I’ve paid more attention to the controversies of the Windsor family in the past month, but it’s also been an exceptionally bad time for Britain’s Prime Minister Keir Starmer. Starmer is also mired in controversy related to Jeffrey Epstein and FBI’s Epstein Files. While Starmer wasn’t hanging out with Epstein on the island (at least not as far as we know), he did appoint at least one guy who was a friend-of-Epstein, Peter Mandelson. Mandelson was one of Starmer’s political kingmakers, and Starmer claims he had no idea about the extent of Mandelson’s friendship with Epstein. Mandelson is now facing a police inquiry and a lot more. More than the degenerate formerly known as Prince Andrew is facing. Anyway, once the latest Epstein Files came out, Starmer was very quick to issue a thorough statement condemning Andrew and calling on Andrew to testify before Congress. Well, according to Tess Dunlop’s sources, King Charles was (is?) furious about Starmer’s interference in the royal coverup!
Finally a member of the Royal Family has been forced to give his opinion on Andrew Mountbatten Windsor and the latest Epstein revelations. The ex-prince’s younger brother Edward, trapped on stage in a Dubai conference centre, reluctantly stumbled his way into a response. “With the best will in the world I am not sure this is the audience that is probably the least bit interested in that.” No Edward, take it from me, it was the only thing anybody in the room was thinking about.
Jolly fortunate then that Edward managed to stay on track: “It is all really important always to remember the victims. And who are the victims in this?…A lot of victims in this.” Given the level of media attention this story has garnered since Friday’s three million-plus photo-cum-document dump it is surprising that the Duke of Edinburgh wasn’t better prepared. But the Royal Family doesn’t operate along the same lines as the rest of us.
Until the weekend the Palace believed their defenestration of Andrew late last year drew a line under the matter. However, the British Prime Minister clearly had other ideas. Like Edward, unremarkable Sir Keir Starmer was jumped into an Epstein response over the weekend. Caught on the hoof (and no doubt keen to deflect from the sordid behaviour of his own ex-US ambassador, Peter Mandelson), when asked about Andrew, Starmer insisted that ‘you can’t be victim-centred’ unless you are prepared to testify and share any information. This was a significant departure from the Prime Minister’s previous conclusion that giving evidence in America’s congressional court was a matter for Andrew alone.
Starmer’s politicisation of what the Royal Family now believe is a private issue has, by all accounts, left the palace fuming. One source suggested that the King was “incandescent” the Prime Minister had suggested it at all, and worst still didn’t bother to consult His Majesty first. To be fair, Starmer was en route back from a week-long tour of Asia and unlike Edward did not have a lead-in time of four days.
Nonetheless it was constitutionally clumsy of the Prime Minister. Convention dictates that the palace is consulted over matters concerning the Royal Family. I would pay to be a fly-on-the-wall at the weekly audience between the monarch and his first minister.
In these torrid times the British brand needs Charles on side, royalty keeps Trump in the room like little else and there is a trip planned for both king and consort in April. The old monarch could so easily decide he is not well enough to travel. Presumably it won’t come to that. I put my source’s claims to the palace, but have yet to hear back.
Don’t expect to hear any more from Starmer on the subject of Andrew, meanwhile the Windsors will continue to hope that if they batten down the hatches for long enough this sorry saga will disappear.
The idea of Charles threatening to withdraw from the April state visit to the US because he’s mad at Starmer is… actually sort of hilarious? At Davos, just last month, the British anger towards Donald Trump was across the political spectrum, and I honestly believed that Starmer likely used the state visit as a bargaining chip to get Trump to back down. My point is that if Charles backed out now, Starmer could come up with twenty reasons why that decision is a great idea. As for Charles being mad at Starmer’s comments about Andrew… lol. In this Epstein mess, Starmer and the king are practically in the same boat. Charles might have rolled his eyes at Starmer’s statement, but I guarantee that Charles has done and said things which Starmer would have liked to have seen handled differently. “Convention dictates that the palace is consulted over matters concerning the Royal Family.” I’m sure Charles believes that, but Starmer clearly (and correctly) believes that Andrew’s situation is a criminal matter.
Charles got heckled again today.
“How long have you known about Andrew and Epstein?”.
King Charles is heckled during a visit to Lancashire. pic.twitter.com/mKrOWhUUoY— Channel 4 News (@Channel4News) February 9, 2026
Photos courtesy of Avalon Red.
