In the same week Kay Burley defended King Charles from criticism over Prince Harry’s withdrawn Buckingham Palace accommodation, she also appeared to defend Prince Andrew on Newsnight. During the discussion about Andrew and the Jeffrey Epstein scandal, Burley interrupted a moment centred on survivors to say: “And we should accept that he was a war hero. We should just throw that in.”
She said this while sitting beside Epstein survivor Lisa Phillips, Labour MP and victims minister Alex Davies-Jones, and presenter Victoria Derbyshire. According to The Standard, Phillips had just urged other survivors to come forward, and Davies-Jones had echoed that appeal before Burley inserted Andrew’s military service into the conversation.
That is why the comment landed so badly. Andrew’s Falklands service is not the issue. The issue is why anyone would reach for “war hero” language during a discussion about Epstein, victims and accountability.
Is the Establishment Already Trying to Rehabilitate Prince Andrew?
Because the shift in tone is hard to miss. Andrew had barely been arrested and released before parts of the British media began softening the frame around him. The facts had not changed. His Epstein ties had not vanished. The allegations had not become less serious. But suddenly, the conversation started drifting away from accountability and toward sympathy.
Speaking on LBC, Emily Maitlis expressed concern for Prince Andrew’s mental health, framing him as a father and a man in crisis. She said: “I suppose that two things can be simultaneously true, that it can have been a long time coming, but when it does, there is somebody at the centre of it and it is a father and there are children, and there is a mental health question.”
Of course, mental health matters. But why does that language arrive so quickly when the person at the centre of the story is powerful, male and royal-adjacent? Why are we asked to pause for Andrew before we are asked to sit with the people harmed by Epstein’s world?
Then came the Prince William framing. Marie Claire reported that William who has been painted as the “tough guy”, especially when it comes to Harry and his family, well when it comes to his uncle he was actually “deeply concerned” about Andrew’s mental health. The outlet explained: “If anything, William was deeply concerned for his uncle’s mental health and how Andrew would cope after everything was taken away.”
Related Stories
Final Thoughts
This is how rehabilitation begins. Not with a public pardon, but with a softer frame. First, the conversation shifts to Andrew’s mental health. Then it becomes about his children, his stress, his fall from status and how he will cope. Then Kay Burley jumps in during a discussion about Epstein survivors to remind everyone that Andrew was a “war hero.”
Being in the military does not erase accountability. Charity work does not erase abuse. Status does not erase harm. If we would not interrupt a conversation about victims to remind everyone that Jimmy Savile raised money for charity, or that Harvey Weinstein produced acclaimed films, then why are we expected to pause and polish Andrew’s image?
And that is what made Burley’s comment so offensive. It moved the emotional centre of the conversation away from the victims and back to Andrew. Suddenly, we were being asked to remember his service, his humanity and his pain. But where was that concern for the women and girls harmed by Epstein’s world?
This is exactly why powerful men survive scandal. The establishment does not always defend them by declaring them innocent. Sometimes it simply changes the subject. It turns accountability into sadness, then sympathy, and finally recasts consequences as a tragedy for the man who lost his status. It is not a rebuttal. And it should never be used to soften a discussion about Epstein survivors.
Discover more from Feminegra
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
You are so correct. Butley’s comment was offensive and also shifted the focus away from Epstein’s victims. But beyond that, Andrew NEVER was a war hero. It’s forgetting how the press that could report on the Falklands was censured and how this role was pure propaganda by the Thatcher Government at a time the Monarchy needed a boost. Andrew’s performance were as a matter standard and initially started very poorly. 1 of his companions initially recalled that the first day he was to fly, he actually pleaded sickness. Andrew’s commanding officer had to physically go and remove him from the infirmary as nothing was wrong with him. After that, his performances were average but Britain needed a war hero, and Buckingham got its Action Prince.
I read this in respected publications in the 2 countries I lived in, France and the USA, prior to moving to Britain 15 years ago. However, this information can’t be read nowadays, from the UK. The source, analysed by independent War specialists made of historians, academics and investigative journalists was considered credible. Again, news about the Falklands reaching Britain was censured at 3 levels and this was a PR move.