No need to apologise Tom, it has been a hectic time for you. Thank you for your newsletter. This latest report that Andrew MW is being seen as “unstable” by the Royals does feel like an excuse for his behaviour. How long have they known this, has there been a psychiatric evaluation and diagnosis or is this just a tactic to try to get the media to leave him alone and stop reporting on him and let him fade into obscurity at Wood Farm and avoid pressure for a proper police investigation. Sorry RF but with the scale of Andrew’s wrongdoings, whether criminal or not, that is just not going to happen!
I'd like to know how Charles and William's relationship is at the moment and if there are any signs it might be getting back on track. If Charles is as unwell as it is being talked about I would think it would be the best idea to focus on that relationship. In terms of his legacy, the images of Charles and Catherine's affection, of Louis climbing on his lap during the jubilee, these are what show his warmth and are the iconic moments I remember. Rehabilitating Andrew or Harry is a waste of time. Not to put them in the same category, only one is accused of such despicable acts. However I don't think there is an appetite for tax payers to fund Harry in any way and his visability now would just demonstrate further how Charles seems to cave to both the royals who cause all the trouble but can't seem to fix his relationship with the son who does support him.
Not sure what you mean by their relationship "getting back on track." Charles is King, William is next in line to be King, assuming William is still around when Charles dies or abdicates. That's their relationship, and Charles cannot "disinherit" William from the line of succession.
It means they are not aligned on how to deal with this whole debacle. KC is predictably soft and stubborn in his approach vs William who has a better handle (in my opinion) on how to move forward on addressing things. But William can only influence since he is not on the throne. Hence the tension between sitting monarch and the heir apparent.
Re Epstein : Thank goodness William sees it like the rest of us do. Charles is looking more and more out of touch and this will be his downfall I suspect
This whole narrative about Andrew’s ‘instability’ is a tactic Charles’s advisers are using to soften public opinion, in the hope that: (1) he will become less widely disliked and public attention will shift away from him, and (2) expectations about what Charles should do (but doesn’t) will be lowered.
The same thing happened with Harry — for a long time, we were fed articles claiming he was mentally unwell, unstable, and that Charles feared what he might do if his royal titles were taken away. Then came the next phase: ‘the forgiving Christian’, ‘the King loves his son deep down and wants to reconnect, but William won’t allow it’, and so on.
And I don't see how his being unstable is going to make people dislike him any less. No matter the education in mental problems, people still look extensive at someone who's unstable. Whatever unstable means.
Well, if you know someone is mentally vulnerable, you naturally go easier on them and even look for mitigating circumstances. You think: ‘Oh hell, what if they end up taking their own life — maybe we should ease off.’
The same narrative surrounded Harry: articles suggested that if his royal titles were removed, he’d lose stability and social standing, and might not cope, potentially making a drastic decision.
And in the latest pieces about Andrew, they’ve pushed the same angle — that Anne and Edward are worried about his mental health and fear the King has gone too far. They tried to drag William into this narrative as well, but it felt forced, so they dropped it.
I feel that Beatrice and Eugenie have benefitted as adults from Epstein. Their trip to New York when he was released from Prison was when they were 19 and 20. They were old enough to know right from wrong. They gave received money from him as birthday gifts. OK they may have been minors then but have they subsequently donated that money plus interest to charity? Unlikely. I have no sympathy for them. They are embarrassed by their parents but they are complicit in adulthood as well.
When I was 19 I was completely oblivious to who most of my parents friends were. If my mother had a trip she wanted me to go on, if school wasn't in session, I didn't have much choice. There should be an audit of their accounts, parents sometimes use childrens accounts. And looking at their current activities is fair. But I think it is unfair to blame them for that trip with Sarah. They were still full-time students living with their mother.
I just know that by the age of 19, I was a lot more discerning. I knew who all my parents' friends were. Though, to be fair, my parents' friends were all academics. But I wouldn't go places that I didn't choose to go at that age. In fact, you know, by 20 I was living on my own. By 19, I was living on my own - I went away to university, but I just stayed there. Maybe because they had such sheltered lives, things were different, I don't know. Or maybe I just had a more open upbringing, living with intellectual people who actually got you to question things in life and didn't just expect you to assume everything.
Some people are living on their own at 19. Others are still living at home with parents who provide their education. Most of my friends at university who did pay attention to the news followed politics or social causes.
It is only my opinion that at 19 and 20 these two were probably oblivious to who their mothers friend truly was. They had police protection in 2009 and were probably used to relying on that protection to keep them safe at university. Their protection wasnt ended until 2011. I dont hold them responsible for that trip with their mother. But this is just my opinion, it is perfectly ok for anyone to disagree with me.
And if they were so innocent, why are they refusing to allow forensic analysis of their accounts? Surely, if they've got nothing to hide and they didn't know what was going on, or whatever, they'd be upfront about allowing themselves to be cleared of any wrongdoing. It seems all very suspicious to me.
It was quite a public thing, wasn't it, that he got convicted? And I'm not sure whether they should know or not know. I mean, I suppose it depends on what Sarah told them as to why they were throwing a party for him being released from prison. Did she actually tell them it was a party because he was being released from prison? I don't know. But at 19 and 20, they should have been asking more questions. I was certainly asking questions at that age. In fact, I was at university, and they were at university at that age, so they're not that stupid.
I don't remember anything being headline news about his conviction in Florida, which I think was in 2008. That was not international news. Epsteins name wasn't that widely known yet, the year he was released from jail. And jail was at least partly work release. Not that it should have been! That photo of Virginia and Andrew in Maxwell's townhouse was what helped make Epstein's name recognizable to a wider public. The Mail published it in 2011, I think.
