Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor could fit like a glove one of the most famous lapidary phrases attributed to the VI Duke of La Rochefoucauld, a famous French writer and aristocrat from the 17th century: "More betrayals are committed out of weakness than out of a firm purpose to betray." The fact is that, behind that ethereal suspicion of "misconduct in public office" for which the once favorite son of Queen Elizabeth II has added a police arrest in his endless fall into hell, what is being investigated is something as serious as a possible continuous crime of high treason. To the United Kingdom, which is the same as saying to the Crown, even though the protagonist was until a few years ago one of its most prominent members. Hence, to all the sordidness that tarnishes the biography of the former Prince Andrew for his camaraderie with the pedophile businessman Jeffrey Epstein, including accusations of abuse of minors, now adds the stain of infamy and dishonor, which are still today traits of particular dishonor for anyone born into a reigning dynasty in Old Europe.
That Treason Act passed by the Parliament of England in the 14th century that codified for the first time all behaviors that implied disloyalty to the Sovereign, with its successive updates and amendments to the present day, regains all its strength in the collective imagination. And it is that the British citizenship is not recovering from astonishment and adds to the shadows of sexual predator and of beneficiary over the decades of not a few alleged corrupt practices in the heat of his dangerous friendships that already loomed over the brother of the current king, those that would come to support the suspicions that also surrounded him as a textbook prevaricator.
Because from the latest batch of files recently declassified by the US Department of Justice, it emerges that the Duke of York sent Epstein confidential documents from the British Government related to the official trips that the then still prince made to destinations such as Hong Kong, Vietnam, or Singapore. The documentation suggests that the businessman organized private meetings, trips, and presentations taking advantage of the connections of the queen's son, who took advantage of his position, contacts, and influence for his own benefit.
Even one of the reports that are now part of the ongoing police investigation is dated Christmas Eve 2010 when Andrew of England provided the financier with sensitive data on investments in Helmand (Afghanistan). The American had been under judicial siege for years, and in 2008 he had already been convicted of soliciting prostitution services from a minor. None of this was an obstacle for Epstein to maintain a very close relationship in subsequent years with an endless network of prominent personalities from politics, royalty, media, business, and entertainment worldwide, including Andrew. From that same 2010, months before Christmas, is the exchange of emails that have just come to light in which the financier invited the member of the Windsors to meet a "friend" for dinner in London. Andrew replied that he would be "delighted to see her" and asked Epstein to provide him with the contact details of the "26-year-old, beautiful, and reliable Russian", as described. In total, there are up to 1,821 mentions of the brother of Charles III in the explosive declassified documents.
If the queen's son was capable, as it seems, of betraying the Crown and the country by leaking secret documents to his interlocutor, as if he were a true Epstein spy in London, time will tell what he did it in exchange for. Inevitably, the British are already speculating on both the economic ambition of a prince mired in the mud of pure corruption and the easy blackmail of an Epstein in possession of so many compromising photos of Andrew that would eventually come to light years later, condemning him to downfall. Among them, the snapshots with Virginia Giuffre, the woman who accused him of sexual abuse. Or the more recent ones - about 25 years ago - in which he is kneeling on the floor next to a woman lying beside him with a lascivious expression.
Of course, the deep scandal caused by the arrest of the man who for many years was second in line to the throne of London does not hide the cynicism and clear willingness of the British elite to turn a blind eye to Andrew of England until the matter exploded as the biggest bomb for the Monarchy in modern times. And today, one can only wonder which way the country's political leaders looked when, in the summer of 2011, Buckingham Palace confirmed that the prince was stepping down from his role as Special Representative for UK Trade and Investment.
It would be several more years before Giuffre implicated the Duke of York in her own experiences as a victim of sexual trafficking by Epstein. And yet, behind that punishment of Andrew in 2011, almost all the ingredients that would define the character were already there. The media had long been criticizing him for his friendship with such controversial figures as Saif Gaddafi, son of Libyan President Muammar Gaddafi, Timor Kulibayev, stepson of the President of Kazakhstan, Nursultan Nazarbayev, who bought his residence in Sunninghill Park for 15 million pounds (17 million euros), three million pounds more than the price set in 2007 - one of the many windfalls of the prince - or the same pedophile businessman. And yet, the then Prime Minister, David Cameron, with those kinds of courtly attitudes that do so much harm to an institution like the Monarchy, which can only survive by embracing the most absolute exemplarity, offered him, until there was no choice but to drop the duke, his full support, thanking him for his "great contribution over the past decade to British trade." This gave wings to the queen's son to feel completely immune and to persist in his misdeeds. How familiar this story sounds in Spain, unfortunately. Change "the law is the same for everyone" to "the law must follow its course" pronounced yesterday by Charles III.
The British Crown was experiencing a very sweet moment of popularity in that 2011. The extraordinary support it garnered until the death of Queen Elizabeth II was joined by the widespread enchantment caused by the wedding of William and Kate Middleton, seen as the perfect new blood to revitalize the institution. Thus, faced with scandals like those already affecting Andrew, everyone preferred to imitate the ostrich. But the mood of the people is pendular. And, in this February of 2026, one of the most repeated questions in the United Kingdom is "since when did the royal family know about Andrew's dealings and what level of knowledge did they have about them?"
The Democratic US congressman, Ro Khanna, one of the promoters of the law that has allowed several members of the House of Representatives to access the material that the FBI has collected over the years from Epstein, was apocalyptic a few days ago when he said: "It could be the end of the British Monarchy". It is hard to imagine that an ancient institution, a cornerstone so deeply embedded in the idiosyncrasy of the United Kingdom, could fall because of the Epstein case. However, it is undeniably very unsettling that we are no longer just facing murky matters of a sexual nature, but also the corrosive oil stain of corruption in the palace carpets. And now that Charles III has stripped his brother of all his titles and honors, and even of his princely dignity - although he continues to shelter him in one of his residences - there is little more he can do to face the storm.
There are polls that place the popularity of the Monarchy today at 45%, the lowest level in its recent history. In reality, the only thing that can help in the current state of affairs is for the British to perceive relentless justice against Andrew. Every prince knows that there is no more unforgivable crime in someone close to the throne than that of treason. And he betrayed everything that represents and continues to give meaning to the survival of the Crown in the 21st century.