The Royals with Roya and Kate - Andrew arrested: a new crisis for the Crown

Episode Date: February 19, 2026

Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor has been arrested and is being held in custody on suspicion of misconduct in public office after police were seen at the Sandringham estate on his 66th birthday. In an unprecedented move, the King issued a statement saying the “law must take its course”. As scrutiny intensifies over Andrew’s decade as UK trade envoy and what the Epstein files appear to suggest about that period, Roya Nikkhah is joined by Harry Yorke and Charlotte Alt to talk about how this moment could affect the monarchy, and whether the institution has ever faced pressure on this scale.Guest: Harry Yorke, Deputy Political Editor, The Sunday Times.Charlotte Alt, News Reporter, The Times.Producer: Robert WallaceExecutive Producer: Priyanka DeladiaImage: Getty Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Hello and welcome to the Royals, the podcast where we give you insight into what happens behind the palace walls and why it matters. I'm Royne Nika. Andrew Mountbatten, Windsor, has been arrested on suspicion of misconduct in a public office. The King released a statement stating clearly the law must take its course. This is an unprecedented moment in the history of the modern monarchy. No longer just a royal crisis, it's now a. test for the state. Raising a far more serious allegation, did Andrew blur public duty with private interest while serving as the UK's trade envoy? And as the scrutiny reaches new heights, has the

monarchy ever been more exposed? Well, Kate's away this week, but to help me unpack all of this, I'm joined by Harry York, Deputy Political Editor of the Sunday Times, and Charlotte Out, a news reporter at the Times. Charlene Harry, thank you for joining me on a very, very big day. Indeed. Quite a lot of news.

Now, the word unprecedented keeps being bandied around, but let's just look at the facts of what's happened today. We have had the extraordinary scenes of multiple police cars arriving at the Sandringham Estate and then a statement

from Thames Valley policing they've arrested a man in his 60s. I think what's really interesting is we understand that neither the king nor Buckingham Palace were given any advance notice of that arrest this morning. What was your reaction to that when you saw that news?

Draw on the floor, I think. It's just an extraordinary revelation, as you say. It's the first time it's happened since the arrest of Charles I first in the 17th century. It's extraordinary. To kind of watch that play out. And just when the actual news headline dropped on the BBC, I think actually just in the newsroom upstairs, Roy, everyone just kind of froze. Yeah. There was a kind of an audible gasp.

I think the buildup and the news cycle that we've seen around this, some people thought that, well, look, this was probably. will be going to happen at some point, but the speed with which Thames Valley Police and the police have moved to do this. I think that's what's caught everyone by surprise. Because there's been a lack of speed and scrutiny possibly previously. Is that what I think you... Totally. We know that when it comes to complex investigations involving very senior figures in public life, it's often a very painful, long, drawn-out process, whereas what we've, I think we've seen is the kind of allegations against Andrew and the purported evidence only emerged very recently, specifically relating to this investigation. And so for them to move so fast on it, I think that is quite interesting.

Charlotte, of course, we know relatively little at the stage. We know he was arrested this morning. We know he's still in custody. We believe he's still in Norfolk. We don't know much more than that. It's his 66th birthday today, which is a strange, bizarre fact throwing into the mix. He's been arrested on his birthday. What was your reaction to how you saw the scenes play out this morning? Tell us a little bit more about what you know about the process now. Yes, I've been covering this since the Epstein Files came out three weeks ago. So I've sort of been across this, but I also didn't expect it to happen that quickly. I thought, you know, they said no one's above the law, but is that really the case? And then I came in this morning and I was asked to actually drive

to Sandringham. And then a couple of minutes later, they said he's been arrested and I initially didn't believe it. I thought, oh, what? But yes, in terms of what we know is not very much. It's a very much a moving story and we're still trying to get ahead around it. He has been arrested on the suspicion of misconduct and public office. There has been no charge so far. And we also don't know what Thames Valley Police, what has led them to search his houses and arrest him at this stage. We know that they had previously been assessing some of the emails found in the Epstein files. but we don't know at this stage if they've found anything else in their research so far. So what we have seen from the release of Epstein files over the last few weeks is emails and documents that appear to suggest Andrew may have shared documents that are allegedly highly sensitive and confidential.

