Thomas Massie rose in Congress this week and made an extraordinary allegation: that Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor had committed sex crimes in the United States. The Kentucky Republican made the claim under privilege. Andrew has denied the accusations and has never faced criminal charges.
What followed has been strikingly quiet. No response from the Palace. No statement from the late Queen’s second son, whose titles were removed last year, along with his palatial residence at Royal Lodge. He remains eighth in line to the throne and is still under investigation in the UK over allegations of misconduct in public office. Massie may have named Andrew, but the fallout reaches beyond one man.
Another second son of a British monarch is also causing turbulence. Harry’s return to the UK, and the renewed dispute over who should fund his security while he is there, has triggered a backlash that is now beginning to touch the King himself.
For now, neither controversy threatens the monarchy’s survival. Institutions like the Crown are not usually toppled in a single dramatic moment. They weaken more slowly, as confidence drains away and each scandal strips off another layer of public respect.
Anglo-Saxon England once had a mechanism for dealing with unsuitable heirs. The Witan, a council of elders, could set aside the eldest son and select someone judged fit to rule. William the Conqueror swept that system away, turning the Crown into a question of bloodline above all else.
Back then they had a choice once. Nobody has one now.
Andrew was second in line for more than 20 years, until William was born in 1982. Harry was third for nearly 30, until George arrived in 2013. Neither was chosen. Neither assessed.
Imagine either of them on the throne now, knowing what we know. That is not a crisis the monarchy rides out. It perhaps presents its greatest challenge.
Thomas Massie accused Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor of committing sex crimes in the United States. Andrew denies the claims and has never been charged
Harry’s homecoming has started a row over who pays for his protection now he is back in the UK
If all that wasn’t enough, now Sarah, Duchess of York, is in the papers again, with reports that she is heading to England, ending her self-imposed exile.
The hefty offers for her tell-all book have apparently already been made. I doubt, this time, she takes them. My guess is she keeps her head down. But no doubt she has a story to tell and sell. If her head was turned by the figures, it would not be good for Andrew or the monarchy.
I have covered this family for thirty-five years plus and seen worse weeks. Royal divorces. The Windsor Fire. The tragic death of Diana 29 years ago. But without doubt this is a rocky time for the House of Windsor. Too many factions, divisions. It is in transition from Elizabeth II’s death – but to where?
The Habsburgs, one of Europe’s most enduring royal dynasties, are the comparison I keep coming back to. They ruled much of Europe for centuries and by 1918 they were gone.
World War One gets the blame. But they were already too stiff for the century they were in. Their last emperor was also called Charles. He never formally abdicated. He tried twice to take Hungary back and he died broke in Madeira in 1922. The royal dynasty just faded away, without a noisy revolution, more an apathetic sigh.
Elizabeth II, always putting duty first, kept the mystique of monarchy. Under her, it seemed relevant. Nostalgic perhaps, but still an important part of our societal fabric. Something to look up to.
Her son, the King, is a decent man and people like him. But now he is being accused, after the Harry debacle, of putting family before duty, of indulging his younger son, muddying the waters for William for when his reign comes. He too has come under fire over the unedifying problem of his brother Andrew.
That is perhaps unfair. He can hardly say a word about Andrew, not while there is an active police investigation ongoing.
There is not much he can do about Harry either. He is a father as well as a king. Fairness has never been much use here. What matters is what people believe. It looks like weakness, and they have begun to doubt this King’s judgment.
It is spreading far and wide. Across the Caribbean the realms are stepping back from swearing allegiance. Antigua and Barbuda have already done it. Parliament took the King, his heirs and successors out of the oath, and when Gaston Browne’s new cabinet was sworn in this May, after his fourth election win, they pledged themselves to the state, its constitution and its laws instead. More than 40 years of swearing to the sovereign, ended.
After the Harry debacle, the King is being accused of putting family before duty, of indulging his younger son, muddying the waters for William for when his reign comes
Reports are circulating that Sarah, Duchess of York, is heading to England, ending her self-imposed exile
The King has come under fire over the unedifying problem of his brother Andrew
It is not yet a republic. It is still a Commonwealth realm. Nobody has voted on that, and Browne has been promising a referendum since 2022. But he has made this move before the King lands in St John’s for the Commonwealth heads of government meeting. Grenada did the same last August.
Every time, the King says he supports them and wants them in the Commonwealth even if they ditch the Crown. Nearby Barbados became a republic in 2021 and remains in it. It is the crown they are edging away from, not the Commonwealth, and the King is still its head.
But support for the monarchy in the region is fading, through missteps and perception, whether it is true or not, fair or not. I was broadcasting to Channel 7 Australia on a beach in Barbados in November 2021 just after they ditched the Queen as head of state when a man came over and told me he wanted no part of the royal family.
He was quite certain. Nothing I could have said would have moved him. It was after Harry and Meghan’s Oprah interview.
This is undoubtedly a crown divided. The scriptures put it plainly: a house divided against itself cannot stand (Mark 3:25). It is as true now as when it was written.
Today William is getting the backlash and deserves it least. He has been increasingly and wrongly cast as being the difficult brother. Forgive Harry in public and he rewards everything that was done to his wife and his father. Refuse and he is the hard-hearted one who shut the door. But what about trust? Not so easily gained. Surely, Harry has got to prove worthy.
There is a daft game in that and I confess to playing it in my head. Put them in ancient costume and you are halfway there. Charles the Unready, blindsided by his own son. Æthelred at least had the Vikings for an excuse for not being ready. And Harry, who in Shakespeare cries ‘God for Harry, England and Saint George,’ and now cries just for Harry and for ‘Meghan.’ And then there is ‘William the Cornered.’ Let’s hope he can rise from this mess and still conquer.
What matters is what people believe and they have begun to doubt this King’s judgment
Today William is getting the backlash and deserves it least. He has been increasingly and wrongly cast as being the difficult brother
Then there is ‘William the Cornered.’ Let’s hope he can rise from this mess and still conquer
The protection row could be settled quietly tomorrow. Retired royalty protection officers, paid for privately by the King’s deep pockets. The obstacle is that in America such men can carry a weapon and in Britain they cannot.
The reports for a fortnight have pointed the other way, towards his armed, state-funded security detail being restored. That is where the politicians are, on both sides of the House. But politicians are not the public.
Which brings me to the polls, where 63 percent in the UK say the Sussexes should pay for their own security. The King once told me polls meant nothing to him. He then looked me straight in the eye and said: ‘You see, I’m in it for the long term.’ That was at a reception held in his honor at Government House in Darwin, Australia, in 2018. Perhaps, respectfully, it may be time to start reading them.
He was well aware of public opinion before. He told his biographer Jonathan Dimbleby in 1994 that something as curious as the monarchy would not last unless it took account of what people thought. ‘After all,’ he said, ‘if people don’t want it, they won’t have it.’
When his time in the top job comes, William can pull it back. He has the standing. He has the time. But as history has shown, perhaps not as much as he may think.
Robert Jobson is a New York Times bestselling author. His latest book is The Windsor Legacy, published by Pegasus in the US and Blink in the UK.