The arrest of King Charles’ younger brother has been described as a “massive blow” to the British monarchy.
Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor (pictured) was arrested by UK police early on Thursday morning (19 February) on suspicion of misconduct in public office. He has strongly denied any wrong doing and it is important to stress he has not been charged with anything.
Police are reportedly looking into claims that the former prince had passed documents to the late convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein while working as a trade envoy.
The news, which comes on the 66th birthday of the former prince, has been described as a critical moment in the long history of the British royal family.
According to media reports, Andrew, said to be the late Queen’s favourite son, is the first senior royal to have been arrested in this manner.
Reacting to the dramatic news, which has made headlines around the world, Dr Denis MacShane, a former Europe Minister in the UK, told this website: “The last royal to be detained was King Charles 1 who lost his head.”
MacShane, who served under Tony Blair, added, “This is a massive blow to the reputation of British royals across the world.”
In a reference to King Charles, he went on: “The King is old and unwell. The arrest of his brother protected by Buckingham Palace when he was intimately connected to Jeffrey Epstein shamed Britain. This will get worse until there is real change,” said MacShane
Further comment came from Lord (Richard) Balfe, a member of the UK House of Lords, who also told this site, “Mountbatten-Windsor has always regarded himself as being above the law.
“Sending what were in effect Government documents to what was effectively a “foreign power” was always above the law and so his arrest is deserved.
“On the House of Lords circuit he has always had a reputation for being high handed and unpleasant I doubt that many who know him will feel sorry for him,” said the UK peer who is also a former MEP.
The King went about his usual business on Thursday but, in a statement, also responded by saying: “I have learned with the deepest concern the news about Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor and suspicion of misconduct in public office.”
It is understood, according to Reuters, that police officers were also searching a property in Berkshire, where the former royal prince used to live on the King’s Windsor estate.
Police, said the King’s statement, would receive the royals’ “full and wholehearted support and cooperation”.
It went on: “Let me state clearly: the law must take its course. As this process continues, it would not be right for me to comment further on this matter. Meanwhile, my family and I will continue in our duty and service to you all.”
A UK police statement read: “Following a thorough assessment, we have now opened an investigation into this allegation of misconduct in public office. We understand the significant public interest in this case, and we will provide updates at the appropriate time.”
Further comment comes from former British MEP and EU parliament vice president Edward McMillan-Scott who told this site: “The arrest of Andrew Mountbatten Windsor, as Prince Andrew, younger son of King Charles was widely expected, given the waves of media speculation about his involvement with paedophile the late Jeffrey Epstein and former EU Commissioner Peter Mandelson.
“The apparent cause of the arrest was Andrew’s leaking of secret government documents while he was acting as a trade envoy for the British government, a relatively serious crime.
“As The Times stated this weekend “There will be a range of legal hurdles in the way of a conviction, however. Six years ago, a report from the Law Commission, which advises ministers, said the offence was “one of the most notoriously difficult” to define in England and Wales.”
The former Euro deputy added: “I never met Andrew, although I have met other members of the British Royal Family, including the late Queen Elizabeth, who was reputedly a discreet pro-European, although when I broke political protocol and asked her if she was in favour of the Lisbon Treaty, wrinkled her nose.
“I sat next to King Charles at a small dinner at the British Mission in Brussels and was struck by his ‘bracketing’ of replies to my questions with ‘on the hand… and on the other’. He has very short fingers and bitten nails. By far my favourite is Andrew’s sister, Anne, who gives her time endlessly and without publicity to various charities.”
“The big loser in the unfolding scandal will be the monarchy itself, always a fragile flower, and as of today its petals blown away by a vain and pointless child abuser,” added McMillan-Scott, who refused a peerage in 2009 – lifetime membership of the House of Lords – in protest at premier David Cameron’s ECR alliance.
Former Reuters bureau chief Paul Taylor, now a respected commentator on global affairs, also said: “I haven’t followed the Epstein affair closely enough to know if there are US citizens who have been questioned by police or face prosecution for alleged offenses exposed in the Epstien files. I know Larry Summers and a couple of bankers have resigned from positions due to the reputational damage.
“But it’s Andrew, Jack Lang and his daughter and some Norwegian politicians who are facing questioning and possible charges over their dealings with Epstein. That does seem curious.”
Also reacting is leading UK lawyer Mark Stephens, CBE, and a consultant at Howard Kennedy LLP.
He told this site: “In modern British history, a royal being arrested is unprecedented and this appears to be the first time a senior member of the Royal Family has been arrested by police in living memory.”
“That doesn’t mean the monarchy has never faced scandal or investigation — it means modern constitutional monarchy has insulated royals from criminal process. That insulation is now gone.”
“In the modern era (19th–21st century) there is no clear precedent of a senior royal being arrested or charged under modern criminal law.Investigations and scandals occurred, but not arrests.
“This is why commentators and historians are (accurately) saying this is a “first in modern times.”
He added that in the “pre‑modern” context the Duke of Clarence (1478) was imprisoned and executed (allegedly drowned in wine) while in the 18th–17th centuries royals were imprisoned or executed for treason.
“So, If you go back far enough, you find monarchs in dungeons. But that was power disciplining power, not the rule of law. What makes today different is that this is ordinary policing applying to extraordinary status.”
“This isn’t medieval justice — it’s modern policing first.”
When asked if Andrew could go to prison for life he said, “Misconduct in public office carries a maximum sentence of life imprisonment, but that is a theoretical ceiling, not a realistic expectation.”
Life, he noted, is reserved for offences such as extreme abuse of power, grave public harm, sustained or deliberate misconduct.
If charged and convicted, Andrew’s sentencing would be proportionate, he says.
“Maximum sentences exist to mark seriousness, not to predict outcomes.”
“Misconduct in public office is a common‑law offence, not set out in statute. Parliament has never fixed a sentencing range,starting points,or guideline categories. As a result judges have very wide discretion and sentencing is fact‑specific, not formulaic.”
He goes on: “The sentence for the offence if found guilty is ‘unusual’ precisely because it doesn’t have a tariff. In practice, sentences will range from non‑custodial to several years’ imprisonment, depending entirely on seriousness and in comparison to others also sentenced for similar offences arising from the Epstein material. Most convictions do not result in life sentences, despite the headline maximum.”
When asked if royal status makes it harder or easier for prosecutors he said: “Harder. Public interest is intense, legal scrutiny is relentless, and mistakes are fatal to a case. That’s why prosecutors move slowly.”
“High‑profile defendants don’t get favours — they get media microscopes.”
On what this means for the monarchy itself, he replied: “It reinforces a simple proposition: the monarchy survives by submitting to the law, not standing above it. The Crown endures because it bends to the law.”
Former veteran British Labour MEP Richard Corbett, a constitutional expert, told this site it was a “sad day for the British Royal family. But a process will hopefully show that no-one, however privileged, is above the law in a democracy with proper separation of powers.”