We must stress that even though Andrew has been arrested, it's not any indication of guilt, there are no charges and he's always consistently denied any wrongdoing. Now, very soon after that extraordinary breaking news that he'd been arrested, we had a statement from the king. And I'm going to read that because just seeing that statement come through on my phone from Buckingham Palace, seeing the monarch responding to the news his brother had been arrested was extraordinary. And I'm going to read it now. The king said, I've learned with the deepest concern the news about Andrew Mountbatten, Windsor and suspicion of misconduct and public office. What now follows is the full, fair and proper process by which this issue is investigated in the appropriate manner and by the appropriate authorities. In this, as I said before, they have our full and wholehearted support and cooperation. Let me state clearly, the law must take its course.

As this process continues, it wouldn't 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, Charles R. again, an extraordinary statement and an extraordinary time from the king. It's just extraordinary to see words like that coming from the monarch. We've been so used to, you know, both with his mother, Queen Elizabeth, we've been used to this period of kind of stability and then to see, and it's a tone, I think, Roy, that I was struck by, the tone of the words used there about. And also the cooperation, the full cooperation is important.

I think what the king is trying to do is say to the, public here effectively, just because he is a member of my family, there is going to be no pressure place. I think that's what he's trying to convince the public. There will be no funny business here that he is assuring law enforcement and the police that they should investigate totally without fear or favour. He seems to be echoing. When he says that that line, let me state clearly the law must take it. He seems to be echoing what we heard from Kirstama this morning and the DPP to the Sunday Times last week, which was that nobody is above the law. What's been the mood music like in Westminster around this?

And of course, this has moved very dramatically today. But in the last few days and weeks, have you felt more of a sort of political will to see this properly, rigorously investigated? Yeah, no, it's a really good question. I think it's important that we look at the context of this and not just the last couple of days. Because, you know, as you and I both know, Roya, when it comes to the royal family, parliament is remarkably muted. And there's a whole host of reasons, historical reasons, why that's the case. There's the kind of separation of politics and the monarchy that's always been kind of ingrained. And there's a whole bunch of conventions and restrictions about what MPs can discuss in Parliament.

But if we just take the Prime Minister himself, because ultimately the relationship between the government and the monarchy is normally channeled through the Prime Minister. And so if you actually look at what's happened since the various trenches of the government, the Epstein files have been released. At first, when we had the first tranche at the end of last year, the Prime Minister was asked about Andrew and he was asked about whether he should cooperate with any inquiries in the US Congress. And he was very cautious. He was on the way back from a G20 trip. And he talked about his general principles about individuals. He would not be drawn on Andrew specifically. And then that changed a couple of weeks ago. And then it changed in China because we had a release of yet more. And we had a growing drumbeaty to front page stories.

And clearly the severity of what was unfolding was growing. And so the prime minister didn't really have much of a choice here. So what we saw with his language toughen up, and then he directly addressed Andrew. He addressed him by name. And he said, I believe that he should testify if asked to do so. His language was the strongest yet. And he said that he shouldn't be above the law.

And obviously he basically parroted and mirrored the last. language that Stephen Parkinson, the director of public prosecutions used in an interview with our colleague Dipesh at the weekend. So I imagine all of the framing and the words used by both the king, the prime minister and the director of public prosecutions is all probably coordinated and very carefully managed because I just think even though the prime minister's language is clearly got stronger and more condemnatory, I still think it's very tightly controlled. And that is just how the British state has always worked. In terms of the temperature in Westminster generally, I think in government, I think it's still

very much everybody's terrified of saying anything about the rules, even though Andrew has been arrested and his titles have, as you and I, gone. Yeah, gone. And as you and I both know, trying to get information about Andrew has been immensely challenging. Basic things when we were discussing whether there would need to be legislation to remove his dukedom, when you were trying to find out whether his vice-admaltie from the Royal Navy was going to be taken away and how that process worked. It was a total slog, to be honest. And then we'd get to MPs, the backbenchers and Parliament and the House of Commons. Now, that is where the

temperature is rising rapidly. And that's where I think the action is going to go now when MPs come back from their recess break. So what we know is that a select committee run by Liam Byrne, the Business and Trade Centre, they're very keen to haul him in, aren't they? They would love nothing more than to bring Andrew in for a hearing to, ask about his time as trade envoy. But will they be able to do that while there's an police inquiry ongoing? No, definitely not. From the long and extensive time that I've had reporting on this kind of stuff, select committees, privileges committees, standards watchdogs in Parliament, whenever law enforcement gets involved, whenever there are criminal investigations in play,

