also weren’t aware that the police were going to arrest Andrew, whereas the Home Secretary and PM were (cue Starmer’s little speech about the police doing their work shortly before the news was released). That was a clear signs that they’re not all above the law.
I think as long as the royals cooperate and allow the police to do their job (which they seem to be doing), they’ll be fine. I’m just annoyed that everyone’s forgotten about Mandelson in all this, although I expect Starmer is delighted.
SuperTruthJustice@reddit
So I’m not British, but I’m concerned here, why is there no focus on that people who knew had children or grandchildren. That entire family should be under investigation for child endangerment?
Are we absolutely certain they never left there kids.. any kids with Andrew? Because if they knew and did so?
Lara-887767@reddit
They knew the arrest was coming when the stripped his titles and kicked him out the Royal Lodge.
daveoxford@reddit
I think the King had a shrewd idea that it was on the cards at some point.
brickne3@reddit
I mean, it probably was in Charles' red box in some capacity. He probably just hadn't read it yet that day. I suppose he also could have instructed them not to tell him well in advance?
Pure-Dead-Brilliant@reddit
Unlikely. If Andrew were next in line to the throne then maybe, but he’s not, he sits after Harry’s children. If anything him being arrested and the king not interfering could be good for the monarchy.
KnightOfWords@reddit
If Charles had fallen off a horse or chicken on a fish bone before having children, Andrew would have been king.
Pure-Dead-Brilliant@reddit
We don’t like in that parallel universe. We live in the universe where not only did Charles have children but his children have had children.
KnightOfWords@reddit
I think you misunderstand. A systematic problem with monarchy is that it's a lottery.
Is this not setting a very low bar, that the current monarch is not actively interfering with the law? (Up until his disastrous interview, Andrew was protected by the monarchy and government for many years. People who questioned his role as a trade envoy were shunted to the side.)
It seems you're projecting your own opinions on the situation, other people will see it differently so there will be an impact on the monarchy. An argument can be made, certainly, that Charles has responded appropriately. (I'll withhold judgement myself, we don't know who knew what and when.) But now there is an active investigation we don't know what will come to light. This is going to be in the public eye for a long time, neutrals and anti-monarchists are not impressed. Andrew is only part of the problem, it's shining a light on broader corruption within government.
ClacketyClackSend@reddit
How far back in your ancestry would you be happy to be judged by their behavior? There's plenty of today-problems to talk about without some moronic "but great granddaddy was a Nazi" argument.
SuperTruthJustice@reddit
I would have to go back to never go find a Nazi in my family line but I’m American so? Bathurst matters?
KnightOfWords@reddit
That's a very lazy strawman I'm afraid. I'm not judging Charles' conduct by Edward VIII or even by his brother's. I'm pointing out the danger of hereditary positions with limited accountability. Further down the line it's quite possible we might have to deal with a far-right monarch.
For the record, I'm a mild critic of our constitutional monarchy. It's flawed and I recognise that it's built on an absurd premise (God-given right of kings) but it could be far worse.
drtoboggon@reddit
I think the point is that you don’t know what you’re getting with such an archaic method of selecting a leader. Who knows what that George is like. He could be just like Andrew and there’s nothing to be done about it.
2025 and this is still going on!
ConditionWellThumbed@reddit
Erm.. Instead we have people that are held to a higher standard than anyone I can think of that has been voted in.
If andrew was king do you think we would have let his behaviour slide? They are there while we agree to them being there.
You say nothing could be done about it? I have a hard time believing anyone in the UK thinks like that. I don't believe the royal family thinks that. andrew certainly doesn't.
drtoboggon@reddit
Erm the Queen did nothing about his behaviour. In fact she enabled him by using public money to pay off one of his victims. And sex stuff aside, he was doing loads of dodgy stuff as trade envoy for years wit seemingly no consequence.
I’m not sure they are he’d to a higher standard than those voted in. All the racism, scandals and general dysfunctional behaviour over the years is waved away by royalists.
To me it seems they can do anything they want unless it threatens ‘the firm’. At which point they’re cut loose. For Andrew it’s being a nonce, for Harry it’s marrying a black person.
United-Cucumber9942@reddit
Public funds were never misappropriately used, please be factual in your assertions because it makes your arguments moot when they are evidentually incorrect.
drtoboggon@reddit
All of their money is public money. How else do you think they came by it? By “workin ard”. The full amount has never even been disclosed.
Listening to people defend them or say that they are doing great about it now, or that you shouldn’t ask them about it are no different to North Korean’s who are conditioned to think the Kim’s are in some way magic.
