The man formerly known as Prince Andrew has been arrested
Most of the coverage says it’s because of his dealings with Epstein, and that is the case. But I would guess a lot of people who don’t bother to read the story think it’s for sex with underage women/girls. It does not appear to be, although I suppose that could change. It seems to be for giving Epstein investment tips based on insider information, otherwise known in British parlance as “misconduct in public office.”
It’s the first arrest of a British royal in 400 years, although he’s not been charged with anything and he was released pending further investigation.
Well, at least they’re not planning to behead him. The charge carries a maximum possible life sentence, however.
You could read much of that article I just linked and come away with the impression that the arrest was for something sexual. It isn’t until paragraph numbers ten and eleven that you get this tidbit:
Earlier this month, the Thames Valley Police said it was looking into a claim that the former prince, while serving as U.K. trade envoy in 2010, had shared confidential documents with Epstein.
One email in the latest U.S. release appears to show Mountbatten-Windsor forwarding Epstein a report from his special adviser about the then-prince’s visit to Southeast Asia.
Easy to miss or gloss over that, but it appears to be the subject matter involved. Here’s more about it:
The Telegraph revealed last week that the former prince appeared to have forwarded a Treasury memo in 2010 about the Icelandic economy to a banker whose firm had just bought assets from a bank there.
At the time, Britain and Iceland were engaged in a diplomatic row over British deposits lost in the 2008 banking crisis.
Mr Mountbatten-Windsor suggested the information might be useful to his friend “before you make your move”.
The Epstein files also appear to show that he forwarded official reports to the paedophile about trips to Hong Kong, Singapore, Vietnam and China in November 2010.
Mr Mountbatten-Windsor also appeared to have forwarded the paedophile a separate briefing on investment opportunities in Afghanistan’s Helmand province in December 2010.
I assume this was either classified information or at least information that Andrew was not supposed to be sharing in order to help someone make investment decisions. It also seems to me that someone – or many people – wants to make sure Andrew is punished for something. There’s little doubt in my mind that Andrew is a sleazebag in a host of ways, including sexually. But I don’t think there’s any evidence of sex with underage girls – although again, that could change.
He sure was a good friend to Epstein, though.
I can’t quite imagine what the royal family members are saying to each other behind closed doors.
See also this bit of backstory involving Starmer:
The latest document release included a number of new revelations about Mandelson’s relationship with Epstein, including more evidence of the pair’s yearslong friendship continuing after Epstein pleaded guilty to soliciting prostitution in 2008, and emails suggesting Mandelson shared sensitive government information with the financier.
Mandelson’s involvement with Epstein has more broadly threatened Starmer’s leadership—because he appointed Mandelson to be ambassador—with two of Starmer’s top aides resigning in the wake of the Epstein files’ release and the PM facing calls to resign.
I would wager it’s not so unusual for people in public office to be sharing that kind of information, but the Epstein files have allowed some prominent people to be caught. Perhaps Andrew’s arrest is meant to be a distraction from Mandelson/Starmer?
I try not to be cynical but as I get older I think more often that when they say why did they do this or why didn’t they do that it’s about money 99% of the time. I’m sure that’s the case here.
From what I have read, the issue is Andrew shared classified documents about financial plans with Epstein. That’s a serious breech of national security, but it’s hard to know how serious it is at this point. No matter, if he’s shared these, he’s probably shared other government secrets, and its not a good look for a high-level official.
How very telling that it was in response to alleged leaking of secret information than anything else. More evidence the Argentines should have killed him in action back in 1982. That said, I find it hard to view this as justice. As evil as Andrew may have been it is hard to say he is doing more harm than the organized rape gangs infesting the U.K. or terrorist propagandists, most of whom operate with impunity.
I have seen talk around that this is a move from Starme to both distract from the Mandleson connection that is ripping Starmer’s cabinet and government, but also to try and destabilize the Royal Family which could be a separate place for rallying compared to Parliament and is a source of tradition and legitimacy. I find it hard to discount that too quickly. Whatever we call this, it does not seem like justice in any meaningful way.
Turtler:
I agree about the distraction.
Stuart Varney, on Fox Business, a former Brit (now naturalized American) thinks this might bring down Starmer, and speculation also on whether Charles would have to abdicate in favor of William. That seems extreme, since Charles has been coming down hard on Andrew well before these revelations.
In American terms, if an American diplomat were found to be funneling private state information to non-American investors, this would be criminal. O course I agree with Turtler that the rape gangs are far more disgusting and criminal, including the government cover-ups.
A bit pedantic but no Royal was arrested today. Charles stripped Andrew of the remaining titles he hadn’t abdicated himself, including Prince, back in October 2025.
@Christopher B
That’s not really how the British Royalty or peerage system works. In a word, the only means by which he would lose his title of Prince and place in the royal family were not imposed, and what happened last year was basically a combination of Andrew losing his remaining duties as a “working royal” or postings, and agreeing (under duress no doubt) to no longer use royal titles. Sort of like if someone decided to suddenly go around telling everyone not to use their royal title.
But he’s still a royal.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=sVKavKfppQc
It’s the first arrest of a British royal in 400 years
I doubt he will receive as rough treatment as Charles I did.
Disclosure: a hometown friend was descended from one of the hanging judges—so called because their verdict resulted in the hanging of Charles I. (The neighbor made little light of her famous ancestor. I only found out about the connection in research after she died. )
Well, let’s see. . . . There WAS that photo of Andrew sticking his head up to the open-door slit from inside Epstein’s fancy NYC home. . . . And then there WAS that photo of Andrew looking up at the camera while kneeling down on his own hands and knees above that very young lady lying on her back on the floor underneath him. . . .