The Palm Beach Post (Local Coverage): This outlet provided the most consistent coverage of the local investigation, arrest, and plea deal in 2008. Journalist Eliza Cramer of the Post wrote an early, critical opinion piece in 2006, which set the stage for local reporting during his 2008 case.
Miami Herald (Local/Regional): Covered the 2008 plea deal in which Epstein served 13 months, often highlighting the "sweetheart deal" brokered by U.S. Attorney Alexander Acosta.
Vanity Fair (Social/Lifestyle): While more of a glossy magazine than a tabloid, Vanity Fair featured profiles of Epstein (such as in 2003 and later) that described his immense wealth, Palm Beach mansion, and high-profile social circle, keeping him in the public eye as a "philanthropist" before his 2008 incarceration.
The Daily Mail (UK Tabloid): Following his release in 2009, this outlet began reporting on his connections to high-profile figures, such as Prince Andrew, which intensified around 2010-2011.
New York Magazine (Intelligencer): Covered Epstein’s social standing in Manhattan, focusing on his connections to figures like Prince Andrew, George Stephanopoulos, and others in 2010.
I first became aware of Andrew and Epstein via this 2011 profile in Vanity Fair magazine, which I think was the cover story. It featured the famous snap of Andrew and Epstein, released from prison, strolling and talking in Central Park. VF is a hot and well known medium of the kind of coffee table mag the princesses would be reading, like Tatler. Were there British tabloid headlines the girls would have seen back then?
I think Sarah took her daughters 19 and 20, on that trip in 2009, which was before Epsteins name was being widely reported in the press. They were both full time students and probably did not know he had been convicted of child sex offenses in 2008. At the time of that conviction he wasn't well known yet for his sex trafficking. I do believe both women should have their contacts and accounts audited by the royal family at this point to determine if their activities as adults have been above board.
I have to say I was very savvy about my parents' friends even as a little girl. There were men I wouldn't get within arm's reach of for reasons I didn't understand until I was a big girl. You don't need to be well-brought-up, educated, grown up or even human to have this sixth sense. Animals all have it.
Incorrect. This from The Guardian (UK) 2 July 2008:
“One of America's richest men, who holidayed with Prince Andrew [..] has begun serving an 18-month jail term after pleading guilty to soliciting sex from girls as young as 14.”
But they knew he was their parents' friend. And in fact they had met him I believe. So I'm sure at the very least their friends would have said Hey isn't that your parents' friend getting out of prison?
I think people are trying to decide whether the York offspring should share any of the blame for this Epstein disaster. There is no way to know the answer with certainly unless you put the women, and witnesses under questioning. My guess, just mine is they probably didnt know who Epstein really was. I do however think their bank accounts should be looked at by at least the royal family. And I do think Beatrice should have all her activities in the Middle East examined. And she probably should not be over there doing deals of any kind. Again, this is just opinion.
You are correct about Epstein. Maybe they did just blindly follow their mother around. As I said I had a much more discerning and intelligent upbringing. Perhaps being the kid of a major academic.
I wasn't raised by academics. In fact neither of my parents went to college. Yet, I knew about world events. And especially I knew if anything bad had happened to friends of my parents.
They most certainly new his name and that he was a friend of their parents. So I think they would have known he had been in prison and got out. If nothing else, their friends would have told them.
Do your parents have friends who are multimillionaires and high-ranking government officials who own their own private island and plane and mansion? If so, I suggest you immediately start researching them.
The question of Beatrice and Eugenie is a tricky one, but though not a particular fan of either I have some sympathy for their position. I like it to someone growing up in a powerful crime family, by the time you are old enough to know whats going on it's become normalized. It could be pointed out by the parents that you've been enjoying the fruits for ages and that secrecy must be maintained. Loyalties are conflicted and their moral compass is permanently off kilter.I agree with Tom give them a pass for their actions until 23 - 25.
Good morning, Tom. If you will, I would like to re-post several comments that I made here yesterday as it fits this Sunday discussion well . . .
The British monarchy seems to be facing a moment of existential truth. I've written here before that the most decisive course would be for Charles to step aside, leaving the burden of repair to a new generation. That option remains compelling.
But if Charles is to remain, the question becomes unavoidable - what course could plausibly restore legitimacy?
The scandal surrounding Prince Andrew is no longer merely about one man’s conduct. It's about whether the crown itself is capable of accountability. If it is not, then its claim to represent modern Britain collapses.
Charles now confronts a choice few monarchs face so starkly: manage decline through silence, or lead reform through action. The idea of parking Andrew at Sandringham strains credulity. The long-standing strategy of waiting for outrage to dissipate has failed. Public trust does not erode with spectacle. It drains quietly, and, once lost, it will not likely return.
What is required is not damage control, but a full, independent public inquiry into Andrew’s conduct - modeled perhaps on the Leveson or Hillsborough inquiries - with real legal authority, transparent proceedings, and leadership entirely independent of the royal household. Anything less will be understood, correctly, as another exercise in institutional self-protection.
An even harder question must also be confronted directly. As frequently mentioned in Tom's substack, Andrew may attempt to evade scrutiny by leaving the country. That possibility alone exposes the moral peril of royal exceptionalism. If a senior royal can escape accountability by privilege and geography, the monarchy forfeits any remaining claim to ethical legitimacy.
The response must therefore be unequivocal. Any attempt to flee must result in permanent severance from the royal family - titles more fully removed, privileges withdrawn, British holdings confiscated, protection ended - and full cooperation with international legal mechanisms to ensure accountability. Justice cannot be optional. Nor can it be negotiated.
Beyond Andrew lies the deeper challenge of reforming the monarchy itself. The crown requires enforceable standards, not carefully worded assurances - a publicly articulated framework that defines ethical conduct, transparency, and real consequences for breach. In short, a monarchy willing to submit itself to scrutiny rather than demand deference.