United-Cucumber9942@reddit
No not all their money is public money. They have salaried work like everyone. Yes, their salaries are very, very high. I'm not like a North Koreans. I just know how much some of the royals work and it's significantly more than almost every single person in the UK who would refuse to work a 90+hour week.
drtoboggon@reddit
😂😂😂
Gawd bless em. The way they wave at us and open leisure centres. What would we do without princess Ann spending tens of thousands a year on helicopters to go golfing.
Out of curiosity, if their very very high salaries (your words) and expenses aren’t paid out of the public purse-who pays it?
United-Cucumber9942@reddit
Do.you know a single member of the royal family? Or have any idea of their actual jobs firsthand?
Yes salaries are paid via the home office/public purse. As are those for teachers, doctors, nurses, police, fire service, civil service, court employees, local authority workers, refuse collectors, local councillors, civil service staff and many more.
And no, helicopters are not used to go 'golfing'. That's absolutely ludicrous. They are normally used to meet engagement requirements and are not used frivolously. And are used very, very infrequently.
drtoboggon@reddit
It’s all public information. They spent £2m on helicopter flights in 2024 alone. That’s not including the private jets, private trains etc. All the whole lecturing the rest of us on our carbon footprint.
As I said, this is all public information, but even if certain people read into it, they tell themselves either it’s fake or it’s completely worth it-and even necessary for their security!
North. Korea.
United-Cucumber9942@reddit
No, my husband works for one of them. Its not North Korea, it's actual knowledge. I'm actually not a royalist at all, but this particular one works bloody hard and with extreme integrity so I see posts like yours tarring all with the same brush and it's factually incorrect so I can't not reply.
Your opinion and the statistics without explanation are all obviously important. But it isn't always the truth. Its a potted version without context. And applied across the board indiscriminately.
Unfortunately most of you won't ever see what the royals actually do, how their calendar is run and how much of their time is lost to their work. So it seems unjustifiable. However, if you had any idea then you may think differently.
Being in 3 different locations for 3 different conferences in a day means that one trip may need a chopper. Is shutting down the tube for 3 hours to maintain security a better option? Losing all other members of the public their jobs and work for hours at astronomincal cost? Employing multiple additional security staff at a cost of hundreds of thousands per journey? Plus the cost of multiple security officers at additional salary costs of also hundreds of thousands a year? Or a few grand for a chopper that generates a few hundred grand for a meeting that goes into the public purse?
Your points are valid but they are a fraction of the story and frankly from a viewpoint of the masses with access to statistics but no idea of what actually occurs. Otherwise you'd know the billions in revenue generated and how much risk these people are subjected to every time they leave their homes, and even in their own homes.
drtoboggon@reddit
Just google it United-cucumber. If you really think having an army of royals to be moved about opening things and waving at people or reading from an autocue at conferences is good value for money, then good for you.
The idea that any amount of ‘hard work’ is worth the cost (the costs we see, many are hidden) is frankly ludicrous to me. And nothing I’ve said about what we pay for is incorrect despite how you’ve worded the above and your ‘insider knowledge’.
Minor royals like Sophie use motorcades to go from a to b, when she could walk down the street anonymous quite easily. She’s hardly a familiar face. Try telling the family of the woman killed by her motorcade, the motorcade for this minor royal not on an official engagement was necessary.
We are a nation of bootlickers and I can’t stand it. And I know I’m in the minority. Or at least I was before Andrew’s arrest.
resting_up@reddit
George always looks a wrongun in photos.
drtoboggon@reddit
Children dressed like 50 year old business men always look a bit off.
OkTechnologyb@reddit
Is it still 2025 where you are?
drtoboggon@reddit
lol fair enough! You know what I mean!
KnightOfWords@reddit
Exactly.
FlyLegitimate5424@reddit
I do allow myself to imagine a parallel universe where Anne becomes queen. She'd sort everything out.
The_Gene_Genie@reddit
It's pissing me off how many times I'm seeing this at the moment, but it "choked", not "chocked". Chocked is something you do to aeroplane wheels
KnightOfWords@reddit
I know that thanks, typo when swipe texting on phone.
brickne3@reddit
I thought he was out of the succession entirely now? Maybe I'm misremembering from a few months back when he lost his titles. But yeah, he's so far from the Crown now that nothing short of a Designated Survivor-style situation could possibly get him anywhere near it.
Hell, at this point Edward VIII probably has more supporters than he does, and that guy was a Nazi 😅
Pure-Dead-Brilliant@reddit
Andrew lost his titles but he’s still #8 in the line of succession.
https://www.royal.uk/encyclopedia/succession
brickne3@reddit
Fair enough, again, he's not getting anywhere near the throne, hence why amending that has not been a priority.
Pure-Dead-Brilliant@reddit
Removing someone from the line of succession requires a specific Act of Parliament because the succession is legally regulated rather than controlled by the monarch. Such a change in the legislation would likely necessitate the consent of all 15 Commonwealth realms. Whereas titles are bestowed by the monarch which is why Charles was able to strip Andrew of his.