I mean, OK, the arrest may have been mostly about money. But hey. . . .
Some of this stuff is vague. “Information” can be pretty much anything. In one context, it’s important, in another, not so much. Timing is a question. Whether the recipient of the information was expected to profit by it is a question. IOW, was it, “Just for grins, see what these guys are doing.,,,,”.?
Having said that, if it was a crime to share the information, it was a crime.
Epstein had, it is becoming more clear, a reputation and a position as a “fixer”, if that is defined as somebody who knows everybody and can get you introduced. And, in that case, would know a lot about what…everybody knows. Hence, good to talk to him, and share what you know to be part of the ingroup. Which may be seen as an investment against future needs.
And once, to make a strained analogy, once who and what he knows reaches a critical mass, it positively attracts more of same.
And to spice things up in the foulest sense, headlines about a couple of kid bodies found at his ranch.
@ Gringo: Charles I of England was beheaded, not hanged.
From his 2019 interview (where he offered lame and incredible answers) suggest he did in fact fornicate with Virginia Roberts Giuffre. The thing is, taking her own complaint at face value, she was not coerced or drugged and she was of legal age in each of the three jurisdictions in which they had assignations at the time she claimed the assignations occurred. For this, her lawyers managed to buffalo Andrew into giving her $12 million. She later committed suicide, for whatever reason she had. Banging a young woman who is six years older than your daughters is disgusting but not the stuff of eight-digit judgments.
==
One thing that’s emerged is the eighteen year long association between Andrew and Sarah on the one hand and Epstein on the other was driven in part by episodic financial dependency. One mystery here is why his father, mother, and their staff never placed the two under a conservatorship.
==
After he was discharged from the Navy, Andrew was assigned to do ‘trade missions’, something with which he was kept busy for eleven years until his association with Epstein compelled him to relinquish the position in 2010. Two things which are a challenge to believe: that as a promotional icon he’d have been handed confidential information of much value and (2) that prosecuting him for misappropriation of it would not be time-barred.
Let’s see; Andrew was in a position to share information that he knew should not shared.
Was not Gov Tim Walz of MN provided information of massive fraud and wrong doing within the state govt, and as the top RESPONSIBLE individual , he willingly and knowingly did nothing about it?
How is this not a crime??
We aren’t living in rue Brittania.
Betsybounds on February 20, 2026 at 6:34 am said:
Well, let’s see. . . . There WAS that photo of Andrew sticking his head up to the open-door slit from inside Epstein’s fancy NYC home. . . . And then there WAS that photo of Andrew looking up at the camera while kneeling down on his own hands and knees above that very young lady lying on her back on the floor underneath him. . . .
I mean, OK, the arrest may have been mostly about money. But hey. . . .
None of that is illegal, though.
One thing bugging me about the right’s response has been a jumping ahead to “they should all be in jail”, despite solid evidence of a crime.
In some cases we have evidence. It seems to me that Hunter’s laptop provided sufficient evidence that (along with other evidence) we have enough for proof beyond a reasonable doubt.
Now, Biden’s China money isn’t quite at that level, but it seems sufficient to require further investigation.
Clinton’s email scandal seems to have sufficient evidence for proof beyond a reasonable doubt, assuming it was as described by intel agents who reviewed it.
But the Clinton pay for pay scheme doesn’t have that level of evidence (no doubt that was the goal of her email scandal), although it is a lot of smoke . . .
Many conservatives have jumped on the “lock ’em up” view, and then are upset that “nothing happens”. But much of it is a lack of solid evidence. It’s also the case that there is no desire among the establishment to prosecute, but we are not doing ourselves favors by playing we have open and shut cases on every single thing that is fishy.
This leads me to Q . . .
I felt Q was an op, perhaps to discredit . . .
Q provided real info on the Russia collusion scandal, but also salacious interpretations from Podesta’s emails. The salacious got a lot of the focus, but lacked solid evidence . . .
Q also claimed that everything was in the bag, just sit back and watch as the plan came together . . .
So it seems to me Q was:
1) Mixing genuine info with unconfirmed salacious info, which ended up discrediting those who believe “him”, while also serving to discredit genuine info.
2) Distracted many with unconfirmed salacious info
3) Convinced many no action on their part was needed, just “watch and see”
It seems like a perfect op* that understood human psychology and the temperament of many of those targeted.
* From the POV of distracting, discrediting, while also encouraging inaction
Don:
Q?
Who?
What?
Often called Qanon. Anonymous source claiming inside information on 4chan I believe. Influenced a lot of people.
It is also known as Pizzagate, since the claim was that pizza in John Podesta’s emails represented children the elites were going to abuse.
I didn’t see the actual Q posts, but lots of people were discussing them on a forum I was on.
You’re on to something Neo, just say Prince!
Turtle,
Is very very close!
Don:
Ah, Qanon.
I guess I need to get out more.
Ever since Eddie VIII was known to be sharing info with the Germans, HM’s cabinet has been very tight with state secrets and the crown. The idea that Andrew would be told anything of use is laughable. Everyone in government knew the Yorks were always hungry for cash.
But Epstein used gossip to impress potential clients. “I heard this from a senior royal,” even if the info amounted to not much.
The stuff Mandelson knew, though, now that could be very valuable. George Soros, after all, got very rich by knowing the Brits were about to devalue the pound.