The principle at stake is simple but decisive - the monarchy exists to serve the public, not to shield itself from it. If it cannot rise to that standard, it may not survive this century.
Prince Andrew has forced the issue. History will record whether King Charles answered it with courage or with silence.
--and--
Thank you, Jennifer. I believe many would agree that the term unstable was deliberately chosen - strategically employed to shape the narrative and reduce accountability. Its ambiguity allows for manipulation, while its emotional charge can easily distort perception.
Given the gravity of the alleged abuses, the use of such a term demands a rigorous response. In a court of law, claims of pathological instability would be examined through expert assessments, adhering to established protocols to ensure fairness and reliability. While this may not yet be a judicial matter, the need for an objective evaluation is crucial, particularly in the name of the victims.
If claims of instability (or similar terms) are used to dismiss evidence or evade necessary interviews with authorities, a thorough assessment is essential. Ideally, this would include neurological, psychological, and behavioral evaluations conducted by independent experts with no stake in the outcome. The process must be transparent, free from bias, and open to the possibility that the claimed instability is legitimate - while equally capable of determining if the term is being wielded recklessly or manipulatively. Such an evaluation would not only safeguard fairness but also preserve the integrity of the investigation.
I don’t see a scenario where the monarchy would submit itself to evaluation(and I am not an expert, just a bystander across the pond that enjoys observing and learning). It seems to me there are probably way too many skeletons in the closet(let’s just start with so much surrounding Charles himself- do we really know if any monies have flowed to him from the Middle East or elsewhere). Submitting themselves to scrutiny would make it a two way flow of information and transparency where it’s basically one way atm. As much as I enjoy the RF, the recent going’s on with Andrew, Charles-William, Harry-Meghan, Fergie has made me wonder how many would actually be left standing at the end? Would there be a sustainable working Monarchy if only 6 people are working? If the law enforcement can’t even get the first basic information regarding Andrew and the standard answer is always “nothing to see here”, I don’t see how such a system can ever change.
I completely see where you're coming from, Sherry, and as a fellow observer across the pond, I agree with much of your analysis. There’s far more complexity here than meets the eye. It’s not just about the royals’ personal drama; it’s about the shifting dynamics of public perception, historical scrutiny, and a growing demand for accountability.
The issue of extended sexual abuse of minors, especially when tied to high-profile individuals, strikes at the heart of public morality and justice. These kinds of allegations go beyond damaging reputations - they shake society to its core, sparking an emotional and moral reckoning that often leads to profound societal shifts. This isn’t just a scandal; it’s a breach of trust, safety, and the fundamental rights of the most vulnerable in society. And living in the US, we’re both experiencing this in stereo, with the echoes of similar cases unfolding right alongside us.
If the scale of the abuse is as extensive as suggested, it reveals something far darker than mere misconduct: it speaks to a betrayal of innocence, an exploitation of power, and a callous disregard for the well-being of children. The fact that such abuse could have been allowed to persist for so long only stirs outrage and intensifies the call for justice. It transcends a single scandal - its reverberations spread, raising uncomfortable questions about the culture of entitlement, secrecy, and complicity that surrounds the powerful.
Looking at the royal family, particularly Charles’s response to the scandal, this is a defining moment for his reign. Failing to address it adequately could have disastrous consequences, not just for his personal image but for the future of the monarchy itself. If the royals continue to sidestep serious action, it risks a deeper moral collapse - one that could be permanent, eroding whatever credibility and trust they have left.
What I’m suggesting here is aspirational, but it's also vital: real justice - with those responsible being held accountable - could serve as the necessary break from a deeply troubling past. This isn’t just about restoring the monarchy’s public image; it’s about restoring moral authority and ensuring that abuses like this - whether committed by royals or other powerful figures - can no longer be hidden or swept under the rug. We have an opportunity to redefine what power and accountability mean in a society that’s long been willing to look the other way when its most vulnerable are hurt.
This is the weight of the moment - a generational opportunity to break free from the cycles of abuse, cover-ups, and complicity that have haunted not just the monarchy, but our collective conscience for decades. The question is, will this be the moment when we finally face up to it, or will we continue to let these dark patterns persist? The stakes couldn’t be higher.
What is also needed is a comprehensive audit of the family’s finances. Total transparency. Their parasitic business practices sucking millions from taxpayers and nonprofits, some of which are the very charities they “serve” as patrons must be exposed. “Keeping up appearances” does not suffice; it’s past time for reality.
Well said!! I just finished reading Tom Quinn's book - Scandals at the Palace - and he takes us way back - before the 'awful' Uncle Georges - sharing many stories when Princes behaved so poorly that it's not a wonder we are today watching this same type of behaviour. I think they have been raised with the notion that they are untouchable...so yes, in 2026, it IS the time to be accountable. And if William can do this, he will change the future of the Monarchy. I am actually worried about staff members who may have to 'work' for Andrew - if he is as sexually desperate and as emotionally immature as many have stated, what could he do to any of his staff??
DM is reporting that work on Marsh Farm has been halted & work on Wood Farm has commenced. The impression is KC softened & is going to allow AMW to live at the better abode. It's said that "other family members" expressed to KC that putting A at Marsh Farm was a step too far--huh? When this guy is lucky that he isn't totally ostracized & under investigation, who with any brains is advising KC? The recent outrageous PR that A is unstable may be a pretext to stifle the public gags over KC's dithering on AMW's so-called exile. Meantime Eugenie's Anti-Slavery Collective charity is keeping a low profile under scrutiny - several experts have suggested that to protect its credibility, the charity must maintain a clear separation from the royal family's scandals, with one expert noting the need for "transparent communication" to reassure partners & donors. Outward Bound continues merrily along with no qualms having Beatrice serving as Deputy Patron. One wonders just how her knowledge, experience & expertise fit in with Outward Bound's goals or whether this was another bone-headed decision by KC to cling to the preservation of royal family status which has been seriously eroded.