Parliament basically pauses all activity into an individual. And so I very much expect that anything that comes in terms of a select committee hearing or him being requested to attend, one, that would have to wait to the conclusion of this police investigation. And then the other thing is, even if, let's just say this ends and then he is requested to attend a hearing, they don't really have the power to compel him to attend anyway. They don't have the legal power. In the same way that Congress can't compel him to testify. No matter whether you have Kirstama, the Clintons, as they've come out this week saying, you know, he should testify, like we should, no one can make him do that because he's not under their jurisdiction.

All they can do select committees, and we solve is actually probably the most reason, recent example of this was when Dominic Cummings refused to appear before a select committee, and he was held in contempt of Parliament. But, you know, where the action will actually now take place. And interestingly, I thought the most interesting part of the Prime Minister's interview this morning was actually when he said, I will not stand in the way of a parliamentary debate on Andrew. And I think that should happen, and there will be no prohibitions on that. And that's interesting because MPs were calling for that back in October, and it was rejected by the government. a MP called Reginald Maskell, a Labour MP, had tabled a private member's bill.

She wanted to make it easier for the King to review titles. Now, what I think is going to happen now is the debate is going to very quickly shift. I think that's almost an outdated discussion now. It's all going to shift to the succession, the line of succession. And that's where MPs who want to see Andrew shut out of public life, that's where they're going to focus now. That is something, Charlotte, I want to talk to you about, because we know that for the last a few weeks and months, ever since this really kind of escalated in October when we had the King issued two statements. One, one came actually from the former Prince Andrew. The next

one a few weeks later came from the king himself, removing all his titles, finally stripping his titles. But something that I have been talking to the palace about in the last few weeks is this issue of he is still eighth in line to the throne. He is still technically a councillor of state, which means technically, although the palace say it'll never happen, he'd never be called on, he could undertake affairs of state if the monarch was unavailable. Obviously, there's many people above him in the line of succession. But for the last few weeks, until last week, there was constantly the kind of mood music from the palace that that's a matter for government.

It's a matter for parliament. It requires legislation. When I asked that question again last week, there was a slight shift in tone, which was it requires legislation. If that is something the government want to do, we wouldn't stand in their way. How likely do you think that is that there is now, with all the police activity, there'll be much more focus on how on earth has he still eighth in line to the throne and technically still a councillor.

Do you think that's something that there'll be more kind of pressure on Parliament to sort of look at? Potentially, though I think looking at this from a slightly outside perspective, if I'm from Germany, I didn't grow up here. So the royal family is sort of a bit of an alien concept to me. And I think what's really difficult is that the royal family is so woven into every part of the nation, the identity you see as a nation, but as well as the politics and the state and how the state runs.

So I think that's why it's taken so long for any action to be taken because you sort of hold that quite dear and it seems like it's an untouchable thing. You wouldn't quite go there. And that's why it's taken so long to strip him of any titles, in my opinion, is that it's sort of so unprecedented

that you didn't even think that could be a possibility. So I think removing sort of that last bit that tethers him to the, the royal family, potentially more possible now because there's so much pressure. But I could also see that maybe King Charles or the royal family, or even the government would be slightly hesitant to sort of remove that. It opens up questions as to Harry is still, frankly, frankly a councillor of state. Where would he still there? You've got to remove him from the night

session. He's no longer working royal. I think you make a really interesting point, Charlotte, Because it's something I've talked about and written endlessly about in the last few years. Could any of this happen under the last reign? There was a feeling that under the sort of age of Queen Elizabeth II, yes, after Andrew's disastrous news not intervened in 2019, she effectively forced him to step back from public life. She pushed him out of working royal life. He was kicked out of Bucking Pals. He didn't retain his private office. But she kept him close.

