Epstein Files Haunt Royals as Prince William Is Heckled in Saudi Arabia and King Charles Faces Heckling in the UK

Prince William’s latest overseas trip was meant to spotlight youth sport and diplomacy. Instead, it reopened a scandal the royal family has spent years trying to outrun. While visiting Saudi Arabia on February 10, 2026, William was questioned in public about Prince Andrew’s links to Jeffrey Epstein. The exchange was brief, but the clip spread quickly online. It showed that distance, time, and carefully worded palace statements have not buried the issue. For many observers, the monarchy’s refusal to fully confront the allegations and clarify what it knew about Andrew’s Epstein ties is now following it everywhere, creating mounting public backlash.

Heckling at Home and Abroad

The moment in Saudi Arabia did not happen in isolation. Just a day earlier, King Charles also faced shouted questions during a separate engagement in the United Kingdom. In both cases, the heckles referenced newly unsealed U.S. Department of Justice files that have renewed attention on Prince Andrew’s past dealings and correspondence.

William has previously described himself as “deeply concerned” about Andrew’s association with Epstein. Yet when confronted again in front of cameras, he avoided direct answers and moved on with the event. The contrast between firm words in press releases and silence in public settings has frustrated critics who believe the royal family still hopes the issue will fade if they refuse to engage.

The Prince of Wales has ignored questions about his uncle, Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor and the ongoing fallout from revelations in the Epstein files during a visit to a sports centre in the Saudi capital of Riyadh.

Read more: https://t.co/VTh6Klwao6 pic.twitter.com/QnRoomQWlB

— Sky News (@SkyNews) February 10, 2026

Buckingham Palace continues to issue statements expressing concern for victims of abuse. However, these statements rarely address the specifics that the public is asking about. The result is a cycle where new documents emerge, public anger rises, and the palace responds with broad sympathy but little detail. The heckling in two different countries within forty-eight hours shows that this strategy is no longer containing the damage.

Saudi Visits and Controversial Optics

William’s Saudi trip was presented as a visit focused on youth sport, environmental partnerships, and public diplomacy. But the images that travelled fastest online were not football drills or charity moments. They were photographs of him meeting powerful Gulf business and political figures at the very time new Epstein-related documents were dominating headlines.

Among the names resurfacing in those files was UAE businessman Sultan Ahmed bin Sulayem, the chairman and CEO of DP World. Unsealed U.S. Department of Justice records included an email from Jeffrey Epstein referencing a “torture video,” with filings later acknowledging bin Sulayem as the sender. At the same time, DP World is not a distant name in William’s professional orbit. The company is a founding partner of the Earthshot Prize and publicly committed £1 million to the initiative. That overlap turned what might have been a routine diplomatic photo into something far more uncomfortable for critics watching the story unfold.

For many observers, the optics were difficult to ignore. The concern was not a direct accusation of wrongdoing by William himself, but the repeated overlap of photographs, donor histories, and resurfacing records across different years. Attention returned to the fact that Jeffrey Epstein donated $50,000 in 2013 to the wildlife charity WildAid, the same organisation that promoted Prince William as an ambassador that year.

Years later, separate unsealed correspondence placed the name of a major Earthshot Prize partner inside newly discussed files, creating a sense of recurring association rather than a single incident. Even when meetings are framed as environmental or economic diplomacy, the images tend to linger longer than official explanations, especially when earlier donation controversies raise questions about donor screening and oversight rather than isolated coincidence.

Online reactions were blunt. Many people said the monarchy often tells the public not to read too much into photos or symbols, yet it also relies on those same images to polish its own reputation. In this case, critics argued the palace wanted everyone to move on from the Andrew-Epstein questions, while still appearing relaxed and smiling beside figures whose names were suddenly back in the headlines for the wrong reasons. Fair or not, once those images spread online, they stick. The feeling growing among people is simple: the public keeps getting asked to “move forward,” but the institution itself rarely gives clear answers or shows the same level of accountability it expects from others.

The Double Standard and Meghan Sussex

The sharpest comparisons many commentators draw are not between Prince William and Prince Andrew, but between Prince William and Meghan Sussex. Critics often return to the 2018 Fiji state dinner, where Meghan wore diamond drop earrings that The Times later reported were a wedding gift from Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman. The dinner took place only weeks after the murder of journalist Jamal Khashoggi. The Sussexes’ team pushed back, calling the coverage a “calculated smear campaign,” and subsequent clarifications indicated the earrings were part of the royal collection rather than Meghan’s personal property. In practice, she had borrowed them in the same way other royal women routinely borrow jewellery.

What continues to stand out is the contrast in media tone. The press gave Meghan days of negative headlines over jewellery she did not own, while senior royals smiled, shook hands, and held formal meetings with controversial leaders as critics focused much of their attention on the Andrew-Epstein fallout instead. This difference fuels a perception that institutional protection varies by rank and that certain narratives attach more stubbornly to some figures than others.

The contrast becomes sharper when the associations involve wider geopolitical controversies. Multiple international intelligence assessments have linked Mohammed bin Salman to the 2018 killing of Jamal Khashoggi. He denies involvement, yet numerous political leaders have publicly stated that such an operation was unlikely to occur without his awareness. His name has also surfaced repeatedly in Epstein document releases, where the convicted offender claimed familiarity with him. Against that backdrop, images of Prince William posing beside him inevitably attract scrutiny.

Timing also stands out. Officials planned William’s trip well in advance, while courts and legal processes set the timing for the latest Epstein document release, not the palace. Had those files not surfaced when they did, much of the coverage likely would have centred on diplomacy and praise rather than scrutiny. It is also important to note that some of the backlash William receives does not stem solely from meeting controversial leaders, but from the lingering Andrew-Epstein association that continues to shadow the wider institution.

By contrast, when Meghan wore borrowed earrings, headlines and criticism appeared immediately and lingered for years despite later clarifications.

Final Thoughts

In the end, the renewed heckling of both William and King Charles shows that the Epstein shadow has not faded. It returns each time new documents are unsealed or fresh photographs circulate. The monarchy’s problem is no longer just about distancing itself from past associations. It is about persuading a deeply skeptical public that accountability is applied fairly and not only when pressure becomes unavoidable.

That pressure is unlikely to disappear soon. Historian and author Dr. Andrew Lownie openly speculates in his book “Entitled: The Rise and Fall of the House of York” that Prince Andrew could one day be pushed to live abroad, even suggesting the Middle East as a possible destination if the fallout becomes politically unmanageable. In that context, Prince William’s repeated visits to the region inevitably prompt questions about what officials discuss behind closed doors as much as what appears in public photographs.

What has become clear to many critics is that the Andrew-Epstein saga did not damage only one individual. Many people believe senior royals protected and enabled Andrew, and that perception continues to ripple outward, affecting trust not only in the royal household but also in the media, government institutions, and even policing bodies that critics view as slow or overly cautious in their responses. Until officials provide clearer answers, each overseas trip risks reopening the same unresolved debate and reminding the public that the controversy remains very much alive.