This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.

Aviation: Biography This article is within the scope of the Aviation WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.AviationWikipedia:WikiProject AviationTemplate:WikiProject Aviationaviation This article is supported by the aerospace biography project. Biography: Military / Peerage and Baronetage / Royalty and Nobility This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography This article is supported by the military biography work group (assessed as Low-importance). This article is supported by WikiProject Peerage and Baronetage (assessed as Mid-importance). This article is supported by WikiProject Royalty and Nobility (assessed as Mid-importance). British Royalty High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject British Royalty (a child project of the Royalty and Nobility Work Group), an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to British Royalty on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you should visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.British RoyaltyWikipedia:WikiProject British RoyaltyTemplate:WikiProject British RoyaltyBritish royalty High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Crime and Criminal Biography Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of crime and criminal biography on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Crime and Criminal BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyCrime-related Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Military history: Aviation / Biography / Maritime / British / European / Cold War / Post-Cold War This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history Associated task forces: /  Military aviation task force Military biography task force Maritime warfare task force British military history task force European military history task force Cold War task force (c. 1945 – c. 1989) Post-Cold War task force Scouting Low‑importance Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor is part of the Scouting WikiProject, an effort to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Scouting and Guiding on the Wikipedia. This includes but is not limited to boy and girl organizations, WAGGGS and WOSM organizations as well as those not so affiliated, country and region-specific topics, and anything else related to Scouting. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.ScoutingWikipedia:WikiProject ScoutingTemplate:WikiProject ScoutingScouting Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. London Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject London, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of London on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LondonWikipedia:WikiProject LondonTemplate:WikiProject LondonLondon-related Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

The following reference(s) may be useful when improving this article in the future: https://www.wsj.com/world/uk/prince-andrew-king-charles-british-royals-72f01c26?mod=saved_content

I've shortened his name in the lead, to Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor, as his full name is in the infobox. If anybody disagrees? Please bring forward other options. GoodDay (talk) 21:36, 6 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Keivan.f: reverted my change to the lead. Is the change in Andrew's status, something new? I'll let ya'll figure this one out. GoodDay (talk) 20:16, 7 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see why as a non-royal person he should be treated any differently from other citizens. We start the opening sentence of numerous biographies with the subject's full name, including his non-royal relatives such as Lady Louise Windsor. This page is no exception. Keivan.f^Talk 23:20, 7 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

There is no legal obligation to use any particular name in England. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ~2026-47564-4 (talk) 14:33, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I think @GoodDay is correct here. MOS:NAME states, for the first sentence of a biographical article, if the person is conventionally known by only their first and last names and disambiguation is not required, any middle names should be omitted. Aoi (青い) (talk) 03:22, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

We are not disambiguating of course. We are giving out his full name as it's done for a gazillion of other biographies, including the one on his grandmother. Makes zero sense to make an exception out of this article. Keivan.f^Talk 15:58, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Except that this is exactly what the manual of style says to do. Aoi (青い) (talk) 17:08, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

MoS is not a policy. Keivan.f^Talk 22:59, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Is it not reasonable in this regard, though? I must say, I do not see why we should list the whole string of names in the lead sentence of this article–or, indeed, in the articles about any of his family members. "Charles Philip Arthur George" is just trivia. Nobody calls him that. Surtsicna (talk) 23:09, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

That's kinda a separate discussion because the whole setup for the royal biographies is different (the names are included in parentheses, etc.). I believe we had a discussion on that at Talk:Charles III and it got us nowhere. Keivan.f^Talk 01:37, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Does this warrant inclusion?

• McArthur, Tom; Heyndyk, Rachel Muller; Izundu, Chi Chi (30 January 2026). "Epstein files photos appear to show Andrew on all fours over female". BBC News. Retrieved 31 January 2026.

– GnocchiFan (talk) 11:14, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I have added info from that to this page "Relationship of Prince Andrew and Jeffrey Epstein" feel free to add more to it. ItsShandog (talk) 11:58, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! GnocchiFan (talk) 08:22, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@GnocchiFan On the subject of "latest photos", is there not a more recent and even more (in)famous photo which might now be considered worthy for inclusion in this article? GroovingSynthesis (talk) 23:48, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

In the first paragraph of "charitable work > patronages" it is written "nothing that" when I think it should be "noting that".

