The latest Epstein files have rocked the Royal Family, with Andrew facing fresh allegations.Emma Mackenzie Features Writer and Lucy Farrell Trends/Showbiz/Lifestyle Editor
10:35, 06 Feb 2026
Disgraced Andrew with his nephew the Prince of Wales(Image: Max Mumby/Indigo/Getty Images)
Fresh revelations in the Epstein files are causing shockwaves globally – and reverberating through the Royal Family. For years, Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor has maintained that the notorious photograph of himself with his accuser, Virginia Giuffre, is fake.
He claimed that it was doctored and that he has no recollection of meeting her. However, the latest tranche of released documents includes an email seemingly from Epstein’s accomplice, Ghislaine Maxwell, suggesting the opposite.
A message headed ‘draft statement’ sent by a ‘G Maxwell’ to Epstein in 2015 states: “In 2001, I was in London when [redacted] met a number of friends of mine including Prince Andrew. A photograph was taken as I imagine she wanted to show it to friends and family.”
Royal commentator Richard Fitzwilliams delivers a damning verdict to the Mirror: “We know it’s genuine now. We always did.” Additionally, a second accuser has emerged with allegations against Andrew, claiming she was dispatched to the UK by Epstein for a sexual encounter with the King’s brother in 2010.
Lawyers representing the victim allege the meeting occurred at Royal Lodge, followed by a tour of Buckingham Palace the next day. In the meantime, Andrew has been compelled into premature exile, fleeing his Windsor residence under darkness at the apparent instruction of a horrified King Charles, to begin his diminished existence at Marsh Farm in Norfolk.
He has always denied any wrongdoing. But as the revelations continue to mount, will his removal from public life be sufficient to protect the Royal Family?
Andrew with Virginia Giuffre and Ghislaine Maxwell(Image: PA)
Royal commentator Richard Fitzwilliams told the Mirror that the recent developments are undeniably “big news” for a Royal Family that is clearly shaken. Despite Andrew’s repeated denials of any wrongdoing, the “enormous interest” from the public is detrimental to the House of Windsor.
The ‘feuding’ brothers
Apart from a single statement issued by King Charles expressing support for Epstein’s victims, the royals have largely remained silent on the scandal. However, Prince Edward, 61, Andrew’s younger brother, broke ranks when he directly addressed the issue on Tuesday, February 3.
While speaking at the World Governments Summit in Dubai, he was asked how he was ‘coping’. He responded to journalists: “Well, with the best will in the world, I’m not sure this is the audience that is the least bit interested in that. They all came here to listen to education, solving the future, but no, I think it’s all really important, always, to remember the victims and who are the victims in all this.”
Fitzwilliams told the Mirror that this was Edward’s way of aligning with Charles and “continuing the particular emphasis” the King and Queen place on supporting survivors of abuse.
Indeed, while Edward and Charles share a close bond, there’s said to be a lack of affection between Edward and Andrew, who are only four years apart. Even as children, Andrew is reported to have been a “bruiser” who “bullied” his younger sibling and stole his cake.
Andrew was famously the late Queen’s favourite – an action man and Naval officer who fought in the Falklands. Meanwhile, Edward was apparently a ‘sweet, quiet and studious’ child and beloved by staff. Unlike his war hero brother, he studied history at Cambridge and enjoyed amateur dramatics.
Andrew with younger brother Prince Edward, the Duke of Edinburgh(Image: PA)
According to Royal author Robert Jobson, Edward shared the closest bond with the sensitive Charles, despite their 16-year age difference. In the evenings, Charles would read bedtime stories to his youngest brother and create imaginative tales, revelling in their mutual sense of humour and creativity.
“Andrew, meanwhile, was loud and robust. He would constantly swipe his younger brother. If he saw Edward going for a particular piece of cake, Andrew would try to grab it first. Edward learned to yield to him,” Jobson wrote in the Daily Mail.
