I’m a staunch supporter of the monarchy. The Crown is one of this country’s last great stabilising institutions, and I won’t join those using the scandal around Prince Andrew to attack the King. But loyalty to the Crown does not mean blind loyalty to every individual who bears its privilege. In a modern, rules-based Britain, serious allegations demand due process — not trial by mob.

Let’s separate two truths. First, Andrew’s behaviour has been disgraceful. His friendship with Jeffrey Epstein, a convicted sex offender, was indefensible. His evasive performance on Newsnight cemented public disgust. He is, frankly, an odious and unlikeable man — arrogant, entitled and staggeringly
tone-deaf.

Second, and crucially: none of that establishes criminal guilt. Guilt is not determined by tabloids or Twitter. It is determined by evidence, investigation and the courts.

The allegations against him are serious. Virginia Giuffre alleged she was trafficked as a minor by Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell and forced to have sex with Andrew in London, New York and the US Virgin Islands. Andrew denies the claims. In 2022, he settled Giuffre’s civil suit in the US without admitting
liability. The joint statement expressed regret for his association with Epstein and support for victims. It ended litigation — but not public unease.

The Palace, rightly, took action. Andrew was stripped of his military affiliations and royal patronages, ceased using “His Royal Highness” in any official capacity, and withdrew from public duties. These are real consequences — but they are political and reputational, not judicial.

The story hasn’t gone away. The Metropolitan Police are now examining allegations that Andrew asked a protection officer to obtain “dirt” on Giuffre in 2011 — potentially a misuse of police resources if proven. Andrew denies wrongdoing. The Met has said it is actively reviewing the matter. And that is precisely how it should be: a transparent, proper investigation leading either to charges or closure. No special treatment.
No exceptionalism.

We also know that Andrew hired social media advisors who subcontracted a professional troll, in an attempt to discredit and undermine Ms Giuffre.

All of this now sits against the sombre backdrop of tragedy. Virginia Giuffre died by suicide in April 2025 at her home in Western Australia, aged 41. Whatever one’s view of the case, her death is a human loss. It’s a reminder that behind the headlines are real people — not pieces in a political game. There will be speculation; responsible people must hold the line on fact.

What the King decides to do in the face of these allegations is ultimately a matter for him. But the monarchy is not immune from the court of public trust. He must do what is right to protect the Royal Family’s standing — to be seen to take these allegations seriously and to uphold the institution’s integrity — while
also recognising that there are criminal allegations to be answered and the rule of law must prevail. The public expects no less.

Here’s the core point: only the Sovereign has legal immunity. Andrew does not. If there is credible evidence, he should face the same process as any other citizen. If there isn’t, the endless punishment by public opinion must end. Justice is supposed to be blind — not bent to outrage.

And yes, the public sees double standards: in selective policing, in a government that talks tough on law and order while victims wait years for justice and resources are poured elsewhere. That corrodes trust in institutions including the monarchy.

If the institution is to endure, it must embody fairness, not favour. Let the Met do its work If there’s a case prosecute it. If not, say so plainly. Justice must be blind – even, and especially, when the accused is a prince many can’t stand.