The Queen’s Unwavering Devotion—Why Prince Andrew Remained Her Favorite Despite Scandal

For decades, the former prince and his mother shared an unmatched intimacy. However, when scandal engulfed him, that maternal bond was thrust into the harshest possible spotlight.

For years, Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor occupied a uniquely protected position within the House of Windsor—close enough to authority to matter, yet never destined to wear the Crown.

That reality shaped his public existence and, in the view of royal observers and insiders, shaped the late Queen Elizabeth II’s relationship with him as well. It is a designation that has followed him for decades—the late Queen’s favorite son.

Royal commentator Richard Fitzwilliams has previously connected that perception to timing and circumstance. When King Charles III and Princess Anne were born, he observed, the Queen was newly upon the throne and pulled in multiple directions.

By the time Andrew arrived, she possessed greater capacity to provide him sustained attention, creating what the royal commentator described as a particular closeness between them. He shared:

“She was able to give him more attention and Andrew was someone with whom she’s had a particular affinity.”

That special bond became part of Andrew’s mythology. In the public imagination, he was once a war hero, having served in the Falklands, and later a high-profile royal whose image carried a mixture of glamour, confidence, and controversy.

However, the same status that made him visible also ensured that, as the line of succession expanded, his purpose became more difficult to define.

Once second in line, he steadily descended the ranks with each new royal birth, all while remaining subject to the scrutiny attached to his family name.

That scrutiny, however, turned unforgiving in 2019 when Andrew attempted to confront questions regarding his association with convicted sex offender and American financier Jeffrey Epstein.

In a BBC Newsnight interview with Emily Maitlis, recorded at Buckingham Palace, Andrew spoke publicly about the allegations for the first time. The response was immediate—backlash from nearly all sides.

Years later, fresh reporting claimed that the arrangement was not merely a personal legal decision, but a family-funded effort to prevent the scandal from dominating the late Queen’s Platinum Jubilee.

In the interview, he stated he had observed nothing suspicious while around the American, who died in August 2019 while awaiting trial on federal charges.

The former Duke of York also acknowledged the reputational damage his choices had caused, saying, “I stayed with him and that’s… that’s the bit that… I kick myself for on a daily basis.”

The remark did little to calm the tempest. Instead, it sharpened the sense that the monarchy was facing a crisis it could not easily contain—and that Andrew, long seen as protected, had become a liability no one could fully manage.

Yet the most revealing element of the saga may not have been the interview itself, but what followed. In February 2022, Virginia Giuffre’s civil sexual abuse case against Andrew concluded in a settlement.

Years later, fresh reporting claimed that the arrangement was not merely a personal legal decision, but a family-funded effort to prevent the scandal from dominating the late Queen’s Platinum Jubilee.

According to claims, the late Queen contributed £7 million toward the settlement, with a further £3 million allegedly drawn from Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh’s estate following his death. The then Prince Charles was said to have paid £1.5 million, with other royals also contributing. One source alleged:

“Andrew’s not paid back a penny.”

Those same reports stated Andrew’s plan to sell a Swiss ski chalet in Verbier to repay the money faltered because the property was weighed down by substantial mortgage debt, leaving him with little or no profit from the sale.

Another allegation went further, suggesting that the family acted after believing Andrew had misled them about the extent of his relationship with the infamous American.

One source claimed the late Queen was left heartbroken by the scandal, but could not bring herself to banish him, describing him as her “beloved son.”

In that telling, the settlement was a method to delay the reckoning rather than end it, pushing the problem into the future when King Charles III would be expected to deal with it.

For the Palace, the implications were stark. A legal settlement can close a case, but it cannot erase questions—particularly when the payment is portrayed as an institutional attempt to protect a vulnerable moment in the monarchy’s calendar.

Inside the Palace—Claims of entitlement and tension If that was the public side of the story, accounts of Andrew’s private conduct have been equally damaging. Despite perceptions of his closeness to the late Queen, claims from former staff and royal authors suggest he inspired little affection behind the scenes.

Royal author Andrew Lownie, in his book, “Entitled: The Rise and Fall of the House of York,” quoted Colin Burgess, a former equerry to the Queen Mother, describing Andrew as issuing curt, commanding instructions.

As for the court of public opinion, social media reactions to the late Queen’s loyalty have been divided, and at times unsparing.

The former equerry stated Andrew spoke to staff as “an officer talks to his subordinates,” adding that his grim catchphrase was “Do it!” He contrasted that with the manner the Queen Mother and King Charles III treated staff as “human beings.”

The book also included claims that the former prince made bizarre requests, including insisting that maids climb several flights of stairs to open curtains while he remained in bed.

Elsewhere, royal writer Tom Quinn was cited as alleging Andrew had moved to remove staff over petty grievances, including an objection to a nylon tie. More recent accounts have suggested those tensions did not ease even after his status changed.

Despite King Charles III stripping Andrew of his titles, some reports claimed he still demanded royal-style service, from cooked breakfasts prepared by a personal chef to regular deliveries of champagne and fine wine. The former prince has repeatedly been characterized by sources as entitled.

Then came the latest humiliation—reports in February 2026 that Andrew was forced to leave Royal Lodge. One insider alleged he tried to appeal to his lineage during tense discussions, claiming:

“When he was told to get out, he was so arrogant and deluded he repeatedly shouted, ‘But I’m the Queen’s second son. You can’t do this to me.’ It is extraordinary he chose to use the Queen’s name in his defence.”

The move to Sandringham was portrayed as a sharp downgrade, with fewer staff and less space. Even the offer of limited help—a cleaner, groundsman, and cook on an ad hoc basis—was said not to have gone “down well.”

As for the court of public opinion, social media reactions to the late Queen’s loyalty have been divided, and at times unsparing. One person commented, “They say a mother’s love is blind.” Another wrote, “It’s very true that the Queen loved her son to bits… but she could never love him as much as he loved himself… [sic]”

On the other hand, a third netizen typed, “The Queen isn’t squeaky clean.” Another suggested, “Like mother, like son? Maybe that’s why the servants didn’t like him too much as they probably know stuff they can’t say?” Another person added, “Hence the result. A mother can never ever have a ‘favourite’ son.”

A final observer offered in part about the familial dynamic between Queen Elizabeth II, Andrew, and her other children, “The others didn’t need the attention or guidance he did. She knew he was different. Not the favourite in love but just needed more care as he behaviour challenges [sic].”

Together, the comments reflect the uncomfortable question at the heart of Andrew’s story—where the line sits between private devotion and public duty. The late Queen Elizabeth II spent much of her reign embodying restraint and responsibility.

But in the case of her second son, the allegations, the settlement, and the accounts of his conduct left the institution facing a deeply human complication—a mother who, despite everything, could not turn away from her child.

In death, she left behind a monarchy still grappling with the aftermath. Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor’s fall has already rewritten how he is seen. The late Queen’s continued support has complicated how her final years are remembered—and ensured that the debate over her devotion to her “favorite” son will not fade.