Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor has been released under investigation after his arrest for suspected misconduct in public office. Thames Valley Police arrested him in Norfolk and conducted searches at properties in both Berkshire and Norfolk.

Get the latest headlines in your email

King Charles III emphasized the importance of letting "the law take its course" and expressed full support and cooperation with the police. The investigation scrutinizes Andrew's ties to the late Jeffrey Epstein, alongside accusations of sharing confidential information.

This arrest is Andrew's first, and he has consistently denied any wrongdoing. Thames Valley Police confirmed a detailed investigation is now in progress.

Earlier this month, separate allegations surfaced regarding a woman allegedly brought to the UK by Epstein for a meeting with Andrew in 2010. This matter is still being evaluated.

After his arrest at Sandringham, Andrew was seen leaving the police station looking subdued. Thames Valley Police alerted the Home Office in advance of the arrest.

While this arrest is unrelated to sexual offence allegations, it highlights serious concerns about misconduct in public office. The situation remains under careful watch as the investigation unfolds.

Thames Valley Police have concluded their searches in Norfolk but continue to assess all aspects related to the allegations, ensuring a thorough approach to the case. They remain committed to uncovering the truth and upholding justice.

Key Takeaways

• Andrew investigated for public office misconduct.

• King Charles fully supports the police investigation.

• Arrest not linked to any sexual offence allegations.

Join the discussion?

Already a member?

  Adapted by ASEAN Now · Source · 19 Feb 2026

View full article

Well OK - as a Brit I would prefer that Andrew proves to be innocent of these charges, BUT, if he is guilty then he should be prosecuted like anyone else.

As it is, Andrew has been the subject of especially brutal treatment when although he has (foolishly ?) denied having sex with a 17 year old, who to me looked to be enjoying the high life on which she had embarked.

I've always thought that when, in later decades, maybe Giuffre regretted her choices and she and the Family saw the opportunity to make money.

Andrew may yet prove to be guilty of wider and more serious offences, in which case he'll take the consequences for sure. But meantime, he will be hounded constantly, as if he had already been found guilty, and in that he has my sympathy.

What a contrast to the USA where the President is weaving and dodging to confuse further scrutiny, ably and rigorously aided by senior members of his Govt. ! Maybe it's one extreme to the other . . .

(Footnote : I watched 'One Life' yesterday, a film about Nicholas Winton who saved 669 children from Prague in 1939 - decades later, he meets Elizabeth Maxwell, (the Mother of Ghislaine). She arranges for many of the now grown up 'kids' to reunite with Winton - all very touching. Winton's scrapbook of events is shown in the holocaust museum in Israel).

Troll post removed @Tidal wave

Dog and Pony show to keep the haters happy.

"See, he's been arrested like anyone else".

Nothing will come of this idle gossip.

Did he sleep with the escorts? Yes, I'm sure he did. Unless they were underage in the jurisdiction it happened or were forced into it then it's no different to what has happened in the world's oldest profession for centuries and still happens today in most countries.

10 minutes ago, JonnyF said:

Dog and Pony show to keep the haters happy.

"See, he's been arrested like anyone else".

Nothing will come of this idle gossip.

Did he sleep with the escorts? Yes, I'm sure he did. Unless they were underage in the jurisdiction it happened or were forced into it then it's no different to what has happened in the world's oldest profession for centuries and still happens today in most countries.

Even if he is guilty, he will never see the inside pf a jail/prison cell.

Now trying to prove him guilty is also going to difficult. can you imagine him, Andrew, on the stand in the Old Bailey, what he knows about trade deals, who with, where the money came from, the King's person finances??? It could bring the Government and the Monarchy down.

If the CPS determines that a trial would reveal state secrets—like the 2010 trade deals or the King’s private finances, Andrew will never be charged.

It's happened before, try watching the movie 'Official Secrets', (it really happened), a woman Katherine Gun gets charged under the official secrets act, gets to court and....well I don't want to spoil it! Good movie!

1 hour ago, Smokey and the Bandit said:

Even if he is guilty, he will never see the inside pf a jail/prison cell.

Now trying to prove him guilty is also going to difficult. can you imagine him, Andrew, on the stand in the Old Bailey, what he knows about trade deals, who with, where the money came from, the King's person finances??? It could bring the Government and the Monarchy down.

If the CPS determines that a trial would reveal state secrets—like the 2010 trade deals or the King’s private finances, Andrew will never be charged.

It's happened before, try watching the movie 'Official Secrets', (it really happened), a woman Katherine Gun gets charged under the official secrets act, gets to court and....well I don't want to spoil it! Good movie!

Maybe, maybe not. Any trial - or part of it at least - could be held in camera.

That's a nasty eye infection. Always wash your hands afterwards...

