Charles faces balancing act over Prince Andrew as Epstein saga tests monarchy

King Charles III is weighing how far to go in handling Prince Andrew and Sarah, Duchess of York, as the royal family confronts renewed scrutiny tied to the Epstein affair. The issue rose to public life again last week as mourners at Westminster Cathedral rose in respect for arrivals for the funeral of the Duchess of Kent, including the King and the Yorks, underscoring the fragility of any decision that might be read as punitive toward a blood relative.

At Westminster Cathedral, mourners rose for each arrival, including for the King and other members of the royal family, and again for the appearance of the disgraced Duke and Duchess of York. The scene captured the central tension: public affection for the royals remains, but the presence of the Yorks risks undermining the monarchy’s standing. Close friends of the King acknowledge that Charles’s Christian outlook and sense of fair play have taken a substantial knock as fresh disclosures about the Epstein affair pile pressure on an institution that relies on public esteem. Critics say Charles’s response has appeared cautious or indecisive, while supporters say he and Prince William are in lockstep on seeking a durable solution that preserves the monarchy while acknowledging reality.

What Charles can do remains a matter of debate inside royal circles. One line of action repeatedly discussed is limiting Andrew and Fergie’s participation in public-facing duties, especially church services. But an outright ban on attending such rites could be seen as a drastic breach of principle and provoke a political backlash. As one king’s supporter notes, there is discomfort about a monarch who might be perceived as shutting out a blood relative from prayer, and opponents warn of a public-relations misstep that could damage the Crown’s standing further. Despite the talk, insiders say it is unlikely that the duke and duchess will be invited to repeat their high-profile appearances at future royal functions.

[IMAGE PLACEHOLDER]

Beyond attendance, the question of titles looms large. Some advisers have pressed for stripping Andrew of the royal dukedom—the honor conferred by the late Queen Elizabeth II on his wedding day. But even if the dukedom were removed, opponents caution that Andrew could revert to his birth title of prince, a change some argue would be more, not less, provocative to the public image. There is also the matter of the Order of the Garter. Andrew remains a member of the oldest order of chivalry, but his publicly displayed association is limited, and he does not attend the annual Anglican procession at Windsor, though he remains eligible for the post-honor luncheon.

The Yorks’ continued residence at Royal Lodge in Windsor Great Park is another flashpoint. The King has sought to cut off private funding, reduce security, and persuade Andrew to downsize, but he has resisted moving. A vacant alternative on the Windsor estate, Adelaide Cottage, raised questions about a possible relocation, but insiders say Andrew would mark such a move as an admission of guilt and a loss of status. Some speculate a compromise could allow Beatrice and her family to move in, with Andrew retaining visiting rights, but this remains a contentious idea among many observers.

The Epstein affair remains the defining stain for Andrew and, by extension, for the modern monarchy. Andrew has repeatedly denied the sex-trafficking allegations against him, but he and Fergie are widely seen as having maintained an improper association with Epstein well after promising to cut ties. The public mood has grown fatigued with the saga, and even some long-standing supporters worry that the scandal continues to poison attitudes toward the Royal Family in middle England. A lingering question is how Andrew might react if pushed further—from writing a memoir that could reopen old wounds to simply choosing a quieter life away from the public eye.

If Charles does move decisively, it could define his legacy as monarch. If he refrains, critics may argue he has not adequately protected the Crown from a lingering reputational risk. Either way, the royal household faces a delicate balancing act between filial loyalty and constitutional duty, with new disclosures potentially reshaping public perceptions yet to come.