D1C_Whizz@reddit
If by some insane twist of terrible luck he found himself on the throne- I’d suggest we’d have a James II situation and he’d be run out of town.
FlyLegitimate5424@reddit
I'd say go for a Charles I approach.
D1C_Whizz@reddit
Good idea
Cultural_Tank_6947@reddit
It should absolutely be a priority.
There should be legislation where some level of wrongdoing automatically kicks you off the line of succession.
He simply shouldn't be on the list.
Pure-Dead-Brilliant@reddit
Write to your MP then since it would require a change in legislation
Cultural_Tank_6947@reddit
I have, but it's also the current Leader of Opposition, so I'm sure I'll get some slop from her.
He should have been kicked out when he paid someone 12 million to settle a court case after insisting he'd never met them.
IntrepidTension2330@reddit
A poll was done some years ago before this and the monarchy was losing popularity then queen died and now this . Scotland in the poll was in 70% range for abolishing the monarchy and the house of Lords. Mostly favoured in south England. 7https://unherd.com/newsroom/poll-shows-nationwide-backing-for-monarchy/
Bringmesunshine33@reddit
Everyone forgets Charles’ association with Jimmy Saville. What’s the difference? Charles in Monarch and cannot be tried!
Moorhenlessrooster@reddit
It's quite different. Epstein was openly a wrong un. You only had to ask 'why are teenage girls on this island' to figure that out.
Saville was extremely cunning and had many intelligent people fooled, including Thatcher.
Bringmesunshine33@reddit
Omg are you for real 😦
Moorhenlessrooster@reddit
About what? Both evil, but very different ways of working. You think Thatcher and the royals were part of some kind of paedophile ring?
weedywet@reddit
The difference is Charles didn’t give state financial secrets to Seville.
LaraH39@reddit
No more than Edward did being a Nazi
Moorhenlessrooster@reddit
Tbf we like to draw a veil over how widespread support for Nazis was before the war started (and even after). Much of the aristocracy viewed them as preferable to a socialist takeover. Anti semitism was also rife here.
Alyssa9876@reddit
I think a lot of people think like I do, not that keen on the whole idea of a Royal Family, but it would cost so much more for a president or similar elected head of state and the transition woukd probably bankrupt the country lol. A leaner slimmed down RF in the European style will be acceptable to the majority all but the hard core anti royals who never even discuss costs or people wanting to keep the head of state non political.
SilverellaUK@reddit
It astounds me that some people would prefer a president, especially with the example the US is showing us.
Moorhenlessrooster@reddit
President doesn't always mean the same thing. In other countries there's a divide between someone who does state occasions, international affairs etc and someone who leads the government. In the US this is kind of combined in a single person but in Ireland, Germany, France etc you have a head of state and then a political leader, and they're separate. With differing levels of power depending on the constitution.
We could replace the royals with a president elected for limited terms to host dignitaries, make speeches on important issues, open parliament etc.
Successful-Grand-549@reddit
The media loves to create drama
Foundation_Wrong@reddit
No, not at all. The King has made it obvious he completely and utterly despises the actions of his brother.
emilybulldogstgeorge@reddit
Andrew being a pedofile actually isnt the worst the royal family has ever done its probably one of the least scandalous things
Infamous-Lock-2156@reddit
No
Equality-7-2-5-2-1@reddit
I wonder how much the rest of them are implicated.
Some_Artichoke_8148@reddit
No, not really. The Royal family has always had that 'one' in the family. They used to lock them up in homes to keep them out of trouble. This will pass. I think we all know who the next generation 'the one' is - dont we
andrew0256@reddit
Historically including waaaay back every monarch or someone in their family has put the institution at risk. On some occasions it has come to a head such as at the end of the Sturarts when Queen Anne died without an heir. After some chicanery to bypass Catholics George the 1st was put in post as King. Prior to that Charles the 1st caused some issues and after a messy civil war was beheaded. Cromwell was probably worse and his time was short after which Charles the 2nd was brought back albeit on different T&Cs. The point I am making is the monarchy suffers extreme stress constantly but by some judicious wrangling it survives or is maintained. I don't see anything changing as a result of Andrew's misdemeanors until Charles is succeeded by William.
LittleUglyBug@reddit
No not at all. Hes not part of the monarchy anymore but they are just unlucky that hes part of their family.
spinachmuncher@reddit
No.
humanityisdyingfast@reddit
Nothing will except outright revolution and system change, and we are too docile and disinterested as a people for a that.
massie_le@reddit
I think that statement will have strengthened the monarchy tbh. Also William has made it clear he's going to reform it too. So no.
humanityisdyingfast@reddit
Nothing will except outright revolution and system change, and we are too docile and disinterested as a people for a that.
