So near and yet so far. Many take advantage of the long weekend a bank holiday provides as a chance to catch up with family, but King Charles is bucking that trend. Even though he’s at the Sandringham estate for a couple of days, just a short distance from Marsh Farm, where Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor now lives, he apparently has no plans to visit. Charles arrived in Norfolk at lunchtime on Sunday, hours after Thames Valley Police revealed that they had widened their criminal investigation into Mountbatten-Windsor to include potential alleged sexual misconduct offences. Presumably, if Charles had been tempted to check in with his brother before this, the news put the kibosh on that idea.
Charles is well used to putting duty before desire and cannot fail to be aware of how toxic Mountbatten-Windsor is to the royal brand, but still, as a human being, it must be extremely challenging to turn his back on his brother. Meanwhile, as King, how can he not be frustrated that any positive stories about the monarchy – his trip to Northern Ireland with Queen Camilla, Prince William being a man of the people at a football match – are instantly overshadowed by further accusations against Mountbatten-Windsor? Even the happy announcement that Princess Eugenie was expecting her third child was tainted – her father wasn’t mentioned in the statement and yet his name was all over it, a stain on her joy.
Mountbatten-Windsor firmly denies all the allegations against him, of course, as he has done throughout. And this is fast becoming the point: the time has come for him to be allowed the opportunity to prove his innocence. To speak up for himself, instead of through spokespeople, to provide answers. The only way the Royal Family can put this behind them once and for all is if Mountbatten-Windsor faces justice in court.
It would be momentous, historic, almost unbelievable to see Mountbatten-Windsor on trial, but it’s a very real possibility.
When Mountbatten-Windsor was arrested back in February, Dr Tom Frost, senior law lecturer at Loughborough University and expert in public law, explained: “The offence he was arrested in relation to – misconduct in public office – is a serious common law crime, triable by jury, with a maximum sentence of life imprisonment.”
The optics of Mountbatten-Windsor having his day in court may at first appear confusing. Hard to imagine anything further from his late mother’s famous adage to “Never complain, never explain,” and a senior member of the Royal Family in the dock may seem to be a PR disaster. Conversely, I believe it would be the opposite. It would be unignorable, definitive proof that it isn’t one rule for them, one rule for everyone else. That there are consequences for your actions, no matter who you are. That nobody is above the law.
Unlike the divisive Harry and Meghan situation, public opinion on Mountbatten-Windsor is pretty much united. A YouGov royal family favourability survey conducted in early January revealed that just 3 per cent of Britons said they had a positive view of Mountbatten-Windsor, the lowest figure recorded to date. Things genuinely couldn’t get any worse, perception-wise. The people are very clearly communicating what they want. We are all talking about this anyway, so why not let it be for the right reasons?
Mountbatten-Windsor taking the stand would force everything out into the open, put an end to whispers, rumours and gossip. The alleged victims’ stories would be heard and listened to, taken as seriously as they deserve to be. And then, when the trial was over, this matter would really be over. The whole family – and the country – would finally be able to move on.
It is now obvious that the mess surrounding Mountbatten-Windsor cannot be brushed under the carpet or distracted from; it’s not going to magically disappear. The old-fashioned way of doing things isn’t going to work here. The late Queen’s strategy must be allowed to rest with her, because in 2026, it needs a little updating, at the very least. Never complain, sure, but Mountbatten-Windsor, now it’s time to explain.
‘ The preceding article may include information circulated by third parties ’
‘ Some details of this article were extracted from the following source inews.co.uk ’