A funny aside - locals have put up posters around Wolferton that warn the public - "Public Safety Announcement SWEATY NONCE IN THE AREA Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor formerly known as Prince Andrew...enthusiastic participant in his (Jeffrey Epstein) sex trafficking network". Truly this old proverb says it all -> You can’t keep a good Brit down—we’re designed to rise like a Yorkshire pud! 🤣👍✔
I'm now wondering if KC never intended to move Andrew to Marsh Farm and just put that forward so he could appear to Andrew to backtrack, compromise, and give him better (?) living quarters at Wood Farm. As to your question about who is advising KC: it's less that no one with any brains is advising KC, more that KC is short on brains himself.
A piece in the Times this morning identifies an aide of Charles as a past member of police protection at the palace. It is behind a pay wall, I let my Times subscription lapse a couple of months ago. But Peter Roselin was up there in the police hierarchy at the palace up to 2014 I think. And he is currently on Charles staff, which would be just one reason that whole office doesnt want any of this to be picked apart in a police investigation. I think Charles fears this investigation. But there are other people working at the palace who have reason to try to stave off an investigation.
If Andrew is so unstable as they're trying to make out, although they don't explain what they mean by unstable, you'd think they wouldn't want him close to guests as he's going to be at Wood Farm. 😁
As a writer (a very good writer) you know the importance of word choice. I take exception to the words that you and many writers use to describe Beatrice and Eugenie. They are no longer “young princesses.” That word infantilizes them. It suggests they are in their teens and are under their parents’ control. They are 35 and 37 yo. They are adults and have been for some time. The decisions they have made and will make are their own.
Andrew and Epstein is it any different to Charles and Saville? We need total transparency and the York ‘Girls’ 🙄 why won't they allow William to forensically look at finances? 🤷♀️
Saville’s crimes only came out after his death. A lot of people had egg on their faces due to their association including Diana if she had been alive! The BBC had a lot to answer for in relation to Saville.
Innocence, stupidity or different standards Saville was always a creep Noone was surprised when the truth came out. Sorry I don't believe the elite didn't know about Saville, no social media back then so things were kept hidden the public and we were treated like idiots.
Very kind of you to apologize on the Saudi trip, no worries! It is probably very good she isn't going. That Saudi Arabia was selected as the country to send the Wales, or just one Wales, to feels like a stab in the back.
The country doesn't deserve an official visit from a first - string royal family member. Countries with such abysmal human rights records have no business hosting a royal tour. Even without the Princess of Wales.
King George V and Queen Mary had a son, Prince John, who suffered from epilepsy. He was sent to live at Wood Farm at the age of 4 and died there around 1919.
The press hasn't remembered this yet, but they will. Is Andrew being sent to Wood Farm to help make the case he is unwell? Andrew is unlikely to truly be unstable, he is probably just very angry he didn't get his way. He was out driving and riding, waving at press and public last week. Which is delusional, not necessarily unstable.
Wood Farm had a dark reputation for a while in the 20th century. It was where the Queen's grandparents, George and Mary, had sent a 4 year old prince to live out his days. He suffered from epilepsy and possibly autism. In the last century George and Mary were criticized for hiding their youngest child away.
Andrew deserves a police investigation, not an extended vacation being waited on hand and foot. Wood Farm is an interesting choice. Charles knows it's history. If it's history is taken up by the press it will be interesting to see how that plays out.
Prince Philip lived there, and nobody really talked about his dark history when he was there. So, maybe people are hoping that they'll remember Prince Philip and not Prince John.
I think you are correct, Prince Philip really resurrected the reputation of the place. In the 90s Sarah Ferguson was parked there during Christmas to give her proximity to her daughters. And the press would then write about Prince John dying there with just his nurse Lala. I was surprised the press didn't raise the Prince John story, but perhaps there are just too many other, more important, aspects of this story right now.
Unstable means bigly angry about his sudden descent. So don’t believe Andrew if he calls at 1am with a story about Charles and bags of cash or anything similar
I don’t think Epstein’s sex parties would be Charles’s thing. But Epstein was just the sort of pseudo intellectual guru type Charles would have taken to, with all those famous academic friends that he could sit around with and gas on about Life and the Universe and all that. I’m surprised they didn’t connect somehow
This is a very keen insight! Charles has handled A delicately because he does not want A telling people that Charles also attended Royal Lodge Epstein "parties". The unstable narrative has been put in place partly to discredit Andrew as being vengeful because Charles kicked him out of RL, etc. I didn't even think of that so thanks!!
No need to apologise Tom, it has been a hectic time for you. Thank you for your newsletter. This latest report that Andrew MW is being seen as “unstable” by the Royals does feel like an excuse for his behaviour. How long have they known this, has there been a psychiatric evaluation and diagnosis or is this just a tactic to try to get the media to leave him alone and stop reporting on him and let him fade into obscurity at Wood Farm and avoid pressure for a proper police investigation. Sorry RF but with the scale of Andrew’s wrongdoings, whether criminal or not, that is just not going to happen!
Ha ha thanks
I'd like to know how Charles and William's relationship is at the moment and if there are any signs it might be getting back on track. If Charles is as unwell as it is being talked about I would think it would be the best idea to focus on that relationship. In terms of his legacy, the images of Charles and Catherine's affection, of Louis climbing on his lap during the jubilee, these are what show his warmth and are the iconic moments I remember. Rehabilitating Andrew or Harry is a waste of time. Not to put them in the same category, only one is accused of such despicable acts. However I don't think there is an appetite for tax payers to fund Harry in any way and his visability now would just demonstrate further how Charles seems to cave to both the royals who cause all the trouble but can't seem to fix his relationship with the son who does support him.