Toaneknee@reddit
Yeah. Right.
I_ALWAYS_UPVOTE_CATS@reddit
Nah. Andrew has been stripped of his titles, and I saw a headline today that he could be removed from the line of succession (not that he was ever likely to be King anyway). The monarchy is essentially washing its hands of him as new revelations unfold, which is exactly what should be happening. Obviously we don't know what the outcome will be, but the fact that he's been arrested also demonstrates that his privilege is not protecting him.
jordancr1@reddit
Charles knows Andrew has potentially put the monarchy in jeopardy. To maintain credibility and to preserve the Monarchy for his lineage, Charles was very quick to support the police in their investigation.
asymmetricears@reddit
If you buy a dozen eggs, and 11 are good and one is rotten, you don't immediately go off eggs and refuse to eat them ever again.
gdchester@reddit
You might if you found out that the 11 good ones were fully aware the 12th one was a badun but chose to protect it thereby tarring them all with the same brush. Protecting, enabling and turning a blind eye to a paedo in the face of overwhelming evidence makes you not much different than the person committing the crime.
EatingCoooolo@reddit
No. How? If you have money you can get away with a lot.
Parking-Tip1685@reddit
Nah, he's already been kicked out by the monarchy and they would have agreed to him being arrested.
Plus he only knew Epstein because Blair gave him that trade job after KC3 asked him not to.
NLFG@reddit
He's still 8th in line to the throne
resting_up@reddit
He's as likely to be king as me, I reckon.
Minskdhaka@reddit
So, in other words, very unlikely to ever come close to being king.
canada11235813@reddit
Have you seen the movie, “King Ralph”?
blasphemour95@reddit
That's because 15 legislatures would need to amend the line of succession. There's really no point unless something happens to the Prince of Wales, Duke of Sussex and their families. The likelihood of which is extremely small.
Such-Memory-7102@reddit
KC3?
Parking-Tip1685@reddit
King Charles the third. When Andrew was being considered for the trade envoy job (possibly thanks to Mandelson), which is how he met Epstein, Charlie boy (then prince) wrote to Tony Blair saying Andrew wasn't suitable for the job. Charles appears to have been correct about that one.
youdontknowmeyouknow@reddit
King Charles III
Fuzzy_Jaguar_1339@reddit
Getting rid of Andrew was a Kc3# move.
Chess humor!
resting_up@reddit
Dunno why they're bothering to remove him from the line of succession, it's not like 8th in line is ever going to get their own turn!
lasausagerolla@reddit
It's why Charles cut him loose. Shit stinks and sticks to everything it touches.
The monarchy is having to justify why its relevant even more these days, and moreso since the Queen passed away. It's an ancient institution in a modern world and if the Windsor's want to survive they need to appear spotless, steady and charitable.
Andrew has been a nightmare for decades for the Royal family. Randy Andy rep, the Choo Choo parties, abusing his staff, the tax payer funded prostitute trips in Asia, the weird relationship with Fergie, the 2019 BBC Newsnight interview where he claimed he doesn't sweat, and actually defending his friendship with Epstein.
The Queen isn't there anymore to cover it up, whisk it away or mass PR it away with a spontaneous Royal visit to a kindergarten.
In the end the public outrage was too much, the accusations too henious, for Charles it was a choice between the Crown and his brother, and a monarch should always choose the crown.
TheSwiv@reddit
We can hope
broke_the_controller@reddit
No. The main line conduct themselves respectably and live for a long time.
It would only be a problem if there was a realistic chance that Andrew would become King.
Fruitpicker15@reddit
I'm no monarchist but I used to think another family's problems are none of my business. That was true with Charles and Diana's marriage but it's now apparent that Andrew was protected for years by the queen and allowed to carry on the way he did along with his grifter wife and daughters. The whole rotten establishment that enabled them needs to be cleaned up and the whole family defunded of tax payers money but I won't hold my breath.
ejbrds@reddit
Out of curiosity, wny do you consider the York girls to be grifters along with their parents? Have they done things that aren't well-known in the US? I always had the idea that they were just stuck in a hard place with dreadful parents. Or did I mis-read your sentence?
brickne3@reddit
Personally I think a lot of the issues actually came down to Elizabeth II and nobody wanted to admit that the old lady wasn't perfect. Now that this is cracking that veneer I think we might see a lot more interesting stuff about some of her more questionable choices come out. What that might be I'm not sure, but this is at least something.
NorthCountryLass@reddit
No, he has embarrassed himself and his close family but the monarchy will survive
Alarmed-Secretary-39@reddit
No. Unless we change the law he's still a small minibus crash away from the main seat
I don't know why we don't just chuck him in the tower. We used to do that
FlyLegitimate5424@reddit
Not in jeopardy, no. The Royals have weathered worse.