We saw him walking with her, you know, into church for the memorial service. Prince Philip. There was a feeling that deference towards the late queen, I think, kept a lid on this for quite a long time. That has gone. That has changed. The king's been very outspoken on, you know, arms length and the law taking its cause. You have been looking at the files for the last few weeks in great, great detail. As you said before, we don't know exactly what it is and what they suggest that the police are looking at. But can you just tell us a little bit more about the fact we are now looking at, it's not just Andrew exercising poor judgment. We know that he's done that for a very long time. The King said as much in his statement removing his titles lapses of judgment it was described as. But this is now the police looking into whether or not he acted in a way in a formal government role and there was a potential breach of trust. What else can you tell us about what they could be looking at? Yes, we know that Thames Valley Police has been assessing some emails in the Epstein files. We don't know which ones exactly. But in In the reporting that we've done and other papers have done, there have been a couple of

instances where Andrew appears to have forwarded emails with potentially confidential or sensitive information to Epstein. There were two that he appears to have sent while he was staying with Epstein in his New York townhouse in December 2010, which is also when the famous Central Park picture was taken. And these appear to relate to his visits to Southeast 8. Asia the month prior. So there's a couple of emails surrounding that. There's also an email Andrew appears to have sent on Christmas Eve that same year. And we should stress, of course, that being named in the Epstein files, which Andrew is repeatedly is not an indication of

misconduct. And we know, as we've said, Andrew has stressed vehemently. He's never done anything wrong in relation to any of these allegations. But let's just step back and have a look at exactly how this has come about because that role as trade envoy from 2001 to 2011, that decade in that role, that was a really important significant role and it was not a ceremonial role. So after Andrew left the Royal Navy, there was very much a sort of feeling that he needed something to do. And there were question marks over what he should do. I think the Queen was very keen for him to take on this role. He was given that role under Tony Blair's government. We do know because the King has let it be known repeatedly and has not challenged the reporting. We know that Charles was vehemently opposed

to him taking on that role. He did not think he would be suitable for that role. But Harry, talk us a little bit more about what that role entails, how you're appointed. Basically, back in 2001, as you say, he had just left the Royal Navy as a commander. And this was a significant posting. You know, so for people who are unfamiliar with what trade envoys are, they're normally parliamentarians, members of the House of Lords or MPs, they, tend to be parliamentarians with interests in the regions that they're appointed to. So just to give you some examples, Lord Austin, a former Labour MP, is our current trade envoy to Israel. And then we had people like Lord Udney Lister, Boris Johnson's former chief of staff, who was appointed as his

special envoy to the Gulf. Yes. And it's all about drumming up trade for the UK to kind of foster those ties. It's almost kind of an extension, I guess, of having the ambassadors circuit and the diplomatic circuit. And it's a nice, it tends to be, it's a good gig. It's a nice gig for, MPs that have behaved well and, you know, it's the power of patronage of governments. But to answer your question about Andrew, that is very, I am not quite sure how he became, but I think who directly from the Duke of Kent. Exactly. Exactly. So he takes it on from the Duke of Kent. So in a sense, it wasn't out of the ordinary, but it was certainly, it's certainly not the norm that trade envoys do tend to be parliamentarians. And then,

obviously as we know, because it's all history now, over that 10-year period that he was a trade down boy, he clocked up. Yeah, he definitely put in the miles. Well, he picked up the nickname Amar Zandhi, basically. Exactly. So he definitely did the flights. And I think you could also argue, actually, Roy, about the kind of candidacy of a royal. I mean, you know, that, it does require a lot of hobnobbing with foreign dignitaries, world leaders, business people, business elites. I mean, that seems to be the kind of thing that a prince and a member of the royal family would be very accustomed to and therefore probably quite good at. And also the draw is he was a member of the royal family. So obviously people would want to meet him. And so it might open doors for the

government on certain trade discussions, etc. You do, as a trade envoy, you do become privy to some pretty sensitive commercial information. A lot of this is UK people. PLC, you know, trying to secure significant commercial partnerships or trade partnerships with other countries. And so you are expected to be incredibly discreet about what's going on. And I know, because I've met many trade envoys, spend a great deal of time trying to coax information out of them. They are discreet and they take their role very seriously. Coming up, are there any more levers the King Kumpul? So what happens next?