Whilst Prince Philip was famously close to daughter Princess Anne, Edward was reportedly his favourite son, and Philip showed uncharacteristic understanding when his youngest left the Royal Marines in 1987. As the princes matured, their differences became increasingly apparent, Jobson observes.
“Andrew and Edward are very different characters. The former feels the system owes him; the latter always seems happy to serve the system. The tension between Andrew and Edward continued into adulthood.”
Eventually, however, he writes that Edward – who chose not to bestow Royal titles upon his children – discovered his voice and exercised his own authority. He continued: “If Andrew thought he could bully his brother in later years, it didn’t wash.
“On shoots on royal estates, if Andrew made some outlandish statement, Edward would be the first to dismiss it as ‘utter nonsense’. Different characters, different judgments – and very different fates.”
Indeed, whilst Andrew has been stripped of all his titles as a direct consequence of his decisions, Edward has been awarded the prestigious Duke of Edinburgh title that previously belonged to his father.
Split loyalties
When news of King Charles’ decisive move to remove his brother’s titles first emerged, the action reportedly divided the family. Princess Anne is said to have considered it “harsh”, whilst princes William and Edward were in complete agreement.
Nevertheless, Royal expert Richard Fitzwilliams tells the Mirror that although it “may well have been” accurate that Anne might have viewed Andrew’s punishment as “brutal”, the emergence of the Epstein files has demonstrated the King’s actions were “absolutely necessary” and formed part of a broader strategy.
“The fact is the King had no actual power to get Andrew out of Royal Lodge but the optics of him remaining there were impossible,” he says.
Tensions are reportedly rising within the Royal family as the controversy surrounding Prince Andrew threatens to overshadow its charitable endeavours. “There’s clearly considerable irritation, the scandal detracts from the royal calendar and also what the message that members of the Royal Family are trying to get across,” comments Fitzwilliams.
A man appearing to be Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor pictured in the Epstein files(Image: Handout / US DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE / AFP via Getty Images)
Both the Duchess Sophie, wife of Prince Edward, and Queen Camilla have devoted themselves to the crucial work of supporting survivors of sexual and domestic violence. This commitment puts them in direct contrast with the allegations surrounding Andrew.
Fitzwilliams said: “Sophie will visit various countries where there have been terrible wars, Camilla has done a lot of work to help survivors of domestic abuse and has given this a very considerable priority. This is very significant at a time like this when a member of the Royal Family – though he denies it and has been found guilty of nothing – has been accused of sexual abuse.”
The Mail also suggests that the relationship between Princess Eugenie and Prince William has been deteriorating. According to Fitzwilliams, “they have not been close” and Eugenie “has always been closer with Prince Harry” and his wife Meghan, who are currently estranged from William and Kate.
The author speculates that “there was always the possibility that she might be a bridge between the Windsors and Sussexes”. Previous reports suggested that William might strip Beatrice and Eugenie of their titles upon ascending to the throne, but palace sources have since dismissed these claims.
King Charles’ dismay
The monarch himself is understood to have been the one to instruct Andrew to vacate Royal Lodge under cover of darkness, after growing increasingly troubled by how conspicuous his brother was making himself whilst residing in the opulent Windsor estate.
Andrew had persisted with his regular horse-riding routine, despite these excursions resulting in frequent appearances in photographs splashed across newspaper front pages. “Questions were being asked in royal circles along the lines of ‘what’s he still doing here?’ each time he appeared out riding,” a source told the Mail.
“Someone less arrogant than Andrew would have read the room and kept his head down for a while, but that’s not in his make-up, so something had to be done.”
The outlet quotes another source as saying that Andrew “was encouraged to think that it would be a good time to move on”.
Sandringham staff ‘revolt’
Andrew won’t have space for live-in staff at his new residence, Marsh Farm, but the King has reportedly offered him the “ad-hoc” use of personnel from Sandringham House, including cleaners and cooks. This apparently has not “gone down well” with the former prince, but there’s been another development in the staffing saga.
According to The Sun, staff members have been told they can decline to work for Andrew if they feel uneasy about doing so. And it’s a “long list,” a source has revealed, with many saying there’s no chance they’ll be assisting him.