2 hours ago, TorquayFan said:

Well OK - as a Brit I would prefer that Andrew proves to be innocent of these charges, BUT, if he is guilty then he should be prosecuted like anyone else.

As it is, Andrew has been the subject of especially brutal treatment when although he has (foolishly ?) denied having sex with a 17 year old, who to me looked to be enjoying the high life on which she had embarked.

I've always thought that when, in later decades, maybe Giuffre regretted her choices and she and the Family saw the opportunity to make money.

Andrew may yet prove to be guilty of wider and more serious offences, in which case he'll take the consequences for sure. But meantime, he will be hounded constantly, as if he had already been found guilty, and in that he has my sympathy.

What a contrast to the USA where the President is weaving and dodging to confuse further scrutiny, ably and rigorously aided by senior members of his Govt. ! Maybe it's one extreme to the other . . .

(Footnote : I watched 'One Life' yesterday, a film about Nicholas Winton who saved 669 children from Prague in 1939 - decades later, he meets Elizabeth Maxwell, (the Mother of Ghislaine). She arranges for many of the now grown up 'kids' to reunite with Winton - all very touching. Winton's scrapbook of events is shown in the holocaust museum in Israel).

Why have any sympathy for him? Whatever one's views of the Royal Family as an institution, imo Anne, Andrew and Edward were, through an accident of birth, in very privileged positions. The three of them have wealth and status way above that afforded to ordinary folk. Unlike Charles, they have very little responsibility; all that they need to do is keep their noses clean, something that, on the whole, Anne and Edward have managed very well.

Contrast Anne and Edward with Andrew. Whether he is guilty of any crimes remains to be seen but he appears to be an arrogant, entitled, incompetent, rude prick (maybe not the best choice of word in the circumstances😁). I have zero sympathy for him.

2 hours ago, JonnyF said:

Dog and Pony show to keep the haters happy.

"See, he's been arrested like anyone else".

Nothing will come of this idle gossip.

Did he sleep with the escorts? Yes, I'm sure he did. Unless they were underage in the jurisdiction it happened or were forced into it then it's no different to what has happened in the world's oldest profession for centuries and still happens today in most countries.

Well, the point is they do appear to have been underage.

1 minute ago, brewsterbudgen said:

Well, the point is they do appear to have been underage.

Please provide links to the evidence.

7 minutes ago, JonnyF said:

Please provide links to the evidence.

Virginia Giuffre was 17 when she was trafficked for Andrew's pleasure. Most of the Epstein girls were underage. Check out 'the files'!

6 minutes ago, brewsterbudgen said:

Virginia Giuffre was 17 when she was trafficked for Andrew's pleasure. Most of the Epstein girls were underage. Check out 'the files'!

Please link to the evidence he slept with Giuffre or any underage girls.

10 minutes ago, JonnyF said:

Please link to the evidence he slept with Giuffre or any underage girls.

Yes Giuffre was arguably above the age of consent . . . the alleged matter happened in UK jurisdiction - but Andrew has not admitted to it, (yet).

When will they arrest Mandelson , Blair and trump ???? they are all involved

10 minutes ago, liddelljohn said:

When will they arrest Mandelson , Blair and trump ???? they are all involved

Totally different issue.

52 minutes ago, RayC said:

I have zero sympathy for him.

Yes Ray I can understand that position.

However, the UK has a ruthless style to hound and persecute individuals whenever possible, a new sport. So far it appears that Andrew is a sleazebag but not much else. He's been extremely foolish - the picture with 'old enough for sex' Giuffre is actually a defence, (insofaras she looks perfectly happy and enjoying the fun of the high life she has chosen). Andrew was mistaken in denying that shot, as in so much else.

However, we are turning into a Nation of media led vultures under 24 hour multi-media overload. Yes Andrew should be condemned and prosecuted where he HAS broken the Law but until then, let's take it easy . . .

And let Justice have it's day, both in the UK and then in the USA one day !

The arrest - as first presented a day or so ago - related (or was said to relate) to his transmitting government trade information to Epstein, NOT matters sexual.

Probably sensible for people to keep the 2 issues separate in their minds. They have potentially very different legal implications.

mfd beat me to it by about 30 seconds.

Perhaps worth mentioning to the howling, raging, ranting mob that Andrew Windsor was not arrested for anything to do with innapropriate sexual activity.

He was arrested on suspicion of:

".....sharing reports from trade visits and a confidential briefing on investment in Afghanistan with the sex offender Jeffrey Epstein, and passing a Treasury briefing to a personal business contact".

That is the nature of the misconduct that is being investigated.

The charge is very difficult to prove. Unless there is strong evidence of him receiving benefit for trading in confidential government information, a basic barrister will be able to remove the client from proceedings. I expect that he shared general information of little actual value in an effort to build his importance and value as a contact. Like the people he socialized with, the man is a "Hooray Harry", a self important buffoon with a weak work ethic and even weaker moral compass. It was already reported years ago that the civil servants with whom he was supposed to work, did not trust him and were hesitant to let him do anything other than meet and greet type of activity. He had a reputation for being a freeloading mooch. I would not be surprised if this isn't Starmer tossing some red meat to the public to distract from the mess he has made of things.