We've had the extraordinary scenes today of Andrew arrested at his home in Norfolk. Bucky and Pallas putting out a statement from the king saying the law must take its course. We had, when I was out in Saudi Arabia last week with the Prince of Wales, we again had an extraordinary moment on the first day of the visit where there was supposed to be this very high level meeting with MBS, Mohammed bin Salman, the Crown Prince, which went ahead. But before that happened, you had a statement. from Buckingham Palace saying, we stand ready, the palace will support any potential police investigation. And then you had a statement later on that day from the Waleses saying, we're deeply concerned about what we're seeing coming out of the Epstein files. Our thoughts are with the victims.

But as the king has said, if there's criminality being assessed, there's not much more he can say it when he can do. But that whole notion, and I wrote about this at the last weekend in a column, that whole sort of motto that the royal family has adopted for centuries of never complain. and never explain, is being pushed to the very limit, because the king is frequently having to explain or having to comment on the fact that his brother, you know, is now under police investigation. And I suppose I wanted to ask you to who are slightly removed from the brief, because obviously I've got a lot of thoughts about it and I've written a comment about it. How do you think the palace and the royal family can now respond to this, given the constitutional

difficulties and complexities that are around all of this. I think that, again, from the outside, the sort of deference that's sometimes shown to the palace and the fact that they often didn't have to say anything, didn't have to explain anything, was quite baffling to me, sort of coming into, I never quite understood how they weren't held to account for some of the things that have come up over the years that kind of additional questions weren't asked. And I almost think sort of my point of view is, I think it's good that they are giving statements now, even though I find them surprising slightly considering, I mean, it's still King Charles was brother. So I do think that's the dimension we have to sort of remember

that his brother that he's talking about. But I think it is better for them now to at least give some statements than to completely be quiet because I don't think that would help them. And I think for them this is also potentially as sort of survival strategy because they're thinking about where do we go next. And if the public doesn't trust us or doesn't believe in our sort of what we can bring to the table, then where does that leave the monarchy as a whole? So I think it's a survival strategy, but I sort of could see how it might work if they are continuing to distance themselves and also sort of say that they're offering to help where they can. It's a very dangerous moment for the monarchy, I think. I think we can't escape that. It's a dangerous moment for the brand,

the royal family's brand, you know, hugely over centuries and decades, the late Queen's reign of more than 70 years, the King's reign, a trusted brand. And I think that trust is being eroded with what we're seeing here. It's very difficult for them. So the King ended his statement today saying, I will continue to serve you all. And it is extraordinary. That business as usual motto as well, which is constantly deployed by the palace. We've had the King, in the morning, his brother was arrested in Norfolk. And in the afternoon, as we speak, he's opening London Fashion Week. There he is sort of out with a load of designers, giving his support to British fashion, which we know he's very passionate about. It's a very bizarre scenario. I mean, do you think that sort of business-as-usual

thing is sustainable? Because we've seen the king and the Prince of Wales and the Queen heckled in the last few weeks. I just don't think business as usual can happen, Roya. I mean, look at your recent venture over to Saudi and to Riyadh. I mean, the royal family, all of their diary, their engagements, their foreign trips are so important to the projection of the monarchy. And so when they're totally overshadowed by this, and it has overshadowed pretty much every engagement I can think. How can they do business as you? How can you do business as usual? We had the Prince of Wales yesterday, a huge thing talking with a lot of people with Professor Green and other hyper about depression, anxiety, male suicide, the importance of checking in with

your emotions. It's a very big deal. That has in today's coverage completely disappeared because all of this is overshadowing it. And as you say, that deployment of the Royal Brand overseas, we are about to have in the next few months two high-profile visits by the King, a state visit to America expected in April. In July, we're expecting to see William travel to America at the invitation. of Donald Trump to mark independence. America is where a lot of the Epstein victims live. It is not beyond the realm's possibility

that we will see them noisily call for sort of more accountability. It is going to, you know, possibly potentially overshadowed those visits too. And how difficult is it for the monarchy to sustain that? I think you make a very good point about the American trips.