Staff have “been told they don’t have to serve Andrew or work for him if they feel uncomfortable. There is already quite a list saying no thanks. There is understandably a lot of disquiet as he is now a total pariah,” the source was quoted as saying.
“But there is also a worry that once he gets comfortable at Wood Farm while Marsh Farm is being finished, they will never get him out again.”
Questions for the Royals
The extent to which the rest of the Royal Family was aware of Andrew’s connections to Epstein, and the allegations he has faced, has been the burning question as more correspondence and photographs continue to surface in the latest release of the Epstein files.
A source speaking to the Mail suggested that William and Charles would have been briefed in advance about what might emerge, and that now everything is being exposed, the sanctions they have imposed on Andrew appear entirely “appropriate”.
“It seems clear that William and the King were given some kind of forewarning in intelligence briefings late last year about what was still to come. They obviously couldn’t share that, and when they evicted Andrew and Sarah from Royal Lodge, some people thought it was too harsh. In the light of what’s now come out, it looks a more appropriate sanction,” an insider revealed.
Royal author Andrew Lownie alleges: “They were sent a copy of Virginia Giuffre’s book in April while she was still alive. They can’t be surprised by some of the stuff that is now emerging.”
He further commented: “This is now a bigger scandal than Andrew, it’s about what the palace knew and why they didn’t act. I think he was allowed to prosper for far longer than he should have done because of the protection he had and I think he still has.”
However, Fitzwilliams disputes this, asserting that one of the biggest challenges for the Royal Family regarding Andrew is that “they don’t know what is coming, and therefore it is absolutely impossible to prepare”.
What lies ahead?
Andrew has relinquished his opulent home and been stripped of his titles and other Royal privileges, and it remains uncertain whether he will consent to testify about his association with the convicted sex trafficker.
Some believe that the opportunity to compel Andrew to defend himself has been lost along with his dukedom, a highly public role. With his commercial prospects diminished, if another civil case were to be brought against him, he likely wouldn’t have the resources for another settlement.
He settled out of court with Virginia Giuffre in 2022, reportedly for around £12 million, without admitting guilt. Royal expert Afua Acheampong-Hagan suggested that we are nearing the point where Charles will need “to do more”.
She said: “The next step would perhaps be for the King to make some sort of statement about this. This is someone who is within their ranks, who was protected by the family, and who is still going to be living off [his brother].
“We know it’s the King’s private funding and his private wealth – but he is still going to be associated with the Royal Family. Maybe there does come a point where they need to be able to say ‘actually we want some more accountability’, or ‘we are sorry for the fact that we protected someone for so long.'”
Campaigner Graham Smith from Republic has told the Mirror that the Royal Family’s current policy, often referred to as ‘never complain, never explain’, is “unsustainable”. He argues: “Some people talk about this as if it’s just an ordinary family – but they are head of state, heir to throne, duke and so on, these are public positions. The equivalent has to be prime minister and cabinet, not someone else’s private family.”
Smith draws a parallel with Prime Minister Keir Starmer’s handling of Peter Mandelson, who is also embroiled in a scandal due to his friendship with Epstein. He said: “If [Starmer] was saying no comment on Mandelson, he’d be gone.
“He can’t do that. Instead he has been put in a position where he has to start taking strong action and make strong statements because he knows that he is going to be facing consequences if he doesn’t, whereas Charles can just hide behind his big gates and have someone say no comment. That is not going to be sustainable.”
The campaigner suggests that the recent revelations “raise so many questions about what Charles knew and what William knew”. However, Smith concedes that the royals, largely due to Andrew, are currently caught between a rock and a hard place.
He explains that if they continue to offer no comment “it’s going to damage them. But if they start commenting, that’s going to damage them as well, so it’s a pretty difficult situation.
“The family angle doesn’t really get them very far,” he cautions, adding: “They can’t be in these positions and claim so much in terms of status and rights and money and all the rest of it one minute and then the next, ‘Oh it’s just a family thing’.”