The Media’s Sudden Concern for Prince Andrew’s “Mental Health” Tells You Everything

Prince Andrew had only just been arrested and released when the mood around him began to change. The facts hadn’t altered. The investigation was still unfolding. But the way some outlets chose to frame it did. Instead of keeping the spotlight on the allegations and his long-standing links to Jeffrey Epstein, parts of the British media softened their tone. The coverage grew cautious, sympathetic, almost protective. Before long, the focus shifted to his mental health.

Emily Maitlis Wants You to Pause for Andrew

Emily Maitlis went on LBC and struck a tone that sounded less like scrutiny and more like concern.

“I suppose I do feel concern, actually, as I’m watching this story unfold… there is somebody at the centre of it and it is a father and there are children and there is a mental health question… this is a pretty serious moment. It’s not a sort of jumping up and down moment… Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor denies all allegations…”

Notice what’s happening here. Yes, she acknowledges that “a lot of us have been expecting this to unfold.” But almost immediately, the frame shifts. It becomes about his children. His mental state. The gravity of the moment. The need for the public to hold back.

Hold back from what, exactly? From accountability?

This is the same journalist who conducted that infamous BBC interview with Andrew — and later reportedly offered him the opportunity to re-record parts of it when it went badly. That wasn’t a random act of kindness. That was establishment instinct kicking in to protect the powerful. When powerful men stumble, the system rushes to cushion the fall.

The Spectator Declares the “Hunt” Has Gone Too Far

Then there’s Brendan O’Neill in The Spectator.

He described Andrew’s arrest as “hunting.” He lamented the “malicious glee” on social media and fixated on a photograph of Andrew in the back of a car, looking “startled, haunted, frightened.”

“The relish of the mob over Andrew’s hollow-eyed torment horrifies me.”

This is emotional inversion at its finest. The focus isn’t on allegations tied to abuse and misconduct. It’s on the discomfort of a man who has lived 66 years inside elite protection.

Andrew didn’t become a target because of mob hysteria. He became a target because credible allegations have followed him for years. Because his association with Jeffrey Epstein was not a rumor but a documented relationship. Because institutions shielded him until they no longer could.

Calling accountability a “hunt” is not neutral commentary. It’s reputational defense.

William’s “Concern” and the Royal Soft Landing

In January 2026, Marie Claire ran a piece by Amy Mackeldon suggesting that Prince William was “deeply concerned” about his uncle’s mental health.

The framing was careful. William supports stripping Andrew of titles, but privately, he worries about how Andrew will cope.

Again, the shift is subtle but powerful. The conversation moves from what Andrew allegedly did to how Andrew might suffer.

Meanwhile, reports indicate that charities linked to William have received funding connected to Epstein and associates. That context rarely gets the same emotional deep dive.

We are invited to empathize upward, not interrogate laterally.

This Narrative Control Dressed Up as Compassion

The pattern is too consistent to ignore. First: remind everyone that Andrew “denies all allegations.” Second: stress his humanity, his fatherhood, his mental health. Third: scold the public for reacting too strongly. What this does is lay groundwork. If Andrew withdraws from public life further, if he becomes reclusive, if something tragic were to happen, the explanation is already pre-written. He was under pressure. He was fragile. The public went too far.

That framing doesn’t just protect Andrew. It protects the institution around him, softens scrutiny, diffuses anger and reframes systemic failure as collective cruelty. And here’s the uncomfortable truth: media outlets that now urge restraint were part of the culture that normalized Andrew’s access, platformed his status, and treated his proximity to Epstein as a PR problem rather than a moral emergency. You cannot enable power for decades and then present yourself as the voice of moral balance when the reckoning arrives.

The Bigger Fear

Andrew was close to Epstein. He moved in those circles. He understood how influence worked — gifts, access, compromise, leverage. Men like that don’t just carry reputational risk. They carry knowledge.

And when elite systems begin quietly emphasizing mental health in the middle of legal and reputational crises, it’s fair to ask: is this empathy, or is this insulation?

The British establishment has always protected its own. What we’re watching now feels like damage control. The public isn’t “hunting” Andrew. The public is finally refusing to look away and allow elites to not face accountability. And as demands for accountability grow louder, the risk does not stop with Andrew. He was not the only figure named in the Epstein files, nor the only one linked through charities or social ties to Epstein’s circle.