I do think there'll be a fundamental shift though. Auld Lizzy held everything together with a velvet fist. Charles doesn't remotely have that much support or respect.
Sea_Appointment8408@reddit
I'm not a fan of the monarchy, but one thing worth considering is that we are unlikely to fall into full blown party facism like what's happening in the states, because we have a monarchy with checks and balances. It's not fool proof but it does give us some semblance of protection in our modern times.
Putting the royal family into disrepute is likely an attempt by certain actors to take over the country like you see in the US. Of course, if a royal can be bought (like Andrew could) then this can change. I don't see Wills selling out like that however.
But damage has been done and I imagine public sentiment against the royals has been affected for some time.
stevedavies12@reddit
Italy was a monarchy throughout Mussolini's time in office; Japan has never been anything other than a monarchy.
Sad-Main5786@reddit
I think this is a ludicrous point. I don't think the monarchy has any actual power to step in and interfere in government at all. It's ceremonial.
Even if you think there should be some additional safeguarding (checks/balances) against extremism in government, the idea that it should come from some out-of-touch monarch and their fucked up family is absurd.
whataboutbenson@reddit
Not sure why you’re getting downvotes, you’re completely correct.
Sad-Main5786@reddit
Cheers. Probably due to the subreddit I'm on.
Regardless, I'm content in the knowledge that I'm correct.
Affectionate-Bill132@reddit
There was a king as official head of state during Mussolini's dictatorship and Franco reestablished the monarchy in Spain after defeating the republican forces of the second Spanish republic.
Western_Disaster_118@reddit
There will be more to come. There's what, another 8 police forces investigating various things? I suspect they arrested Andrew before Mandleson because he was about to flee and these where the easiest charges to arrest him for. If it comes out that the Royal family were well aware of what he was at and they protected him, well I hope they reap what they bloody well sow.
They have thrown him to the wolves for no reason other than self preservation. Not because they have any sympathy for the victims.
eques_99@reddit
weakened it for sure.
dizzleschmizzle@reddit
It could be a fairly bleak sequel to King Ralph with Andrew ascending to the throne…
skibbin@reddit
Having spoken to many people about the monarchy over the years the most common consensus I've heard is that it is too big with too many "hangers on" living off the public because their great great great grandfather was the kings first cousin twice removed. I think most people would be glad to see Andrew cut loose regardless of any supposed wring doing.
The king and direct line of succession are all fine, can be good will ambassadors, figureheads, represent the nation and such, but they need to present us in a good light. I think the monarchy is in no danger provided those core royals behave.
Gisschace@reddit
Will has made it clear he wants a smaller RF, focused around their family unit instead of hangers on like you say.
starvaliant@reddit
Unless William is going to kick his daughter and younger son out of the 'family unit' the second they come of age, that isn't actually any different. It just shifts it from 'only people Elizabeth cared about' to 'only people William cares about' (a shorter list, grant you, but it's pretty hypocritical if he's going to decide his younger brother doesn't matter because he's not in the direct line of succession, but HIS spare children do).
Though actually I hope poor Charlotte and Louis get to escape this mess for their own well-being.
Gisschace@reddit
Op was talking about obscure cousins, the family unit includes the other children
starvaliant@reddit
But Andrew was part of the Queen's family unit, yes, which the poster also mentions. At what point are children of the monarch/heir to be cut loose? Andrew's situation would have become Harry's situation had he not left, and will be the same for Charlotte and Louis in time unless they are actively prepared for a future in which they will be expected to earn a living outside of the royal family.
Gisschace@reddit
I’m just letting OP know Will said he’s going to chop down the RF to get rid of the third cousins.
It’s not really something to debate
Gisschace@reddit
I’m just letting OP know Will said he’s going to chop down the RF to get rid of the third cousins.
It’s not really something to debate
cmvyas@reddit
Isn’t monarchy in UK immune to jail time ?
highrisedrifter@reddit
Only the reigning monarch is immune. None of the others are.
EarFlapHat@reddit
Nah. The camel's honestly not that loaded up yet in the UK, and the king and like have read the situation correctly and acted accordingly.
Active_Remove1617@reddit
Nonsense - there’s no way Charles didn’t see this coming. Soon enough both he and William will asked what they knew and when. Those questions were come from reporters though not police.
EarFlapHat@reddit
That's not how the media and palace work, or even normal stories concerning close family members who commit crimes. You don't see almost anyone treated like that, let alone the royals. It's distasteful.
I don't think you'll see much appetite to spread the story to the rest of the family, their obligations don't include having to be grilled that way. I certainly don't want to see it, and in no small part that's because it's not the sort of thing conducive to meaningful reporting.
