RICHARD KAY: Andrew’s fall may now be complete. The question is… Will he bring down the House of Windsor with him?

Wood Farm holds a special place in the lives of the Royal Family. This was where Prince Philip retired after giving up public duties, and where they loved to reminisce by looking at old family photographs when the Queen joined him.

How unbearably touching such a scene seems today. Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor’s shock left the farmhouse devoid of the idyllic charm so beloved by his mother and father and plunged the monarchy into a crisis from which it never recovered.

It has withstood scandals and uprisings, assassinations and dethronements for centuries, and still managed to survive. It achieved this through a combination of pragmatic adjustments and, apart from a very brief momentary interruption, public commitment. But this feels different and dangerous.

In the 40 years I have been involved with the Royal Family, there have been other moments when the very foundations of the institution seemed at stake: the loss of Diana, when our bottomless sadness at her needless death was almost overcome by anger at what was seen, rightly or wrongly, as the Royal Family’s cold indifference to the princess.

Then there was the failure to raise a flag at half-mast over Buckingham Palace, or the failure to assuage the suffering of the public, who wanted a visible sign of royal willingness to alleviate the nation’s suffering. Instead they saw reluctance.

Previously, the fire of Windsor Castle and who would pay for its repairs (us or the non-taxpaying Windsors) had raised awkward annus horribilis questions, compounded by the horrors of three failed royal marriages.

Then there was Prince Harry’s spiteful exit from royal life, his family tantrums and his spiteful treatment of his own family.

Former Duke of York looked stunned after 11 hours in police custody

A group of plainclothes police officers arrived at Wood Farm on Thursday morning and a search began.

These were all important and damaging moments, and they all had one common denominator: the monarchy, for all its faults, was still preferred.

On the contrary, it was recognized that royal privileges, palaces and luxury did not provide protection against the harsh realities of life lived by many.

But former Prince Andrew’s case is on a different level. Outrageous allegations about his abandonment of money, sex and patriotism have seeped into every crevice of the royal fabric, overshadowing good intentions, destroying hard-earned reputations and trapping the family in a somehow endless cycle of misery. With that went the public’s sympathy.

It is now quite likely that the King’s reign, no matter how long or short, will be remembered for one thing: Andrew and how he treated him.

Yesterday some of the King’s more credible supporters rushed to the airwaves to claim that Charles’ interventions (no doubt laudable) demonstrated the resilience of the monarchy and that his statement that ‘the law must take its course’ was a sign of the openness and honesty of both him and the institution.

I don’t agree with this. As this whole saga unfolded, it felt like a symbolic moment that touched not just the public’s love for the monarchy, but something much more fundamental: our trust in it.

For those of us who were not there and have no memory beyond the history books, we remember what happened when King Henry VIII died in 1936. It is easy to compare Edward’s Abdication to the seismic events surrounding the crisis.

Andrew was arrested on his birthday. He is depicted on all fours above a woman in a photograph published in the Epstein Files.

There are some parallels, of course: Many have compared Andrew and his ex-wife Sarah Ferguson’s greed (as detailed in the Epstein Files) to the rapacious life that Edward and his American wife Wallis assumed as international freeloaders as the Duke and Duchess of Windsor.

For Andrew, it was a desire to gain access to the gilded world in which Jeffrey Epstein lived.

But there are some surprising differences. Edward was an extremely popular king and before that he was the Prince of Wales.

There was no public clamor to dethrone him. And when he went into exile, he did so with all his royal titles – including HRH – intact, and his Order of the Garter banner continued to hang in St George’s Chapel, Windsor, until his death.

Lacking the charm or popularity of his great-uncle, despite his devoted Marine service in the Falklands War, Andrew is seen as entitled, arrogant and ignorant.

He was deprived of everything: style, titles, honor and home.

But the pre-War Abdication world, with 90 per cent of the population identifying as monarchist, is very different from modern Britain. Today, that support has reached a tipping point.

The most recent British Social Attitude Survey, which has been asking the same question since 1983, asked: ‘Is the monarchy important to the UK?’ – its report last September showed that only 51 percent thought so, compared to 81 percent four decades ago.

Among young people (the most important 16-24 age group) this rate decreased much more. Make no mistake, Andrew’s grotesque tale has been a gift to republicans who gleefully sense that Britain’s long love affair with the Royal Family is in terminal decline, if not over.

Andrew’s arrest is therefore a moment of profound defiance for Buckingham Palace. Whatever titles and styles he abolishes, he is still the King’s brother, the son of the late Queen Elizabeth and, remember, heir to the throne for 22 years.

I believe there is a real sense of vulnerability. The decrease in public support is also very important.