Not sure what you mean by their relationship "getting back on track." Charles is King, William is next in line to be King, assuming William is still around when Charles dies or abdicates. That's their relationship, and Charles cannot "disinherit" William from the line of succession.
It means they are not aligned on how to deal with this whole debacle. KC is predictably soft and stubborn in his approach vs William who has a better handle (in my opinion) on how to move forward on addressing things. But William can only influence since he is not on the throne. Hence the tension between sitting monarch and the heir apparent.
Re Epstein : Thank goodness William sees it like the rest of us do. Charles is looking more and more out of touch and this will be his downfall I suspect
This whole narrative about Andrew’s ‘instability’ is a tactic Charles’s advisers are using to soften public opinion, in the hope that: (1) he will become less widely disliked and public attention will shift away from him, and (2) expectations about what Charles should do (but doesn’t) will be lowered.
The same thing happened with Harry — for a long time, we were fed articles claiming he was mentally unwell, unstable, and that Charles feared what he might do if his royal titles were taken away. Then came the next phase: ‘the forgiving Christian’, ‘the King loves his son deep down and wants to reconnect, but William won’t allow it’, and so on.
And I don't see how his being unstable is going to make people dislike him any less. No matter the education in mental problems, people still look extensive at someone who's unstable. Whatever unstable means.
Well, if you know someone is mentally vulnerable, you naturally go easier on them and even look for mitigating circumstances. You think: ‘Oh hell, what if they end up taking their own life — maybe we should ease off.’
The same narrative surrounded Harry: articles suggested that if his royal titles were removed, he’d lose stability and social standing, and might not cope, potentially making a drastic decision.
And in the latest pieces about Andrew, they’ve pushed the same angle — that Anne and Edward are worried about his mental health and fear the King has gone too far. They tried to drag William into this narrative as well, but it felt forced, so they dropped it.
I feel that Beatrice and Eugenie have benefitted as adults from Epstein. Their trip to New York when he was released from Prison was when they were 19 and 20. They were old enough to know right from wrong. They gave received money from him as birthday gifts. OK they may have been minors then but have they subsequently donated that money plus interest to charity? Unlikely. I have no sympathy for them. They are embarrassed by their parents but they are complicit in adulthood as well.
When I was 19 I was completely oblivious to who most of my parents friends were. If my mother had a trip she wanted me to go on, if school wasn't in session, I didn't have much choice. There should be an audit of their accounts, parents sometimes use childrens accounts. And looking at their current activities is fair. But I think it is unfair to blame them for that trip with Sarah. They were still full-time students living with their mother.
Perhaps.
I just know that by the age of 19, I was a lot more discerning. I knew who all my parents' friends were. Though, to be fair, my parents' friends were all academics. But I wouldn't go places that I didn't choose to go at that age. In fact, you know, by 20 I was living on my own. By 19, I was living on my own - I went away to university, but I just stayed there. Maybe because they had such sheltered lives, things were different, I don't know. Or maybe I just had a more open upbringing, living with intellectual people who actually got you to question things in life and didn't just expect you to assume everything.
Some people are living on their own at 19. Others are still living at home with parents who provide their education. Most of my friends at university who did pay attention to the news followed politics or social causes.
But these two are royals. They've been brought up to watch who they're with. A lot different than an average person.
It is only my opinion that at 19 and 20 these two were probably oblivious to who their mothers friend truly was. They had police protection in 2009 and were probably used to relying on that protection to keep them safe at university. Their protection wasnt ended until 2011. I dont hold them responsible for that trip with their mother. But this is just my opinion, it is perfectly ok for anyone to disagree with me.
I’m curious. Do you think they knew about Epstein’s conviction? I don’t research my parents’ friends before I meet them.
And if they were so innocent, why are they refusing to allow forensic analysis of their accounts? Surely, if they've got nothing to hide and they didn't know what was going on, or whatever, they'd be upfront about allowing themselves to be cleared of any wrongdoing. It seems all very suspicious to me.
This is true.
It was quite a public thing, wasn't it, that he got convicted? And I'm not sure whether they should know or not know. I mean, I suppose it depends on what Sarah told them as to why they were throwing a party for him being released from prison. Did she actually tell them it was a party because he was being released from prison? I don't know. But at 19 and 20, they should have been asking more questions. I was certainly asking questions at that age. In fact, I was at university, and they were at university at that age, so they're not that stupid.
I don't remember anything being headline news about his conviction in Florida, which I think was in 2008. That was not international news. Epsteins name wasn't that widely known yet, the year he was released from jail. And jail was at least partly work release. Not that it should have been! That photo of Virginia and Andrew in Maxwell's townhouse was what helped make Epstein's name recognizable to a wider public. The Mail published it in 2011, I think.
The Palm Beach Post (Local Coverage): This outlet provided the most consistent coverage of the local investigation, arrest, and plea deal in 2008. Journalist Eliza Cramer of the Post wrote an early, critical opinion piece in 2006, which set the stage for local reporting during his 2008 case.
Miami Herald (Local/Regional): Covered the 2008 plea deal in which Epstein served 13 months, often highlighting the "sweetheart deal" brokered by U.S. Attorney Alexander Acosta.
Vanity Fair (Social/Lifestyle): While more of a glossy magazine than a tabloid, Vanity Fair featured profiles of Epstein (such as in 2003 and later) that described his immense wealth, Palm Beach mansion, and high-profile social circle, keeping him in the public eye as a "philanthropist" before his 2008 incarceration.
The Daily Mail (UK Tabloid): Following his release in 2009, this outlet began reporting on his connections to high-profile figures, such as Prince Andrew, which intensified around 2010-2011.
New York Magazine (Intelligencer): Covered Epstein’s social standing in Manhattan, focusing on his connections to figures like Prince Andrew, George Stephanopoulos, and others in 2010.