It's also worth remembering that this is the king's actual, literal brother and that he continues to deny it all. This is not Starmer and Mandelson. There is a different relationship. I don't really know what I consider the right course of action and it'll be mired in trust mixed with loyalty and justified privacy, circling the wagons in the face of accusations versus throwing your brother out of public life. Not to mention a lack on control before their Mum died. What would you even expect them to say?
Active_Remove1617@reddit
The King denies what exactly?
EarFlapHat@reddit
Being sufficiently aware of the facts of the matter to move earlier.
Active_Remove1617@reddit
He’s on record as saying that?
EarFlapHat@reddit
It's literally the preface to any time Andrew's stuff is mentioned. Andrew is very much on the record having said that.
If your question is 'has the king said that' i don't know.
The whole thing is moot though because I don't think the king has an obligation to shop his brother.
ernfio@reddit
It would have to journalists not connected with the court. That pack and the DM are up to their neck in royal sycophancy and obsequiousness. The stories about Andrew being a complete cunt have been circulating for years. But the media were briefed to bitch about Harry and Megan not the Yorks.
And let’s be clear the royals collectively and individually have been briefing their pet journalists against Megan and Harry for years. But not against the Yorks. If they wanted to distance themselves they could have but they didn’t.
decentlyfair@reddit
He was more important in the hierarchy when the queen’s children were younger but as they all had families who are now grown up he has slid down the pile as it were.
Darrowby_385@reddit
I think we have to distinguish between the monarch as a Constitutional institution, and the Royal Family. I think this will speed up the King's and PoW's goal of stripping it right back, but as part of our constitutional set up, I don't think it's in jeopordy. It's so embedded in everything.
Yakona0409@reddit
Hopefully lol
Cultural_Tank_6947@reddit
I don't think it has, but I think it's definitely changed the dynamic wherein if someone closer to the throne was ever found to be a wrong 'un, that could be it.
onlyoneofmetoday@reddit
He isn't part of the royal side of the family now, he lost his titles etc. so he is just the kings brother now and why should his family be held responsible for his actions? He is no different than all the rest of the perverts named in the files. And also apparently queen Camilla's name is also in the paperwork I read today along side a lot of celebrities so if he damages the royal line wont she also as queen?
stargasm420@reddit
No, hadn't even thought about it, really wish it was though
Defiant_Employee6681@reddit
Just wait to see the efficiency with which he is jettisoned by The King. The Royal Family have a loooong history of dealing with such matters.
dopaminecollector@reddit
Nah, the general atmosphere seems to be he’s handling the situation he inherited from his mother well. Even Private Eye have pointed out Charles was opposed to Andrew’s appointment as trade envoy.
LeTrolleur@reddit
I think while plenty of people have their reservations about Charles, William is generally well-liked, and in the next 10-15 years will likely be on the throne.
Then there will be a big gap before the next monarch provided William's health holds up, and provided he doesn't make any big missteps he could still be very well regarded, similar to his grandmother, by the end of his reign.
Charles has done well to distance himself from Andrew, and so far he is ticking all the boxes in terms of removing his privileges and encouraging the authorities to do what they should.
Character-Ad793@reddit
I think the only way this would destroy the monarchy is if the king etc defend him/get him out of the shit free of charge/no punishment/interfered with the investigation.
However it seems to be that the king is distancing himself from the former prince. In the release yesterday he didnt refer to the former prince as his brother, he used his name as if Andrew was not a relation and commoner also he has stated that the law must run it's course fairly etc
Add to that Andrew has been stripped of all titles including military. Pretty sure it's safe to say the kings like fuck this shit we're just getting back on track with everyone an I'll not let you bring us back down with your shit.
Yes I think Andrew is guilty AF. I mean if you were a prince an some random girl said that shit about you and you were innocent, you'd fight it like fuck. You wouldn't give her £15 million out of court or at least I wouldn't. So to me it sounds like the kings had enough an leaving him to the wolves as it were
creepinghippo@reddit
It reminds people of King Charles friendship with Jimmy Saville and given the royals response, which is to not only distance, but completely remove Andrew’s titles, I’m guessing they believe that it could have an impact if it does not put they monarchy in jeopardy.
Numerous_Shoulder351@reddit
same over my lifetime too and I think it's just the 'powers that be' way of keeping up appearances that they're in anyway vulnerable - heaven forbid more us realise there's little if anything that will topple one of the world's biggest crime families lol
hime-633@reddit
Preface this comment by saying I think the monarchy should be abolished - or at least substantively defunded.
Anyway - if it is shown that the monarchy had any knowledge of him (allegedly) being part of or privy to the sexual abuse of children and did nothing then, yes, it should all be torn down.
