Prince Andrew’s arrest is not just a scandal. It is a constitutional moment.

For decades, the Royal Family operated within an unspoken assumption: proximity to power meant insulation from consequence. Tonight, that assumption fractured. A senior royal has been arrested on suspicion of misconduct in public office, questioned for eleven hours, and released under investigation while police continue searches linked to the Epstein files.

The symbolism matters. The images matter. A former prince leaving a police station in the back of a car, not a palace balcony, marks a turning point in how institutional accountability is understood in Britain.

The Palace response was equally revealing. King Charles stated that “the law must take its course,” carefully positioning the monarchy alongside the justice system rather than above it. This is crisis management, but it is also survival strategy. The monarchy understands that public legitimacy now depends on visible distance from scandal.

What follows will test more than Andrew. It will test whether royal privilege truly ends where criminal investigation begins. The public has watched years of unanswered questions surrounding Epstein connections, sealed files, and institutional silence. An arrest transforms speculation into process.

This moment is not about gossip. It is about accountability, transparency, and whether centuries-old institutions can withstand modern scrutiny.

History may remember today less as Andrew’s downfall and more as the day the monarchy faced the limits of immunity.

Prince Andrew’s arrest has triggered more than a criminal investigation. It has exposed the Royal Family’s survival instinct in real time. The King’s statement was unmistakable: Andrew now stands alone, and institutional preservation comes before personal loyalty.

For decades, royal crises were managed through silence, delay, and controlled narratives. This moment is different. The monarchy moved immediately to separate itself from Andrew, signaling to the public that legitimacy depends on accountability, not protection.

The language matters. “The law must take its course” was not merely constitutional formality. It was a boundary line. The Crown distancing itself from one of its own is an acknowledgment that modern monarchy survives only if it submits to the same legal scrutiny as everyone else.

Yet the media framing remains revealing. Much coverage centers on Andrew’s humiliation, family embarrassment, and palace optics rather than the underlying allegations or systemic questions about power, access, and historical institutional shielding.

This is not only Andrew’s crisis. It is a test of whether royal transparency is genuine or strategic. The real story is not a fallen prince. It is whether centuries of inherited authority can adapt to an era demanding accountability over deference.