2 hours ago, JonnyF said:

Please link to the evidence he slept with Giuffre or any underage girls.

The testimony of the victims. Of course, it would need to be proved in a court of law ("he said / she said") but some of the emails released in the files tend to back up Giuffre and other victims.

2 hours ago, TorquayFan said:

Yes Giuffre was arguably above the age of consent . . . the alleged matter happened in UK jurisdiction - but Andrew has not admitted to it, (yet).

The age of consent for prostituted/trafficked victims is 18. Those under the age of 18 cannot legally consent to paid-for sex.

5 minutes ago, brewsterbudgen said:

The testimony of the victims. Of course, it would need to be proved in a court of law ("he said / she said") but some of the emails released in the files tend to back up Giuffre and other victims.

The victims seeking massive payouts like Giuffre got?

Those victims?

Got any evidence? If so, please provide links.

7 minutes ago, JonnyF said:

The victims seeking massive payouts like Giuffre got?

Those victims?

Got any evidence? If so, please provide links.

As previously stated, the victims have provided statements which can be found online. If the authorities think there's a case to answer, it will go to trial and evidence will be presented. Not that it looks like the current case is considering any of the sex allegations.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virginia_Giuffre_v._Prince_Andrew

9 minutes ago, brewsterbudgen said:

As previously stated, the victims have provided statements which can be found online. If the authorities think there's a case to answer, it will go to trial and evidence will be presented. Not that it looks like the current case is considering any of the sex allegations.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virginia_Giuffre_v._Prince_Andrew

A statement? 😄

Next...

31 minutes ago, brewsterbudgen said:

The age of consent for prostituted/trafficked victims is 18. Those under the age of 18 cannot legally consent to paid-for sex.

Yes Bewster - I know that. But it IS arguable, as I said. Whether Andrew actually paid Giuffre is not known - she looked to be enjoying the high life to me. I guess the point would have to be decided in Court, and that's not gonna happen.

1 minute ago, TorquayFan said:

Yes Bewster - I know that. But it IS arguable, as I said. Whether Andrew actually paid Giuffre is not known - she looked to be enjoying the high life to me. I guess the point would have to be decided in Court, and that's not gonna happen.

Yes, I can't see it ever making it to court.

2 hours ago, TorquayFan said:

Yes Ray I can understand that position.

However, the UK has a ruthless style to hound and persecute individuals whenever possible, a new sport. So far it appears that Andrew is a sleazebag but not much else. He's been extremely foolish - the picture with 'old enough for sex' Giuffre is actually a defence, (insofaras she looks perfectly happy and enjoying the fun of the high life she has chosen). Andrew was mistaken in denying that shot, as in so much else.

However, we are turning into a Nation of media led vultures under 24 hour multi-media overload. Yes Andrew should be condemned and prosecuted where he HAS broken the Law but until then, let's take it easy . . .

And let Justice have it's day, both in the UK and then in the USA one day !

Even if Mr. Mountbatten-Windsor is guilty of nothing more serious than being an arrogant, entitled, incompetent, rude sleazeball, imo there's more than enough reason there to justify having no sympathy for his plight.

2 hours ago, Patong2021 said:

I would not be surprised if this isn't Starmer tossing some red meat to the public to distract from the mess he has made of things.

I don't think Starmer has any say in what the police & other law enforcement entities decide to pursue and prosecute. That's rather the point of modern democratic legal systems, is it not? (which of course excludes - or should exclude - the USofA).

8 hours ago, stevenl said:

Totally different issue.

Ha thats not what the Epstein Documents show or mandelsons papers ,,its all coming out now ,, blair will be fully exposed , Trump is already covering his arse... another Ex british PM Gordon Brown and the british secret services is now helping the police ....Norways Royal family and some other European Elites are under the cosh as are many USA elites ,, The whole thing is unstoppable.....Even the chinese are under fire too...

7 hours ago, RayC said:

Even if Mr. Mountbatten-Windsor is guilty of nothing more serious than being an arrogant, entitled, incompetent, rude sleazeball, imo there's more than enough reason there to justify having no sympathy for his plight.

Sympathy, or rather lack of it is one thing

Being able to prove criminal behaviour, "beyond reasonable doubt" is another.

Donkeys years ago (1994?) I spent some time socialising (drinking) with the officers of the ship he commanded (HMS Cottesmore) in Campbeltown. If you have ever been to Campbeltown in September you will understand that there is little else to do! Arrogant, entitled, incompetent, rude sleazeball is a pretty accurate summary of their opinion of him as well!