I first became aware of Andrew and Epstein via this 2011 profile in Vanity Fair magazine, which I think was the cover story. It featured the famous snap of Andrew and Epstein, released from prison, strolling and talking in Central Park. VF is a hot and well known medium of the kind of coffee table mag the princesses would be reading, like Tatler. Were there British tabloid headlines the girls would have seen back then?
https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2011/08/prince-andrew-201108
I think Sarah took her daughters 19 and 20, on that trip in 2009, which was before Epsteins name was being widely reported in the press. They were both full time students and probably did not know he had been convicted of child sex offenses in 2008. At the time of that conviction he wasn't well known yet for his sex trafficking. I do believe both women should have their contacts and accounts audited by the royal family at this point to determine if their activities as adults have been above board.
I have to say I was very savvy about my parents' friends even as a little girl. There were men I wouldn't get within arm's reach of for reasons I didn't understand until I was a big girl. You don't need to be well-brought-up, educated, grown up or even human to have this sixth sense. Animals all have it.
Epstein was convicted on state charges in 2008 of procuring a child for prostitution & soliciting a prostitute.
in 2019 he was charged by the feds with sex trafficking.
Incorrect. This from The Guardian (UK) 2 July 2008:
“One of America's richest men, who holidayed with Prince Andrew [..] has begun serving an 18-month jail term after pleading guilty to soliciting sex from girls as young as 14.”
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2008/jul/02/usa.internationalcrime1
But they knew he was their parents' friend. And in fact they had met him I believe. So I'm sure at the very least their friends would have said Hey isn't that your parents' friend getting out of prison?
I think people are trying to decide whether the York offspring should share any of the blame for this Epstein disaster. There is no way to know the answer with certainly unless you put the women, and witnesses under questioning. My guess, just mine is they probably didnt know who Epstein really was. I do however think their bank accounts should be looked at by at least the royal family. And I do think Beatrice should have all her activities in the Middle East examined. And she probably should not be over there doing deals of any kind. Again, this is just opinion.
You are correct about Epstein. Maybe they did just blindly follow their mother around. As I said I had a much more discerning and intelligent upbringing. Perhaps being the kid of a major academic.
They definitely were not raised in a particularly intelligent household, unfortunately.
I wasn't raised by academics. In fact neither of my parents went to college. Yet, I knew about world events. And especially I knew if anything bad had happened to friends of my parents.
Exactly.
They most certainly new his name and that he was a friend of their parents. So I think they would have known he had been in prison and got out. If nothing else, their friends would have told them.
Do your parents have friends who are multimillionaires and high-ranking government officials who own their own private island and plane and mansion? If so, I suggest you immediately start researching them.
The question of Beatrice and Eugenie is a tricky one, but though not a particular fan of either I have some sympathy for their position. I like it to someone growing up in a powerful crime family, by the time you are old enough to know whats going on it's become normalized. It could be pointed out by the parents that you've been enjoying the fruits for ages and that secrecy must be maintained. Loyalties are conflicted and their moral compass is permanently off kilter.I agree with Tom give them a pass for their actions until 23 - 25.
Everyone makes their own choices about morality and their own actions. Your compasses cannot go permanently off kilter.
Good morning, Tom. If you will, I would like to re-post several comments that I made here yesterday as it fits this Sunday discussion well . . .
The British monarchy seems to be facing a moment of existential truth. I've written here before that the most decisive course would be for Charles to step aside, leaving the burden of repair to a new generation. That option remains compelling.
But if Charles is to remain, the question becomes unavoidable - what course could plausibly restore legitimacy?
The scandal surrounding Prince Andrew is no longer merely about one man’s conduct. It's about whether the crown itself is capable of accountability. If it is not, then its claim to represent modern Britain collapses.
Charles now confronts a choice few monarchs face so starkly: manage decline through silence, or lead reform through action. The idea of parking Andrew at Sandringham strains credulity. The long-standing strategy of waiting for outrage to dissipate has failed. Public trust does not erode with spectacle. It drains quietly, and, once lost, it will not likely return.
What is required is not damage control, but a full, independent public inquiry into Andrew’s conduct - modeled perhaps on the Leveson or Hillsborough inquiries - with real legal authority, transparent proceedings, and leadership entirely independent of the royal household. Anything less will be understood, correctly, as another exercise in institutional self-protection.
An even harder question must also be confronted directly. As frequently mentioned in Tom's substack, Andrew may attempt to evade scrutiny by leaving the country. That possibility alone exposes the moral peril of royal exceptionalism. If a senior royal can escape accountability by privilege and geography, the monarchy forfeits any remaining claim to ethical legitimacy.
The response must therefore be unequivocal. Any attempt to flee must result in permanent severance from the royal family - titles more fully removed, privileges withdrawn, British holdings confiscated, protection ended - and full cooperation with international legal mechanisms to ensure accountability. Justice cannot be optional. Nor can it be negotiated.
Beyond Andrew lies the deeper challenge of reforming the monarchy itself. The crown requires enforceable standards, not carefully worded assurances - a publicly articulated framework that defines ethical conduct, transparency, and real consequences for breach. In short, a monarchy willing to submit itself to scrutiny rather than demand deference.
The principle at stake is simple but decisive - the monarchy exists to serve the public, not to shield itself from it. If it cannot rise to that standard, it may not survive this century.
Prince Andrew has forced the issue. History will record whether King Charles answered it with courage or with silence.
--and--
Thank you, Jennifer. I believe many would agree that the term unstable was deliberately chosen - strategically employed to shape the narrative and reduce accountability. Its ambiguity allows for manipulation, while its emotional charge can easily distort perception.
Given the gravity of the alleged abuses, the use of such a term demands a rigorous response. In a court of law, claims of pathological instability would be examined through expert assessments, adhering to established protocols to ensure fairness and reliability. While this may not yet be a judicial matter, the need for an objective evaluation is crucial, particularly in the name of the victims.
