Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor's reputation has plummeted, with only 3% viewing him positively after the Epstein scandal. Photo / Getty Images
It is difficult to fathom now, but Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor was once a hugely popular figure.
A fun-loving playboy who flew helicopters in the Falklands War, he was indulged by the public and adored by his mother.
His marriage to Sarah Ferguson was watched by millions and, for all his raucous antics, Randy Andy – as he was affectionately dubbed then – was seen to have more charm and charisma than his serious-minded siblings.
Fast forward 40 years, and Andrew is viewed with abhorrence by both the British public and the wider world – his nickname little more than a grim memory.
He has inflicted huge damage on his brother’s reign, a fact that was highlighted on Monday when a heckler shouted at the monarch, on a visit to Clitheroe, Lancashire: “How long have you known about Andrew and Epstein?”.
But the impact of his actions goes beyond just King Charles.
Since the death of Queen Elizabeth II, Andrew’s behaviour appears to have accelerated a decline in trust, moral tolerance and confidence in the entire Royal institution, and all at a time when generational support for the monarchy has started to flag.
Andrew denies any wrongdoing, but the scale of his personal reputational collapse is stark.
When YouGov first polled public opinion about the then Duke of York on October 3, 2019 (before the Newsnight interview, but after the publication of the image of him embracing Virginia Giuffre), only 22% of respondents held a positive view of him.
Already, this shows how much trust had been lost in Andrew over the course of his adult life. It meant that he entered the scandal with a historically weak base of support for a senior royal.
What followed was a rapid erosion of whatever goodwill was left.
After his catastrophic Newsnight exchange with Emily Maitlis in November 2019, Andrew’s favourability fell into single digits.
By August 2025, just 5% of the public viewed him positively. Now, with the release of the damning Epstein files, that figure has dropped again, to 3%.
“Andrew is absolutely toxic – abuse of children and young women is arguably the absolute worst issue you can be associated with,” says Graham Smith, lead campaigner for anti-monarchy group Republic.
“What has changed in the last few weeks and months is that his behaviour is being connected to other royals. The question being put to William and Charles now is, ‘What did you know when?’.”
Despite this, the Windsors as a whole are showing some resilience in weathering this scandal – polling shows support for the monarch has dropped from 77% during the 2011 wedding of William and Catherine to 73% today.
In August last year, 62% of respondents held a positive view of the Royal family. Two months later – after a large batch of evidence was released from the Epstein files, including reports that Andrew had continued to contact him well after his supposed “break-up” with the financier in 2010 – that figure fell to 59%.
Support remained steady for the wider family throughout January 2026, despite claims that, as British trade envoy, Andrew had been feeding confidential information to Epstein.
Meanwhile, favourability ratings for Charles and William – the two royals most likely to find themselves in the firing line alongside Andrew – have been stable throughout this entire period.
“Charles and William are popular figures separate from the Andrew debacle,” says royal biographer Robert Jobson.
“Charles had his scandals in the Diana years, but he is now seen as a unifying figure and as someone who has tried to do his best through his illness.
“Equally, his once-mocked ideas about the environment have proven to be right and very courageous.
“William, meanwhile, has the leftover popularity from his childhood – and since adulthood and his marriage, he has been seen as a very wholesome figure who has done important work on homelessness and mental health.
“That’s why they’re keeping their heads above water.”
And yet, this apparent stability appears to be masking deeper structural problems. Long-run data shows that public support for the monarchy has been in consistent decline for over a decade, independent of any single scandal. The National Centre for Social Research reports that in 1983, 86% of Britons believed it was “very” or “quite” important to continue having a monarchy.
By 2024, that figure had fallen to 51%, the lowest since records began. Over the same period, the proportion who believe the monarchy is “not very” or “not at all” important rose from 10% to 31%.
“A lot of previous support for the monarchy was actually for the Queen,” says Smith. “People loved her – she had a grandmother-like appearance and was a link back to a pre-war Britain many people hanker after – but none of that is true with Charles.
“When she died, people lost their deep emotional attachment to the family and started to look at it more dispassionately.”
The result is that support for outright abolition has increased fivefold, from 3% in 1983 to 15% in 2024.
Similarly, a Savanta poll conducted this month found that just 45% of Britons preferred having a monarch as head of state, compared with 32% who favoured someone voted in by the public.
While overall still positive, the generational breakdown is worrying, with every age group under age 44 in favour of an elected head of state.
This generational skew is where Andrew does the most damage.
Polling reveals moral judgment among a youth that is more intolerant of sexual misbehaviour and cover-ups. A recent survey found that 51% of Britons believe the Royal family should have done more to condemn him. Among 18 to 24-year-olds, that figure rises to 61%. For over-65s, it falls to 35%.
“The modern generation finds him abhorrent,” says Jobson. “Younger people just don’t have the same deference towards the monarchy and so are asking why he is being protected, which then leads to arguments about the amount of money the monarchy costs, and broader questions about inherited power and elite impunity.”
As a consequence of this, Charles and William are now heckled on a regular basis about how much they knew about Andrew and when.
“At some point, they are going to have to address this,” adds Jobson, “and not just with palace aides through PR speak, but through, for example, a television address where they make the very strong case that they don’t condone any of this behaviour.
“They need to put clear water between themselves and Andrew.”
This would likely be a popular move: Ipsos polling found that 90% of Britons approved of Charles removing Andrew’s official titles and roles, a level of consensus that is rare. Equally, Charles faces some tough choices over the coming months.
In November 2025, 75% of Britons said Andrew should testify before the United States Congress about his links to Epstein. That figure cuts across party lines and age groups, and reflects a growing public desire for accountability from the Royal family – something that the Windsors have traditionally struggled to provide.
“One of the biggest outcomes of the Andrew scandal is that they have lost their mystique,” says Smith. “Even the memory of the late Queen is being tarnished by him – she was the one who agreed to pay off Virginia Giuffre, and in the last few months, I have seen an increasing number of people even criticising her for it.
“The truth is that if one email comes out suggesting William and Charles were fully aware of what was happening 15 years ago, then it is game over.”
Sign up to Herald Premium Editor’s Picks, delivered straight to your inbox every Friday. Editor-in-Chief Murray Kirkness picks the week’s best features, interviews and investigations. Sign up for Herald Premium here.