Andrew and King Charles, a personal battle of royal brothers

If Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor had been a scandal-hit politician or a relegated football manager or troubled CEO he would have been sacked, replaced and forgotten years ago.

But the problem with a royal scandal is that it has no natural endpoint. And that's because you can't really be sacked from a family. They're still going to be there for births, deaths and marriages.

And behind the remarkable story of Andrew's arrest is also a personal story, two brothers, different in temperament, with different responsibilities in their family, who are now on different sides of a police investigation.

"They have our full and wholehearted support and co-operation," said King Charles about the police inquiry, after the arrest of his brother.

"Let me state clearly: the law must take its course," said the King's statement.

It was an argument for the law paying no heed to rank or royalty - and no-one being above the reach of justice. And Andrew has always denied any wrongdoing in his associations with Jeffrey Epstein.

But it must also have been a difficult personal moment for the King to set such a public distance between himself and his younger brother, who he calls with some formality Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor.

According to royal sources, the King has no intention of "sticking his head in the sand" and is going to keep on attending events, he won't be avoiding the public and will be getting on with business as usual.

In recent months, the King has been treading a balancing act in dealing with his wayward brother. A mix of carrot, stick and then acting something like an irritated parent.

For instance, more than 18 months ago the King made active attempts to remove Andrew from Royal Lodge, his former mansion in Windsor.

It became such an unsubtle effort that it was known as the Siege of Royal Lodge, with the King financially cutting off his brother in an effort to drive him out. Royal insiders were talking about Andrew as the Duke of Hazzard.

Andrew was ultimately forced out by the storm that followed the release of the Epstein files. But Charles then stepped in to provide him with a private home, at the King's expense rather than the public purse.

It reflects something that the Palace often seems to find a delicate subject - that the King still has a duty of care for his brother. He is now giving him an allowance as well as a roof over his head.

That's compounded by concerns about Andrew's well-being, a man who looked shell-shocked and haunted in photos taken after he was released from custody.

What makes it delicate, is the concern that looking after Andrew might be seen as shielding him from scrutiny.

The statement from the King attempts to draw a line between the "working royals", who are carrying on with their "duty and service" while Andrew is facing the due process of the law.

If this was a battle-of-the-brothers novel, you could take this back all the way to their childhoods.

Andrew was the loud, bullish, outgoing child, said to be the favourite of his mother, while Charles was the thoughtful, introspective, serious older brother, carrying the weight of responsibility as heir.

In the Epstein files, an article is shared about a conversation at Epstein's house in New York in which Andrew describes himself as the "spare".

Ultimately, after decades of rivalry, that narrative plays out with many more cards in the hands of the heir rather than the spare. It's now the quiet child, who got bullied at school, who is on the throne.

There is now much scrutiny of Andrew's time as a trade envoy, including by the Thames Valley Police. But when he was first mooted for the role, in 2001, senior sources suggest that it was Charles who warned about his unsuitability.

At that time, Charles couldn't do more than advise, and the favoured younger son was given the role as envoy, appointed by the late Queen in consultation with ministers.

That trade envoy role ended badly in 2011 because of Andrew's associations with Jeffrey Epstein, but by then, as the Epstein files show, he had been labelled "His Buffoon Highness" by UK diplomats unimpressed by his social skills.

Again, if he'd been a failing party leader, he might have slipped from sight. If it was a soap opera, he'd have been barred from the pub and written out the script.

But instead Andrew remained part of the Royal Family, appearing at national events, at cross-purposes to the worthier efforts of his elder brother.

While Charles had spent years getting closer to nature, and getting mocked for it, Andrew had been getting closer to Epstein and his cronies.

What perhaps surprised many was the unexpected steeliness of how Charles dealt with another Andrew scandal in autumn 2025, when emails showed that Andrew had stayed in touch with Epstein long after he claimed to have cut ties.

The taking away of his status as prince and duke, kicking him out of his house, the stripping of every vestige of royal life, his removal from public sight, was much tougher than might have been anticipated.

There had been some speculation that Prince William had been the one pushing for this - but royal sources made clear this had been the King applying these sanctions on his brother.

There's also no overstating the frustration of royal officials at the way that Andrew has kept scuppering their plans. You can almost hear the sigh before they speak.

While the King was launching his deeply-felt harmony film project about the environment recently, it was drowned out by the headlines about Andrew and the Epstein files.

Prince William this week was talking about the importance of male role models, and of course everyone was really thinking: "What about your uncle?"

Royalty is a family business. And this week they've had to put the business ahead of the family.