Public and media scrutiny continues to intensify around Prince Andrew’s residence at Royal Lodge and his controversial past association with Jeffrey Epstein. The Duke of York, stripped of his HRH title, is reportedly resisting efforts to vacate his 30-room mansion in Windsor Park. According to royal biographer Andrew Lownie, author of The Rise and Fall of the House of York, Prince Andrew and his ex-wife, Sarah Ferguson, are leveraging a robust lease agreement to negotiate for two new properties—one for each—in exchange for leaving Royal Lodge. Lownie compares their stance to the hardball tactics of the Duke of Windsor during negotiations with King George VI in the 1930s.

The royal family appears eager to distance Prince Andrew from the Windsor estate, where his presence serves as a persistent reminder of his scandals. However, Lownie describes the situation as a “Mexican standoff,” with Andrew keen to stay near his family and unwilling to leave without significant concessions. There’s also speculation that Sarah Ferguson could reveal royal secrets, possibly through a tell-all book, adding leverage to their position. Meanwhile, the royal family could apply pressure through the future prospects of the Yorks’ children.

Transparency around Prince Andrew’s finances, including how he sustains himself and funds Royal Lodge, remains a contentious issue. Lownie, a long-time advocate for greater royal accountability, believes MPs are focusing too narrowly on the lease and Crown Estate details rather than broader questions of royal finances. He hopes for increased transparency but doubts the current approach will yield significant results.

Adding to the controversy, King Charles faced public heckling during a cathedral visit, with questions raised about what the royal family knew regarding Prince Andrew’s ties to Epstein. Lownie asserts that the royal family was aware of concerns about Andrew’s relationship with Epstein for years, dating back to his tenure as trade envoy from 2001 to 2011—a role King Charles reportedly opposed. Despite these concerns, no action was taken until the scandal became public, a delay Lownie attributes to a protective stance, particularly from the late Queen. This inaction, he argues, has left the royal family “compromised” and vulnerable to public backlash for failing to address the issue sooner.

Lownie highlights a particularly damning example: years before the Epstein story broke, ABC television planned an exposé on Andrew and Epstein but backed off after the palace threatened to cut their access to royal interviews. Lownie claims this decision enabled further abuse by Epstein, as complaints to the Queen’s private secretaries went unaddressed. Prince Andrew’s sense of invulnerability, rooted in this protection, continues to shape his defiant stance, even after the Queen’s death.

Public opinion and media pressure are outpacing the palace and government’s response, with more revelations expected. Protesters outside Royal Lodge have accused the government of complicity in covering up the issue, especially after recent statements indicating no intervention. Lownie warns that the royal family’s failure to act decisively early on may force them into greater transparency than they prefer, as demands for justice and accountability grow louder.

Source: “Prince Andrew will be thrown ‘under the bus’ | Andrew Lownie,” YouTube, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oVGh5WdCci0