ANDREW LOWNIE: The question is no longer how the Monarchy deals with its bad apples, but whether it can survive so many of them
In a Daily Mail comment piece, royal biographer Andrew Lownie argues that the British monarchy faces an unprecedented crisis due to the sheer number of troubled family members surrounding King Charles III. He highlights Prince Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor as the worst offender, facing further misconduct allegations, alongside his daughters Beatrice and Eugenie, whose names have been linked to their father's friendship with the late paedophile Jeffrey Epstein, and their mother Sarah Ferguson, who remains a persistent presence despite no longer holding royal status.
Lownie contends that Prince Harry and Meghan, Duchess of Sussex, stand to benefit most from the turmoil, with their return to the UK next month seen as an opportunistic move to secure their position, and crucially the royal titles of their children Archie, seven, and Lilibet, five, before Prince William potentially strips them once he becomes king. The piece notes King Charles was reportedly informed of the Sussexes' return only on the Sunday beforehand, as part of "Project Thaw", an effort led by his assistant private secretary Theo Rycroft to reconcile with Harry, giving Charles more time with grandchildren he has rarely seen.
- Columnist says the monarchy is overwhelmed by scandal-hit family members
- Harry and Meghan's UK return next month seen as securing children's royal titles
- Charles reportedly told of Sussexes' return only days in advance via "Project Thaw"
New here? Start with this
Prince Andrew, the King's brother, has faced years of scrutiny over his friendship with the late convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein, and further allegations against him have kept the issue in the headlines. His daughters, Princesses Beatrice and Eugenie, and his ex-wife Sarah Ferguson, who has no royal title, have also drawn scrutiny because of their own links to Epstein or their continued closeness to Andrew.
Separately, Prince Harry and his wife Meghan, the Duke and Duchess of Sussex, stepped back from royal duties in 2020 and moved to the United States, leading to a period of strained relations with the rest of the family. Their children, Archie and Lilibet, currently do not use the prince and princess titles they are technically entitled to, and there has been ongoing speculation about whether they will take them up, and whether future monarch Prince William might remove them.
King Charles III has been trying to manage these overlapping family issues while also dealing with his own cancer treatment, raising broader questions about how a modern monarchy handles scandal and rifts within the family it depends on for its public image.
Both sides, in good faith
The strongest fair case each way — we don't pick a winner.
The case for
Those who share Lownie's alarm argue that the monarchy's authority rests on personal example, and that the sheer clustering of scandal around one generation – Prince Andrew's persistent legal and reputational troubles, his daughters' Epstein associations, and Sarah Ferguson's continued visibility – amounts to more than isolated misjudgement; it is a pattern that corrodes public trust in the institution as a whole. On this view, it is entirely reasonable to scrutinise the timing of Harry and Meghan's return, since a family that prizes continuity and titles as symbols of duty cannot be faulted for wondering whether a visit arranged with minimal notice to the King, while other relatives are under pressure, is partly aimed at safeguarding Archie and Lilibet's positions before succession changes anything. Raising these concerns is not an attack on any individual but a legitimate defence of an institution whose survival depends on public confidence.
The case against
Others would counter that judging the monarchy's survival by the conduct of a handful of individuals mistakes a family's private troubles for an institutional crisis, when the monarchy has weathered comparable scandals across generations and retained its constitutional footing. On this view, ascribing calculated, self-interested motives to Harry and Meghan's return is uncharitable speculation dressed as analysis; a father inviting his son and grandchildren, whom he has rarely seen, to reconnect is a plausible and humane explanation that deserves at least equal weight to accusations of opportunism. It is also fair to note that Beatrice, Eugenie and Sarah Ferguson have not been shown to have done anything wrong themselves, and that conflating them with Prince Andrew's separate allegations risks unfairly extending guilt by association rather than reflecting considered judgement.