There is the "sharing of confidential docs" issue too but if that's the hill they choose to kill him on, rather than the CSA, then - well - that says a lot. And nothing good.
Grand_Act8840@reddit
Is the latter exactly what they’ve arrested him for? ‘’Misconduct in a public office’? Rather than CSA
WeDoingThisAgainRWe@reddit
Yes. Because despite people on Reddit assuming it’s the sexual abuse stuff, this is what they’ve actually got the evidence for at the moment. But presumably the searches for that will potentially turn up anything else if it’s there.
Grand_Act8840@reddit
Thought as much.
Disappointing and would mean no justice for victims but at least something is happening.
CourtneyLush@reddit
I get where you're coming from but, he's (allegedly) been passing governmental information on to Epstein and his cronies by the sound of it.
It could very well have been a breach of national security, we don't know the details. That's pretty serious in itself.
Mandy is probably shitting himself right now.
hime-633@reddit
What was he? A "trade envoy?"
I get the principle of leveraging the networks of influential people but if this doesn't prompt an overhaul of how appointments are made and the transparency around the role then - well, I guess we just sit around and wait for the next scandal.
Gisschace@reddit
It’s the get them on their taxes trick, you just need something that can stick.
jw928@reddit
He’s not even the first nonce with the Mountbatten name in that family, his grand-uncle Lord Mountbatten had numerous allegations against before he was killed by the IRA. The entire family are dodgy, people need to wake up and see them for what they are.
Orangesteel@reddit
I thought exactly the same scrolling Reddit this morning. Our press is pretty dire the guardian has a leading story with facts. The way it should be. The tabloids and some broadsheets lead with sensationalism. I stopped buying most newspapers over a decade ago because of this
EnjoysAGoodRead@reddit
No. It's been around for a thousand years and they've beheaded their own, had wars with their own and much more. I think the newspapers are just trying to stir up shit for sales. It will survive as it always has.
Careful-Tangerine986@reddit
No, the king has correctly read the room when he said that the law must take it's course.
Active_Remove1617@reddit
You can’t say he’s correctly read the room when everyone else has read the room correctly weeks months and years before you.
chi-93@reddit
The King has shown by his actions towards Andrew that he has quite clearly read the room and has known something like this was coming for quite some time. We no longer live in the days where the King can just lock inconvenient people up in the Tower of London without due process. He has handled an obviously uncomfortable situation appropriately imo. What more would you have had him do??
Active_Remove1617@reddit
Oh really? – I didn’t know that. I thought the Tower of London was still operable.
redqueensroses@reddit
Only in the sense that the Crown Jewels are still kept there, and that there is housing on site for several Beefeaters. Operationally, the Tower is a tourist and heritage attraction.
Careful-Tangerine986@reddit
That's exactly what that phrase means.
notatmycompute@reddit
He fell for a Mossad honey trap, he 100% compromised his position, his Family, The UK and the Commonwealth
yes, that is how the press makes money, scandal is all part of politics
The Royal Family is not at risk, he very much hopefully is. His previous protection was his mother, his brother has a different relationship with him. As good as Elizabeth 2 (seriously so hard not to just say the Queen)was she protected her children at all cost. Charles I believe will, if presented with evidence, throw him to the wolves.
brickne3@reddit
Not to mention that while I'm not the biggest fan of William, he VERY CLEARLY has absolutely NO space for Andrew. So if Charles is seemingly not too troubled by throwing him to the dogs, just imagine how few fucks William is going to give.
MrMondypops@reddit
His charities have various links to various shady people in the Epstein files though.
MuttonChopzzz@reddit
Nope. King Charles had waited his whole life to ascend the throne, he'll hang the sweaty nonce out to dry before risking his monarchy.
MsDani_Marie@reddit
Isn't there a bit of a problem in terms of our legal/constitutional set up and all those ancient laws and practices we have on scrolls in vaults?
For example, the Law Lords, the entire legal system, and the KCs (prosecution and defence) work for the King. Any custodial sentence would be Andrew serving "At his Majesty's Pleasure". I believe the Latin term for the monarchy overruling law is 'Rex Lex'. The government of any day is officially asked by the King to serve him, so he is also in charge of them.
Whether they have stripped him of his title or not, or whether we enforce/go near these archaic statutes very often in 2026 or not, they are still there. Changing any of them would take yeeeeears, and there is no precedent for prosecuting the King's brother.
I would imagine they'll stick to the financial/secrets questions but it will never make it near the courts.
Is this putting the monarchy in jeopardy? Probably not, but a fresh start with William and Catherine will do them a lot of favours.
For the record, not a Royalist, no strong feelings either way.
Loose_Acanthaceae201@reddit
there is no precedent for prosecuting the King's brother
Au contraire, though admittedly you have to go back a bit.
cough Malmsey butt cough
I_waz_Perce@reddit
If you get one bad egg in a dozen, it shouldn't affect the other eleven. The monarchy has survived worse.