It’s been under construction for a while. The King has twice been publicly heckled for official talks, and in recent days journalists have been encouraged to ask questions of both Charles and Prince William as if they were fickle politicians.

When the news that Andrew would no longer be prince was broadcast on television, viewers of BBC’s Question Time broke into spontaneous applause.

More and more questions are being asked about the Windsors’ wealth, vast estates and many privileges. The roots of all this can be traced back to the Andrew mess.

However, yesterday’s arrest was not the end of the issue, but the beginning.

Windsor: Police officers are seen at the gates of Andrew’s former Berkshire home at Royal Lodge

King Charles was spotted alongside Stella McCartney in the front row at London Fashion Week on Thursday

It is true that Charles was so cruel in his relations with his brother that the late Queen never recovered.

Andrew’s problem didn’t start on his watch; It was around for almost 12 years until Queen Elizabeth’s death. But there was never any serious exile during his reign. No disgraced relative was cast aside.

Perhaps tempered by her affection for her sister Princess Margaret, first by her thwarted love for the flamboyant horseman Group Captain Peter Townsend, and then by her divorce and scandalous affairs, the Queen chose understanding and moderation in all domestic matters.

In her 1992 annus horribilis speech, delivered just days after the Windsor fire, the Queen acknowledged criticism of the royals but also called for ‘kindness, good humor and understanding’.

Thirty-four years later, public attitudes towards Andrew suggest that the reserves of ‘understanding’ have been exhausted. And probably kindness and humor too.

Many wondered why he didn’t act sooner. The time to act was when the Mail on Sunday published a photograph of the then-Duke of York with his arm around the bare waist of 17-year-old Virginia Giuffre.

Instead, he installed him as a Knight Grand Cross of the Royal Victorian Order, the most senior knighthood below the Garter.

But with Epstein’s death by suicide and Andrew’s deeply offensive, self-justifying interview with BBC Newsnight and his astonishing lack of remorse, the Queen felt compelled to take action.

But even removing him from royal duties and banning him from wearing military uniform was too little, too late.

Matters were not helped by concealment and what I can only describe as a blind belief that Andrew’s truth was real.

It is only with the revelation of the Epstein emails that we know that many of his claims are untrue, such as when he stopped communicating with the financier.

At the heart of this reluctance to properly address the growing disaster was Andrew’s uniquely close relationship with his mother.

Although it was embarrassing, she allowed her favorite son to take her arm at Prince Philip’s memorial service; This is a very public and symbolic moment. And this triggered some serious anger. It showed that the royal family wasn’t listening.

By then there was astonishment even within the Royal Family. When Andrew tried to make a public return at the Garter ceremony in Windsor in 2022, William effectively gave his grandmother an ultimatum: He would back down if his uncle appeared publicly at the parade.

The Queen agreed and Andrew was quietly removed from the public elements of the day at the last minute; so late that his name was still listed in the service line.

Charles could do nothing while his mother hesitated. As Prince of Wales, he strongly opposed Andrew’s appointment as trade ambassador in 2001, warning that it could have disastrous consequences.

But his brother had a powerful ally in Peter Mandelson, and now he was facing his own Epstein showdown.

Still, Charles had to overcome ties of brotherhood and blood. One area where he can still act is to remove his brother from his position as state counselor and in the line of succession; He is currently in eighth place.

Both are still viewed by the public as indulgences that should and can be received.

Yesterday’s attack by plainclothes police on Wood Farm changes everything. Events are no longer under the palace’s control. They are also extremely complex.

If Andrew is charged after his arrest — and his arrest has already placed us in uncharted territory — the legal terrain will be treacherous in ways rarely discussed publicly.

This would lead to a lawsuit and create a global sensation. Imagine the British monarch’s brother being tried in one of Her Majesty’s courts, where judges and magistrates sit under the royal coat of arms. Guilty or not guilty verdicts could be equally damaging to the monarchy.

But consider this: if Mountbatten-Windsor, for example, claimed to have informed the King of any part of his conduct, the constitutional consequences would be extraordinary.

As monarch, Charles cannot testify or be a witness in his own courts. An investigation can collapse, just as the case of royal butler Paul Burrell collapsed in 2002.

It was later revealed that Princess Diana’s butler, who was accused of theft, told the Queen that he had taken some of Diana’s personal belongings and documents for safekeeping.

In this case, the Crown could not call its own monarch as a witness. The case fell apart. Those who understand how these things work have not forgotten this example.

Not so long ago, on February 19, flags would fly on public buildings and church bells would ring to celebrate Andrew’s birthday.

Yesterday, the only background noise on his 66th birthday was the sound of unmarked police cars pounding the gravel of Wood Farm.

His decline may now be complete. The question is whether he will bring the House of Windsor with him.