I hope you have a lovely day ! WickedFalconer (talk) 13:55, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Mikeycdiamond (talk) 14:04, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Currently the article says that he’s eighth in line for the throne. How can this be? ~2026-74796-0 (talk) 11:32, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

He is still eighth in the line of succession, there would need to be an act of parliament to remove him explicitly. This is mentioned in this ref [1] – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 11:51, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed he is still 8th in line to the Throne and he is also a Councillor of State, although it is highly unlikely he would be asked to perform this function. He is also still Duke of York Earl of Inverness and Baron Killyleagh, but only in an informal capacity. Removal from the Roll of the Peerage does not formally remove peerage titles, they are still extant but not formally in use. If he were to remarry and have a son, the male heir would inherit all three peerage titles. As mentioned only an Act of Parliament can change the succession to the Throne and at least formally suspend peerage titles.Ds1994 (talk) 22:13, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

A simple conversion to Roman Catholicism would also do the trick. Surtsicna (talk) 02:26, 7 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

What a weird way to run a country! Does his eldest daughter not inherit the titles upon his death, or does possession of the "wrong" genitalia preclude inheritance in the same way as believing in the slightly "wrong" flavour of deity does? Oh, wait, it's the same deity... Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 20:03, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Normally hereditary peerages are passed to males only, the normal wording in the Letters Patent being ' males of the body lawfully begotten'. Exceptions can be made, these are called a 'special remainder' whereby females may also inherit. In some extreme cases such as the Dukedom of Marlborough it would be almost impossible for the title to become extinct. The most bizarre example is the Earldom of Selkirk, but I will leave it there on that one. In the case of the current Duke of York, as things stand the title will become extinct on death of the current holder and will merge back into the Crown.Ds1994 (talk) 15:54, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Mention should be made of the fact that the payment to settle the Victoria Guiffre case was provided by his mother, queen Elizabeth. It is useful public information for her "subjects" to know she paid money out of pocket to avoid the negative press associated either her son having to defend himself and the truth coming out.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/royal-family/2022/02/15/queen-help-pay-12m-prince-andrew-settlement/ ~2026-75327-1 (talk) 15:03, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

That's at Virginia Giuffre v. Prince Andrew. DrKay (talk) 15:16, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Should be added here as he is one of the most infamous Epstein associates ~2026-78989-4 (talk) 11:27, 7 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Alongside Mette-Marit, Crown Princess of Norway, Andrew is one of the most high profile Epstein associates and thus also warrants inclusion in this category. ~2026-78989-4 (talk) 21:50, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The article refers to him as "Andrew" in most places, whereas other people are referred to by their surnames (in this and other articles) Now that he is no longer prince, I feel that this difference is hard to justify, and that these references should be changed to "Mountbatten-Windsor". Obviously I'm aware that this surname is comparably long, so it may make sense also to change to a pronoun where possible. ~2026-90174-2 (talk) 18:40, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like no one wanted to take on the rather laborious and boring job of changing all the Andrews when he ceased being a Prince. Where's a gnome when you need one? DeCausa (talk) 18:54, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

At the time it was discussed on the talkpage and it was agreed to keep "Andrew" because most news organizations still referred to him mononymously. But it seems like nowadays he does tend to be referred to as "Mountbatten-Windsor" more so you may be right that it's worth revisiting now. Chessrat ^{(talk, contributions)} 02:28, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The main issue is that referring to him as "Mountbatten-Windsor" for events prior to November 2025 would be anachronistic. "Andrew" is used for those older events in accordance with MOS:SURNAME's exception for royalty who do not use a surname – which he did not at the time. There are probably a few instances where the surname could now be used instead, though editors seem to have favoured consistency for those few recent events. Rosbif73 (talk) 19:33, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

He should take a leaf out of his ex-wife's book: she was called Sarah Ferguson before, during, and since the end of, her marriage. Much the same for Prince William's wife: Catherine Middleton is still what she gets called even after going from that maiden name to Duchess of Cambridge and then to Princess of Wales. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 03:05, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

All of these "nobles" should be called by their actual names - we have articles on here where Mary Bloggs gets married to Somenobletitle Bob Smith-Doublebarrel and her article title somehow becomes Femininetitle Bob Smith-Doublebarrel, and this is apparently ok, because why would a woman need her own name?! Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 19:34, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

People get to be called by what they choose to be called–especially when sources go along with it. Surtsicna (talk) 21:48, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I really doubt any of the women concerned are actually choosing to be called Michael or William Smith-Doublebarrel... Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 21:25, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The phrase "former member of the British royal family" was recently added by another editor. I removed it because, while some journalistic sources may use that wording for dramatic effect, it is not a literal or accurate description. A person cannot stop being a member of their own family, regardless of titles, roles, or public duties. His parentage does not change. Another editor reverted my removal and asked me to start a discussion here, so I am doing that. For a long time the lead simply described him as the son of Queen Elizabeth II and Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh, and that was the stable version. I have restored that wording for now. We need consensus on whether "member of the royal family" should appear in the lead at all. ItsShandog (talk) 13:26, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

There is a difference between "family" and "royal family"- that of a family unit and an institution. King Charles cannot remove Andrew's status as his brother, but he can remove him from involvement in royal matters. If most sources refer to him as a former royal family member, that's what we do. If those sources are incorrect, you need to take that up with them. 331dot (talk) 13:30, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Agree entirely. In the UK context at least, the term "royal family" has come to refer to a particular subset of the family of the monarch, namely those who represent the institution of the British monarchy. Andrew is no longer part of the institution, though of course he remains part of the family unit.