And also we have to remember that we operate in a different world and a different environment as the British media to the American press. I think, as you make a very good point about the victims and families, I mean, the idea of the king traveling to the US and then the Prince of Wales, I think will just open up a complete feeding frenzy. Do you think it might be looked at, do you think it might be looked at by government? I mean, the state visit will be on, is at the request of the government? Is that

something that our government would look at to protect the king? It would be very difficult now. They'd really offend Donald Trump, wouldn't it? Yeah, because this is all about placating Trump at the end of the day, the most powerful tool in our arsenal for placating the US president is the royal family. It's the only thing he really cares about. I mean, his relationship with Starma doesn't seem to have had much effect. No, he's laser focused on William and the King, isn't he? And so it is just fraught with danger at this moment in time.

I guess they probably can wait to see how this all pans out, but can you just imagine that the King goes on that state visit? It's such an integral moment for his reign. and then the entire news coverage in the American press is just pictures or video footage and interviews with the families. And also, by the way, our parliamentarians are very respectful of the monarchy

in the general context. It's something to which you refer to, Charlotte. US senators, US congresspeople are not going to respect the monarchy. They are going to see an opportunity to make a name for themselves, are going to use it to get on television. And we know that because we've seen what's been going on,

the politicised nature of the Epstein Files and how they've been weaponised by both parties in the US, you can just see a world in which the kind of political world collides with that state visit and it could get very, very messy. In my time of doing this job, and I've been doing this job for more than 15 years now, I've never heard or read so many statements from the monarch over a period of months. We've had a lot of them from the palace and from the king. All written statements so far. statements of deep concern for the victims of Epstein, statements of concern about the development today in terms of the arrest.

But we haven't heard directly from the king. And actually, even today, I was a bit surprised that that statement came as a written statement because we know the king's out on manoeuvres. He could have made that as an address. He could have said those words to the nation. We could have heard from him. We haven't. Do you think the written statements are cutting through? I'm keen to know both of your thoughts. I think at some point, depending on how this all pans out, I think the natural evolution of where this goes is probably a televised address from the king. It just depends on how the public receives this. And it's quite interesting. And I think in the UK, it's probably pretty mixed how people perceive Andrew.

Some of them will just kind of totally disregard him as one issue and then see the king in a very different light. Others will just think they're all part of the same package. And I think if that kind of latter thing becomes the prevailing mood, then I think the king will probably have to come out because I think the sight of the monarch speaking and making a statement so much more powerful than words. And we know that.

We saw it when the late Queen gave her addresses during COVID, just how important that is. Obviously, we have the kind of Christmas Day speech and all the rest of it. But I think that is possibly where this ends up. And what a Christmas Day broadcast. That is going to be to look forward to later this year. do you think Charlotte, do you think it's cutting through or do you think the king should be going further at this point? I also think probably a televised statement would be more

powerful because I think what risks happening now is with, because they've been actually so many statements and I do think it's good that they're bringing out statements. But after a while, they all sound the same. I'm not sure if this continues, if they will still sound sincere and if they just say we will help. But there's sort of no clear idea of how that looks. I mean, a lot of that they can't say for legal reasons. But I think at some point it will become quite impersonal and the statements will seem less sincere. And I think at that point, I think it would probably have to go to full televised statement. Well, gosh, so much to talk about. What a day. Thank you both so much for joining me.

My huge thanks to Harry York and Charlotte Alt for joining me on the Royals in this monumental week on this extraordinary day. And you can, of course, keep across all the latest developments on this story at the times.com. And a reminder, you can also watch as well as listen to the podcast. Just search Times Royals on YouTube for full episodes, plus more Royal News and analysis from across the times. Me and Kate will be back next week. We'll see you then.