Prince Andrew has long been linked with Jeffery Epstein, and has been accused of sexual assault by multiple women, though the charges have never been tested in court. Now, in the wake of Epstein's death, The Times of London reports that the FBI has opened or expanded its investigation into Prince Andrew:

The Times of London - Now FBI investigates Prince Andrew’s links to Epstein

Prince Andrew risks being further embroiled in the Jeffrey Epstein scandal as The Sunday Times reveals today that the FBI has expanded its investigation to identify more of the billionaire’s victims, who could provide information on the royal.

The US law enforcement agency is expecting to question alleged trafficking victims over the next two months.

Should the evidence warrant it, could Prince Andrew be indicted and arrested in the UK, or does he have some measure of immunity (beyond the normal level for celebrities) as a member of the Royal Family? Would his hypothetical indictment be through the normal police channels, or would it take political action by the government?

1 Answer 1


Only Her Majesty is immune from prosecution in the UK.

If any other member of the royal family has broken the law, they can be tried and punished as anyone else.

  • Can you think of any examples of where that has happened? If not, and since British law of this kind usually depends on precedent, what makes you so sure about this?
    – WS2
    Sep 30, 2019 at 21:58
  • 6
    Yes, Charles I was beheaded for treason. Treason probably counts as a crime and beheading as a punishment. More relevantly, Princess Anne has been fined many time for speeding. She received a written police warning in '72, was fined by magistrates in '77, and '01 and was temporarily banned from driving in '90. [Source: The Graun] In a number of cases through history parliament has strong-armed an [apparent] monarch into abdication which has got around the whole "not the monacrh" thing. Lady Jane Grey rescinded her Queeny-ness and then tried and executed her.
    – Dan
    Sep 30, 2019 at 22:55
  • 6
    @DanSheppard Princess Anne sounds like a clear precedent. You should put together an answer based on that
    – divibisan
    Oct 1, 2019 at 0:36
  • I'm a bit busy to do a proper answer right now, but I may if no one beats me to it!
    – Dan
    Oct 1, 2019 at 0:39
  • 1
    @DanSheppard The Charles I precedent suggests that her majesty is not immune from prosecution. But the legal basis for his trial and execution seems by no means clear and essentially extraconstitutional; it was certainly controversial.
    – phoog
    Oct 1, 2019 at 17:22

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .