Just Andrew - The Wrong Kind of Falsely Accused?

Andrew Mountbatten Windsor, formerly known as Prince Andrew

When the Ottoman Empire collapsed after the First World War, the dynasty scattered and went into exile or hiding, its ancestors still living under the radar in Turkey and around the modern middle-east; ditto for the Tsar’s wider family following the immediate executions after the communist Russian Revolution in 1917. Postmodern revolutions and coups happen in far more technologised, bloodless ways, but the transition of power is the same.

On the day before Halloween 2025, the British Royal Family announced that they were stripping Prince Andrew of the title of Prince, along with all his other titles. Henceforth he would be ‘just’ Andrew Mountbatten Windsor, despite being the ‘favourite’ son of the late, much loved Queen Elizabeth II.

Andrew and Sarah Ferguson’s image was, and is, that of the ‘80’s swinger set’, yuppyish and seen as out of touch in the feelsy, emotionally in-touch 21st century. The fact that they’re still friends to the point of his wanting to live with her at Frogmore Cottage, due to his post-stripping downgrade, is testament to a certain kind of bond.

This reaction by King Charles  - but royal watcher Dan Wootton thinks more by king-in-waiting Prince William - was due to the coordinated media furore over the second memoir by Virginia Roberts Giuffre. Giuffre alleged that she had had sex with Andrew a number of times when he was in his early 40s and she was 17, which is not a crime in the UK, the age of consent being 16.

How many families in Britain contain a loose-cannon uncle-in-law who has a mid-life crisis and proceeds to go about in cars he can’t afford, enjoying the attentions of young women? In the twentieth century this was very much a ‘thing’ anyway, entirely supported by evolutionary biology in the principle of females at their most fertile (Giuffre’s then age) being attracted to the most successful males. Indeed Giuffre allegedly said it was ‘kinda cool’ to a friend after the liaison at the time.

Post-MeToo, however, power dynamics in any kind of relationship are all the rage, and failing to check birth certificates on becoming intimate with someone will end up in social cancellation and bankruptcy due to legal fees. Further cause for the denuding of Andrew’s birth-right was necessitated by his friendship with billionaire ephebophile Jeffrey Epstein, similar to as happened to US Ambassador and New Labour wonk Peter Mandelson mere weeks before.

President Donald Trump’s alleged trips to ‘Epstein Island’, where rich people would receive massages by young nubiles by all accounts, have led to a million accounts on X-of-the-Left Blue Sky calling the President a ‘pedophile’. A note on terminology: paedophile is defined as sexual attraction to pre-pubescents, which apparently outraged Epstein as much as it does others. The attraction to young teenage girls is more closely defined as ephebophilia, for which Epstein already served a sentence in 2008-2009 (even if it was mostly on home tag).

Prince Andrew gave a Newsnight interview in 2019 on the subject in order to try to clear things up from his perspective, being under the impression that telling the truth in public would help his image - but succeeded only in giving Emily Maitlis another notch on her career bedpost. Legendarily stubborn, some say arrogant, this was a failure on Andrew’s part to understand the amoral nature of the media, on steroids in the internet age. Anything you say will be used against you, however true, if it works in the interests of certain interests to do so.

Thus, Giuffre’s second memoir, this time post-mortem after her reported suicide earlier in 2025, was taken as an unquestionable shibboleth by anti-monarchist groups like Republic, supported by their identity-theory drenched media mouthpieces such as Dr Shola Mos or Narinder Kaur. One major problem with this is that Giuffre admits she was a ‘mess’ as a younger woman, and had already retracted similar allegations against US lawyer Alan Dershowitz after her threatened to sue.

The fact is that it is not illegal for a man to have sex with a 17 year-old in the UK, nor is it illegal to be friends with a person convicted of a sex offence, wherever they are in the world. With 70,000 people on the sex offenders register in the UK and around one million in the US, that would be a lot of convicted people - many innocently - who would have been even more socially excommunicated than they have been already.

In response to an X post claiming that Andrew ‘hadn’t lost anything’, Felicity Stryjak of Falsely Accused in the Context of Trust (of which Harvey Proctor is President) replied;

‘...nothing except the identity about which he cares a lot’.

In Andrew’s Newsnight interview it was clear how important loyalty is to him, as it is to many in his echelons: but this is not so in the media, in fact loyalty is generally a hindrance in that world.

In our puritanical, hypocritical times, all you need is a sex allegation (or preferably two) to orchestrate a power-grab pile-on by interested parties. Whatever collectively we think about Andrew’s behaviour or reputation, he’s being used as a useful fall-guy for the UK republican cause; for whatever reasons he is now Just Andrew, how long is it before the two princes are Just Harry, and even Just William?

By Sean Bw Parker