Arrest of Andrew Mountbatten forces British government and Charles III to air the Windsor family’s dirty laundry

On February 24, in an unprecedented exercise of parliamentary procedure, British MPs unleashed a tirade against a member of the royal family. Specifically, former Prince Andrew. But they went further, questioning for the first time who knew about his misdeeds, and since when.

The customs and practices of the House of Commons had been strictly enforced until then, preventing any opinions being expressed about the Windsor royal house. Until that week, when many citizens had to pinch themselves to make sure what they were seeing was real: the police arrested Queen Elizabeth II’s favorite son at his own home over his relationship with the disgraced American financier and sex offender Jeffrey Epstein.

“A rude, arrogant, and entitled man, who could not distinguish between the public interest which he said he served and his own private interest,” was how Chris Bryant, the Labour government’s Secretary of State for Trade, described Andrew. It was during this session that all parliamentary groups, without debate, backed a motion ordering the release of all documents related to the time the former prince served as the UK’s Special Representative for International Trade and Investment, on the condition that these papers would not be made public until the conclusion of the ongoing official investigation into Andrew’s activities.

Thames Valley Police are investigating the former prince for alleged misconduct in public office. They suspect that Andrew leaked confidential government business information to his friend Epstein.

Bryant’s remarks made headlines. But far more significant was the second part of his statement: “Of course, we knew much of what is now in the public domain a very long time ago. It is all very well for some of us to say: ‘If only we had known then what we know now,’ but I am afraid that doesn’t wash with me. We did actually have plenty of warning,” the minister acknowledged.

Politicians looked the other way for a long time, but so did the royal family. And although Charles III has tried to erect a barrier to protect himself and the heir to the throne, Prince William, from the Andrew scandal, his brother’s fall from grace has opened the floodgates. Questions are piling up about how Buckingham Palace handled this entire scandal over all these years (15 since the first photo linking the then-Duke of York to Epstein surfaced).

“The royal household must begin to release all the documents received at Buckingham Palace relating to the time [Andrew] was special envoy for foreign trade. I know there are thousands of documents stored away. They should, among other things, begin to reveal all the internal complaints and criticisms they received for more than 15 years,” historian Andrew Lownie — author of Entitled: The Rise and Fall of the House of York (William Collins, 2025), a devastating and definitive 450-page indictment of the king’s brother that already contained some of the information that now seems to have surprised so many — told EL PAÍS. “Until last December, they were still instructing the police not to speak to journalists. Now it seems they’ve given instructions to do so. They must make it clear to everyone who participated in those trips with Andrew — agents, secretaries, butlers, everyone — that they are obligated to recount everything they saw,” he added.

What Charles III knew… and so did his mother

Now, self-serving leaks reveal that the current king opposed his brother’s appointment to such a demanding and enticing mission as promoting foreign trade from the outset. In fact, Andrew’s main backer was his friend Peter Mandelson, a member of Tony Blair’s Labour government. It was Mandelson, currently released on bail and under investigation by police for the same crime as the former prince — leaking confidential financial information to Epstein — who most strongly defended Andrew’s appointment. This occurred with the approval and support of Queen Elizabeth II, whose role in protecting and acquiescing to Andrew is becoming increasingly clear.

Not only in appointing him to that position, but also in maintaining his lifestyle, preserving his titles and privileges, or helping him pay the multimillion-dollar out-of-court settlement with which he tried to silence the sexual assault accusations filed against him by Virginia Giuffre, one of Epstein’s victims.

“Of course, it’s clear she covered everything up to protect him. Just a few days ago, the BBC revealed that the massages he received on his trips as a special envoy were paid for by the taxpayer. When the accountants tried to question these charges, the response was, ‘Everything has been approved by the Queen, stop asking questions,’” Lownie says.

The doubts that arise go back to the reign of Elizabeth II, but they reveal above all a way of proceeding, on the part of all institutions, in which self-censorship or the presumption of what might or might not please the palace guided many decisions that today appear to be of poor judgment.

“From what I can see, there are at least four government departments that have to provide answers. It was Downing Street [the residence and office of the prime minister, then Tony Blair] that appointed Andrew as special envoy in 2001. He held the post on behalf of the Department of Trade and Industry. The Foreign Office arranged his travels. And security was provided by the Metropolitan Police, who reported to the Home Office,” historian and documentary filmmaker Robert Hardman, author of Charles III: New King. New Court. The Inside Story, the most rigorous biography to date of the current king, told the BBC. “Aside from all the questions that Buckingham Palace has to answer, they also have to provide answers. This is a very long queue.”

Andrew’s arrest has pushed British institutions beyond a mere scandal, plunging them into a full-blown constitutional crisis. Any attempt to kick the can down the road, to buy time, will only increase the pressure from politicians, journalists, and citizens demanding answers that have been delayed for far too long.

Sign up for our weekly newsletter to get more English-language news coverage from EL PAÍS USA Edition