It can be difficult to accept that a monarch is under scrutiny. But British royals were repeatedly suspected throughout history. The arrest of Andrew Mountbatten Windsor is so shocking because we would have to go back to 17th-century England to find something comparable.
Royal scandals are nothing new, but accusations of breaking the law are a different matter.
Mountbatten-Windsor’s fall from grace will have huge repercussions for the British royals, and it also gives us an insight into how the handling of the royals has changed since Queen Elizabeth’s death.
The crown has fallen
It isn’t the first time that the British Royals and the law have come into contact. Richard III was linked to the disappearances of the Princes In The Tower in 1483. Richard III’s claim to the crown was directly threatened by these two legitimate princes, who were also his nephews. His case was never heard in court and the historians are still debating what evidence they have.
Charles I was the monarch who faced off with law in the most violent way. During the English Civil War, he was accused of being a traitor.
In 1649 he was tried, and then publicly executed. The act shocked Europe, and it shattered any belief that royals are above the law.
Oliver Cromwell, the Englishman who became president under Oliver Cromwell’s rule, abolished England’s monarchy. The crown fell the last time that a royal member was tried and arrested.
This precedent is important because it shows how rare arrests of royals are. The monarchy avoided this spectacle for more than 300 years. Andrew’s detention forces comparisons with Charles I, revealing how rare this moment is.
Royal strategy: Reputation
In the nineteenth century, monarchies survived more by reputation than force.
The crown, under Queen Victoria (1837-1901), cultivated morality and domestic virtue as a shield to protect against instabilities. Respect became a strategy to defend against scandal.
Nevertheless, power and fame led to a high level of public interest.
Scandals made it into the print media and then mass media. Prince Albert Victor was the grandson to Queen Victoria and accused of being Jack the Ripper. This is a conspiracy theory that historians have mostly rejected, but it still persists due to the fear of royal cover ups.
James II lost his throne during the Glorious Revolution in 1688 amid accusations that he had undermined Protestantism and promoted Catholic officials. It was his perceived abuse of authority, not a criminal offense, that cost him the throne.
Edward VIII created a new kind of anxiety in the 20th Century.
Evidence of Edward VIII’s sympathy for Nazi Germany was revealed after his 1936 abdication. This followed his 1937 visit to Germany and meeting Adolf Hitler.
Edward was severely damaged by the incident, even though there were no charges brought.
Deference is no longer acceptable
The monarchy was governed by a deference-based culture for much of the twentieth century. Press did not report on royals’ personal lives, and their indiscretions had to be managed quietly.
This arrangement protected the royals from prolonged exposure. This began to shift after the scandals of the 1990s. Elizabeth II called 1992 the year of her birth. annus horribilis .
Digital media has completely dissolved old boundaries.
The growth of tabloid journalism also eroded them. Silence is no longer a way to calm suspicion, but rather to increase it. This was evident in the early 2024 case of the royals’ silence regarding the health of the Princess Of Wales, which forced them into going public about her cancer.
Access, influence and optics
Even before Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor’s arrest, the optics were damaging.
This landscape has been transformed by his arrest. He developed relationships with wealthy businessmen and political figures in the Middle East and Central Asia during his time as Special Representative of the United Kingdom for International Trade and Investment. Critics asked if he blurred lines between his official role in trade promotion and personal networking.
The 2010 “cash for access” episode involving Mountbatten-Windsor’s wife Sarah Ferguson deepened that perception.
The video shows her offering Andrew introductions in return for a substantial amount of money. Andrew has denied any involvement. She has apologised.
A 2021 undercover investigation revealed that the cousin of Queen Elizabeth II, Prince Michael Kent, was willing to help a fictional company for a payment in return for his royal position. The damage was already done. He denies wrongdoing.
Brand without Insulation
Elizabeth II’s longevity brought stability and authority, which often masked scandal.
Charles II appears to have exposed the institution. Mountbatten-Windsor’s arrest disrupts and exposes the royal family to reputational damage.
The scandal has yet to be resolved, even though he was released later.
Charles is constitutional monarch. Charles cannot interfere with police investigations and prosecutorial decisions, without inciting a constitutional crisis. It is more symbolic than actual.
He can also expel Andrew’s inner circle from the public eye, which includes his daughters. His brother has been stripped of royal titles, and told to leave Royal Lodge.
Even that, however, has its limits.
Charles’s authority now depends less on his control and more on his credibility. In a society that is always on guard, judgments are not delivered in secret but rather in the open.
It is a precedent that persists
When a monarchy was abolished in England after the last arrest of a monarch, it became a Republic. It is difficult to ignore the historical echo. The historical echo is impossible to ignore.
Mountbatten-Windsor’s arrest underscores how fragile that trust can be and how decisively it is shaped by the court that really matters, that of public opinion. Andrew may not be the king but the scandal could have been averted if Charles had acted sooner and more decisively to remove Andrew from the inner circle of the monarchy.
The mystery surrounding the Crown is being eroded by royal scandals. It is not that the monarchy has real power but rather because of its stability, dignity, and a sense of separation from daily life.
The institution may feel less untouchable when royals become embroiled in scandal.