PepperOk1368@reddit
What's worse than using tax payers money to go to a pedo island and nonce on some enslaved children?
terryjuicelawson@reddit
It survived Edward VIII so think it will be OK, they have stripped him of his title and are fine with the police doing what their are doing. In a few decades he will just be the great Uncle of King George and people will say "who?".
chartupdate@reddit
I'm enjoying the irony of all those who for years insisted the royals should get proper jobs are now watching Prince Andrew get nicked for stuff he allegedly did during one of the few times in his life when he actually did have a proper job.
amanset@reddit
I’m far from a monarchist but for me, if anything, it has shown that Charles is taking it seriously and acting decisively in a way that the vast majority agree with. So it feels like it is weirdly a positive.
Ok_Neat2979@reddit
Journos need to submit articles to get paid. These are their opinion pieces for clicks and to stir up controversy. Doesn't mean their opinons are accurate .
anotheraccount999999@reddit
I live in hope, but no. He's not even "officially " part of it anymore so the RF can keep their distance from him and themselves safe.
Basic-Yesterday-5641@reddit
Nah, he’ll possibly get thrown under the bus, to throw a bone to the people who want accountability, then the establishment will circle the wagons to protect themselves like they always do.
Hearing-Potato5517@reddit
No, he is just the patsy. IMO, the whole Epstein story is a coverup and the real truth behind these allegations is way more disturbing.
Disastrous-Emu-557@reddit
It probably hasn't because British people are a bit weird about their deference to the monarchy.
The truth is though that the royal family paid off one of the victims, and the allegations about Andrew using his trade role illegitimately have been around of many years (there is an panorama documentary on it).
The royal family knew this, but he was only stripped of his titles recently when public outcry got too much. This means that the royal family do not care about those crimes but about public image. Just awful.
Status_General_1931@reddit
He’ll be sacrificed
xerojupiter@reddit
No.
Flamingo242@reddit
Gossiping and scandal about the Royal Family has been a national pastime since William the Conqueror. This is what we do.
Incantanto@reddit
I hope so but unlikely
mightypup1974@reddit
The Constitution Unit published an article on this today and doubts it. People are capable of separating the person from the institution and the King himself remains broadly popular
FingersMcCall@reddit
I’d like to say yes but unfortunately there are those in the UK that love to be subordinate. The reality is that the monarchy (or the firm) is an archaic way to head up a state. It’s corrupt and vastly over privileged. Normal people would look at this Andrew situation as the tip of the iceberg on a sinking ship but there are those who enjoy inherent wealth and dishonesty. It’s up to the people really.
Zombie-Andy@reddit
I sincerely hope so!
JinxThePetRock@reddit
The monarchy won't be in jeopardy all the time there's William in the wings. A lot of people have a lot of goodwill to him due to his Mum and all those shenanigans.
white1984@reddit
What about William's Earthshot prize and its dodgy Arab links?
strongfavourite@reddit
monarchy should have been abolished a long time ago, and it will be one day.. but we're nowhere near that yet in my opinion and this scandal won't bring it down
Aggressive-Cook-7864@reddit
No chance. Monarchy has survived much worse than this - and will survive this.
yinyandragon@reddit
The monarchy should have ended when the queen died
Hcmp1980@reddit
Yes. If it turns out Charles helped pay off a sex trafficker's victim, who then went on to kill herself, we might be in abdictation territory.
Spirited-Alarm-9981@reddit
Not unless his affiliation with the monarchy gets him off valid charges. I think if anything, if this sees a conviction, especially if one comes from the sex crimes, it may even strengthen the monarchy as it will show they put justice first when the King could have pardoned him
wo_no_diggity_doubt@reddit
Not at all. This story has been going on for a long time now and with the amount of celebrities involved it seems like it could have been a quite a lot worse for the royal family simply given how many people are linked to Epstein's shithousery. People involved are now seemingly trying to state that they were the "in crowd" to be invited. Jeeezus Christ! Ridiculous!
How long will the Hollywood sign stay standing for is a better question in my opinion.
ButteredNun@reddit
It has further dented their image, but the degeneracy continues.
Still-Bill2827@reddit
Would be nice, but no.
ian9outof10@reddit
I wish. In fact, I think they’re gladly throwing Andy Pizza Sweat to the wolves of justice to save their own skin.
MattDubh@reddit
Fingers crossed.
qualityvote2@reddit
Hello u/Dry_Flatworm_4533! Welcome to r/AskABrit!
For other users, does this post fit the subreddit?
If so, upvote this comment!
Otherwise, downvote this comment!
And if it does break the rules, downvote this comment and report this post!