Keep Factually independent
Whether you agree or disagree with our analysis, these conversations matter for democracy. We don't take money from political groups - even a $5 donation helps us keep it that way.
Have any other members of the royal family publicly commented on the allegations against Prince Andrew?
Executive Summary
The available reporting shows limited direct public comment from senior royals on the allegations against Prince Andrew; most statements have come from Buckingham Palace as institutional responses or from individuals closely connected to Andrew such as Sarah Ferguson, while the monarch and Queen Camilla have been represented through palace statements and behind-the-scenes decisions. Coverage from 2019 through October 2025 documents a pattern of restraint by most working royals, with occasional private influence and selective interventions that were later presented publicly via official palace communications [1] [2] [3] [4].
1. What royals have spoken publicly — not much but some family-adjacent voices
Reporting across multiple years confirms that direct public statements by other senior royals about the allegations have been scarce; the most explicit public interventions have been institutional — Buckingham Palace releases and King Charles’s decisions — rather than a stream of personal public comment from multiple family members. Coverage from 2019 noted a deliberate royal reticence after the BBC interview fallout, with senior royals said to avoid public pronouncements and instead manage matters privately [1]. Sarah Ferguson, Andrew’s ex-wife, has been a notable exception who has made public remarks in support of Andrew, while other working royals have largely refrained from commenting publicly on the allegations themselves, preferring either silence or palace statements as the official channel [2] [5].
2. How the monarch and Queen Camilla entered the public record — institutional messages and behind-the-scenes influence
Recent palace actions in October 2025 demonstrate that the most significant public positions were taken by the institution of the monarchy, announced via Buckingham Palace, which explicitly described “serious lapses of judgement” and expressed sympathy for victims; these statements carry the authority of Their Majesties but are presented as official decisions rather than personal, free-standing comments from multiple individual royals [3] [6]. Reporting also attributes influence to Queen Camilla in King Charles’s handling of Andrew, portraying her concerns about her own work with abuse survivors as a factor in the decision-making; that influence is reported indirectly rather than as a standalone public pronouncement by Camilla herself, reflecting a combination of private counsel and public institutional outcome [4].
3. Timeline: restraint, occasional defence, then institutional distancing
Across the timeline, the pattern is initial royal caution after the 2019 BBC interview, intermittent personal defenses, and culminating institutional distancing in 2025. Early coverage documented an absence of public comment by Charles and other senior royals while Sarah Ferguson made occasional public statements in Andrew’s favour and political figures urged the palace to act [1] [2]. By 2025 the story shifted: palace statements and the King’s decision to strip Andrew of titles and remove him from royal residence formed the most concrete public response, framed as a measure to protect the monarchy’s reputation and to acknowledge victims — the shift from silence to formal institutional action is central to recent coverage [7] [3].
4. Voices outside the royal family and competing narratives that shaped the public record
Media and external actors filled the gap left by royal silence, producing competing narratives that influenced public understanding: survivors’ advocates and victims’ families framed the palace actions as overdue accountability, republic campaigners argued the measures were insufficient, and political figures positioned the matter as a private family issue, refusing governmental intervention. Reporting documents these divergent reactions alongside palace statements, which further amplified the sense that the royals’ public posture was deliberately institutional and controlled rather than conversational or confessional from multiple family members [7] [8].
5. Where ambiguity remains and what to watch next
Despite detailed palace releases and several media reports, ambiguities persist about private consultations and who within the royal family advocated for specific actions, because most accounts rely on palace statements or unnamed senior sources rather than on public remarks from individual royals. The coverage indicates that further clarity would come only if individual family members choose to speak publicly, if additional palace statements are issued, or if contemporaneous documents or authorized biographies surface; for now, the factual record shows institutional response and select personal comment (notably from Sarah Ferguson), but not broad, direct public commentary from multiple senior royals [4] [2] [6].