If claims of instability (or similar terms) are used to dismiss evidence or evade necessary interviews with authorities, a thorough assessment is essential. Ideally, this would include neurological, psychological, and behavioral evaluations conducted by independent experts with no stake in the outcome. The process must be transparent, free from bias, and open to the possibility that the claimed instability is legitimate - while equally capable of determining if the term is being wielded recklessly or manipulatively. Such an evaluation would not only safeguard fairness but also preserve the integrity of the investigation.
I don’t see a scenario where the monarchy would submit itself to evaluation(and I am not an expert, just a bystander across the pond that enjoys observing and learning). It seems to me there are probably way too many skeletons in the closet(let’s just start with so much surrounding Charles himself- do we really know if any monies have flowed to him from the Middle East or elsewhere). Submitting themselves to scrutiny would make it a two way flow of information and transparency where it’s basically one way atm. As much as I enjoy the RF, the recent going’s on with Andrew, Charles-William, Harry-Meghan, Fergie has made me wonder how many would actually be left standing at the end? Would there be a sustainable working Monarchy if only 6 people are working? If the law enforcement can’t even get the first basic information regarding Andrew and the standard answer is always “nothing to see here”, I don’t see how such a system can ever change.
I completely see where you're coming from, Sherry, and as a fellow observer across the pond, I agree with much of your analysis. There’s far more complexity here than meets the eye. It’s not just about the royals’ personal drama; it’s about the shifting dynamics of public perception, historical scrutiny, and a growing demand for accountability.
The issue of extended sexual abuse of minors, especially when tied to high-profile individuals, strikes at the heart of public morality and justice. These kinds of allegations go beyond damaging reputations - they shake society to its core, sparking an emotional and moral reckoning that often leads to profound societal shifts. This isn’t just a scandal; it’s a breach of trust, safety, and the fundamental rights of the most vulnerable in society. And living in the US, we’re both experiencing this in stereo, with the echoes of similar cases unfolding right alongside us.
If the scale of the abuse is as extensive as suggested, it reveals something far darker than mere misconduct: it speaks to a betrayal of innocence, an exploitation of power, and a callous disregard for the well-being of children. The fact that such abuse could have been allowed to persist for so long only stirs outrage and intensifies the call for justice. It transcends a single scandal - its reverberations spread, raising uncomfortable questions about the culture of entitlement, secrecy, and complicity that surrounds the powerful.
Looking at the royal family, particularly Charles’s response to the scandal, this is a defining moment for his reign. Failing to address it adequately could have disastrous consequences, not just for his personal image but for the future of the monarchy itself. If the royals continue to sidestep serious action, it risks a deeper moral collapse - one that could be permanent, eroding whatever credibility and trust they have left.
What I’m suggesting here is aspirational, but it's also vital: real justice - with those responsible being held accountable - could serve as the necessary break from a deeply troubling past. This isn’t just about restoring the monarchy’s public image; it’s about restoring moral authority and ensuring that abuses like this - whether committed by royals or other powerful figures - can no longer be hidden or swept under the rug. We have an opportunity to redefine what power and accountability mean in a society that’s long been willing to look the other way when its most vulnerable are hurt.
This is the weight of the moment - a generational opportunity to break free from the cycles of abuse, cover-ups, and complicity that have haunted not just the monarchy, but our collective conscience for decades. The question is, will this be the moment when we finally face up to it, or will we continue to let these dark patterns persist? The stakes couldn’t be higher.
"Justice cannot be optional." Of course it can be. There have always been and always will be people who are above the law.
I would like to rephrase that a bit, if you don't mind: There have always been and always will be people who are allowed to be above the law.
Nobody is above the law. We just let them get away with it.
I most certainly do not mind you expressing your opinion, even -- or especially -- if I don't agree with you.
Thank you Richard for reposting your words. It is a shame your comments don't have a wider audience at Buckingham Palace!
What is also needed is a comprehensive audit of the family’s finances. Total transparency. Their parasitic business practices sucking millions from taxpayers and nonprofits, some of which are the very charities they “serve” as patrons must be exposed. “Keeping up appearances” does not suffice; it’s past time for reality.
Well said!! I just finished reading Tom Quinn's book - Scandals at the Palace - and he takes us way back - before the 'awful' Uncle Georges - sharing many stories when Princes behaved so poorly that it's not a wonder we are today watching this same type of behaviour. I think they have been raised with the notion that they are untouchable...so yes, in 2026, it IS the time to be accountable. And if William can do this, he will change the future of the Monarchy. I am actually worried about staff members who may have to 'work' for Andrew - if he is as sexually desperate and as emotionally immature as many have stated, what could he do to any of his staff??
This is not a new subject for the royal family…Louis Mountbatten and the cover up, sacrificing young boys for decades.
DM is reporting that work on Marsh Farm has been halted & work on Wood Farm has commenced. The impression is KC softened & is going to allow AMW to live at the better abode. It's said that "other family members" expressed to KC that putting A at Marsh Farm was a step too far--huh? When this guy is lucky that he isn't totally ostracized & under investigation, who with any brains is advising KC? The recent outrageous PR that A is unstable may be a pretext to stifle the public gags over KC's dithering on AMW's so-called exile. Meantime Eugenie's Anti-Slavery Collective charity is keeping a low profile under scrutiny - several experts have suggested that to protect its credibility, the charity must maintain a clear separation from the royal family's scandals, with one expert noting the need for "transparent communication" to reassure partners & donors. Outward Bound continues merrily along with no qualms having Beatrice serving as Deputy Patron. One wonders just how her knowledge, experience & expertise fit in with Outward Bound's goals or whether this was another bone-headed decision by KC to cling to the preservation of royal family status which has been seriously eroded.
