The ‘Final Nail in the Coffin’ for Andrew Was Elizabeth’s Death: ‘No One Left to Shield Him’
After Queen Elizabeth's death, insiders say Andrew lost the royal shield he long relied on, blindsided by King Charles's stricter approach.
During the late Queen Elizabeth's reign, Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor publicly acknowledged his controversial association with Jeffrey Epstein in 2019, with his infamous Newsnight interview becoming a lightning rod for criticism. Although the Queen did strip him of his patronages, she stopped short of fully holding her son to account. But after her demise, insiders say Mountbatten-Windsor lost the royal shield he long relied on, forced to face the fallout of his past actions without the protection once afforded to the monarch's 'favorite' son.
As per sources who spoke to OK!, the ex-royal was reportedly blindsided by the severity of King Charles's response to his scandals. Drawing a comparison between the late Queen and Charles, an insider said, "When the Queen died, so did Andrew's protection. She buffered him from the fallouts of all his scandals over the years, but once she was gone, there was no one left to shield him." Similarly, another source added, "Andrew knows this is the end of the road for his protections. Charles has made it brutally clear that titles and privileges are not untouchable." Meanwhile, royal author Robert Hardman described the King's swift action as a 'fountain of justice' and likened it to "effectively categorizing him [Mountbatten-Windsor] in the same way as war criminals and enemies of the state."
Insiders also suggested that the Queen allegedly found it difficult to give Mountbatten-Windsor the axe, reportedly viewing him as her 'favorite son' and the most 'vulnerable' of her children. Yet they stressed that she died 'exasperated' by his repeated troubles. After Charles moved to strip the former Prince of his titles, he was also ordered to vacate Royal Lodge by 2026. By contrast, the Queen had only revoked his royal patronages, allowing Mountbatten-Windsor to continue attending family events and remaining mum on the serious allegations of abuse against him.
Meanwhile, the Queen's silence on Mountbatten-Windsor's scandals has only given rise to speculation that she was aware of his conduct. Commenting on how she enabled his behavior over the years, royal expert Tina Brown told The New York Times podcast The Interview, "He [Mountbatten-Windsor] was her favorite… She protected him, and Mummy was his only client, essentially. She was the one who protected him, so unfortunately, it made him worse." Brown, who didn't mince words on Mountbatten-Windsor's crude behavior, suggested that his fall from grace, long impending, was ignored for decades. She added, "The Queen was there for 70 years, right? The hagiography around the Queen is intense, you know? I mean, you're not allowed to ever criticize the Queen."
Similarly, royal author Andrew Lownie alleged in his book, Entitled: The Rise and Fall of the House of York, that the late Queen was aware of her son's questionable financial dealings and that she allowed him to continue with his shady business. As per The Times, he remarked, "This is what shocked me, the cover-up from the Palace. They knew exactly what was going on. People are not going to like it, but the Queen was colluding in this."