A funny aside - locals have put up posters around Wolferton that warn the public - "Public Safety Announcement SWEATY NONCE IN THE AREA Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor formerly known as Prince Andrew...enthusiastic participant in his (Jeffrey Epstein) sex trafficking network". Truly this old proverb says it all -> You can’t keep a good Brit down—we’re designed to rise like a Yorkshire pud! 🤣👍✔
I'm now wondering if KC never intended to move Andrew to Marsh Farm and just put that forward so he could appear to Andrew to backtrack, compromise, and give him better (?) living quarters at Wood Farm. As to your question about who is advising KC: it's less that no one with any brains is advising KC, more that KC is short on brains himself.
A piece in the Times this morning identifies an aide of Charles as a past member of police protection at the palace. It is behind a pay wall, I let my Times subscription lapse a couple of months ago. But Peter Roselin was up there in the police hierarchy at the palace up to 2014 I think. And he is currently on Charles staff, which would be just one reason that whole office doesnt want any of this to be picked apart in a police investigation. I think Charles fears this investigation. But there are other people working at the palace who have reason to try to stave off an investigation.
Plus HM Gov't offices such as the Foreign Office (who surely has skeletons in the Andrew closet)!
Here's a link to the archived story, "King’s aide ran royal policing when officers stayed with Epstein", thanks for the heads up.
https://archive.ph/i7APz#selection-1549.0-1549.64
If Andrew is so unstable as they're trying to make out, although they don't explain what they mean by unstable, you'd think they wouldn't want him close to guests as he's going to be at Wood Farm. 😁
And close to a children’s playground that’s open to the public on the Sandringham estate!
As a writer (a very good writer) you know the importance of word choice. I take exception to the words that you and many writers use to describe Beatrice and Eugenie. They are no longer “young princesses.” That word infantilizes them. It suggests they are in their teens and are under their parents’ control. They are 35 and 37 yo. They are adults and have been for some time. The decisions they have made and will make are their own.
Hear Hear! Middle age is generally defined as the period starting at 40!
Thank you! That has irked me to no end.
Andrew and Epstein is it any different to Charles and Saville? We need total transparency and the York ‘Girls’ 🙄 why won't they allow William to forensically look at finances? 🤷♀️
Saville’s crimes only came out after his death. A lot of people had egg on their faces due to their association including Diana if she had been alive! The BBC had a lot to answer for in relation to Saville.
Innocence, stupidity or different standards Saville was always a creep Noone was surprised when the truth came out. Sorry I don't believe the elite didn't know about Saville, no social media back then so things were kept hidden the public and we were treated like idiots.
Exactly, KC does not get a pass on Savile. The BRF has access to all the intelligence on anyone in orbit of the family. Of course KC knew.
Very different.
Thanks for keeping these free, Tom - always a good read.
“Middle-class home life” in a $14 million house in elite Montecito! Don’t think so.
What I saw was (unfortunately still) a British prince flogging chocolate bars.
Sad.
Harry was brought down the minute he pledged his troth to the California grifter.
Harry brought himself down with his own behavior.
Very kind of you to apologize on the Saudi trip, no worries! It is probably very good she isn't going. That Saudi Arabia was selected as the country to send the Wales, or just one Wales, to feels like a stab in the back.
The country doesn't deserve an official visit from a first - string royal family member. Countries with such abysmal human rights records have no business hosting a royal tour. Even without the Princess of Wales.
Thank you Tom for an informative and well written article. It is very much appreciated.
King George V and Queen Mary had a son, Prince John, who suffered from epilepsy. He was sent to live at Wood Farm at the age of 4 and died there around 1919.
The press hasn't remembered this yet, but they will. Is Andrew being sent to Wood Farm to help make the case he is unwell? Andrew is unlikely to truly be unstable, he is probably just very angry he didn't get his way. He was out driving and riding, waving at press and public last week. Which is delusional, not necessarily unstable.
Wood Farm had a dark reputation for a while in the 20th century. It was where the Queen's grandparents, George and Mary, had sent a 4 year old prince to live out his days. He suffered from epilepsy and possibly autism. In the last century George and Mary were criticized for hiding their youngest child away.
Andrew deserves a police investigation, not an extended vacation being waited on hand and foot. Wood Farm is an interesting choice. Charles knows it's history. If it's history is taken up by the press it will be interesting to see how that plays out.
Prince Philip lived there, and nobody really talked about his dark history when he was there. So, maybe people are hoping that they'll remember Prince Philip and not Prince John.
I think you are correct, Prince Philip really resurrected the reputation of the place. In the 90s Sarah Ferguson was parked there during Christmas to give her proximity to her daughters. And the press would then write about Prince John dying there with just his nurse Lala. I was surprised the press didn't raise the Prince John story, but perhaps there are just too many other, more important, aspects of this story right now.
there's a tv drama on Prince John. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Lost_Prince
Yes, thanks for link! Great cast.
Thanks for the link!
Ooops, just saw this. Great minds think alike.
Unstable means bigly angry about his sudden descent. So don’t believe Andrew if he calls at 1am with a story about Charles and bags of cash or anything similar
I don’t think Epstein’s sex parties would be Charles’s thing. But Epstein was just the sort of pseudo intellectual guru type Charles would have taken to, with all those famous academic friends that he could sit around with and gas on about Life and the Universe and all that. I’m surprised they didn’t connect somehow
This is a very keen insight! Charles has handled A delicately because he does not want A telling people that Charles also attended Royal Lodge Epstein "parties". The unstable narrative has been put in place partly to discredit Andrew as being vengeful because Charles kicked him out of RL, etc. I didn't even think of that so thanks!!
"
Totally agree, you're hired as Andrew's crisis manager.
How can Andrew « consult his conscience » when he clearly doesn’t have one?