That said, I see nothing wrong with the stable version of the lead, and no particular need to include "[former] member of the British royal family" in the opening sentence. Rosbif73 (talk) 13:40, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I understand the distinction you're making, but being described as a "former prince" is not the same thing as being a "former member of the British royal family". Journalistic sources often use dramatic or shorthand wording, and we don't have to copy that literally into the lead. Unless the royal family itself has formally stated that he is no longer a member, I don't think we should present it as an encyclopaedic fact.

It also doesn’t make sense to call him a "former member" when he is still receiving private accommodation paid for by the King. That doesn't look very "former". I would only understand that wording if there had been an explicit statement saying he was no longer part of the royal family.

If the intention is to refer to the institutional side, then the accurate wording would be "former working member of the royal family", not "former member" in an absolute sense.

Given that nobody is going to fully agree on "member" versus "former member", I still think the most neutral and unambiguous option is to leave that wording out entirely and stick to the undisputed facts: he is the son of Queen Elizabeth II and Prince Philip, and the brother of King Charles III. That avoids confusion and avoids importing journalistic phrasing into the lead. ItsShandog (talk) 13:43, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The King, like any other person, can pay to house anyone he wants to. That said, I thought that line had been in the lead longer than it had been. I still think it reasonable to include, but I have nothing to add and don't wish to contest this further. Thank you. 331dot (talk) 13:58, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

For context, I was the one who added the "former" wording in the lead sentence. From what I understood he left the Royal Family, with various sources, such as BBC or NBC referring to him as "former Prince" or explicitly "former member of the Royal family". I figured there was a distinction between being related by blood and being a member of the Royal Family, which implies that they are an heir to the throne. Anyways, I'd imagine some kind of consensus could be useful. AwakenedAmerican1776 (talk) 15:32, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

As our article on the British royal family makes clear, there is no hard-and-fast definition of who is included. Sometimes the term is used to mean only people with royal styles (HM/HRH), but other times it includes people like the children of Peter Phillips and of Zara Tindall (i.e. the Princess Royal's grandchildren), who are untitled and carry out no duties. Even the royal website is not very helpful: it has a page which supposedly lists Members of The Royal Family, but in fact it only lists adults, and no one would seriously suggest that (say) Prince George of Wales isn't a member of the royal family. Except in the case of those who are always included (like the Prince and Princess of Wales and the Princess Royal), it is therefore difficult to say of anyone that they are "a member of the British royal family" with absolute authority. It simply isn't a term with any fixed meaning. Proteus (Talk) 14:34, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Without any clear definition it is necessary to fully understand the current status of the individual involved before making any assumption. At present Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor remains 8th in line to the Throne of the United Kingdom and the fourteen other Commonwealth Realms. As such, he takes precedence over HRH The Duke of Edinburgh and his children, and HRH The Princess Royal and her descendants. He also remains a Councillor of State, although he will not be called upon to perform this function due to his absence from royal duties. Removal of princely titles and forms of address should therefore not infer removal from the Royal Family, it suggests the person is an inactive member of that family. There has been no formal notification of removal either, such as a Letters Patent issued by the King. He is also still Duke of York Earl of Inverness and Baron Killyleagh, although these peerage titles may only be used on an informal basis. Only an Act of Parliament can formally remove a person from the line of succession and at least suspend hereditary peerage titles. Until a suitable Act of Parliament is passed we should assume that Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor is still a member of the Royal Family, although an inactive one in terms of current royal duties.Ds1994 (talk) 19:05, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, I never even thought of that the fact he's still in the line of succession and people want to put former member while it says he's still in the line of succession its very contradictory and makes no sense whatsoever lol. ItsShandog (talk) 19:08, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Also agree. I think the current neutral approach with the removal of the 'former member' statement is the right approach. It would be good to achieve consensus on this.Ds1994 (talk) 19:39, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

There's no contradiction between not being a member of the royal family and being in the line of succession. Andrew happens to be the first adult in the line of succession not to be a member, but there are plenty of others. But the situation is not straightforward and I favour the current approach of keeping the opening paragraph neutral and explaining the details further down. Rosbif73 (talk) 08:05, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

As per official sources, his surname does not have a hyphen between the two names. Is this something that we should change? A page name change? AussieWikiDan (talk) 05:57, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I didn't see this message before I reverted your edit. You are correct that initially, his name was not hyphenated. However, subsequently, Buckingham Palace changed its mind. See reference 274 from the article, which states, "Royal sources have now confirmed that Mountbatten-Windsor will indeed use the punctuation mark between his two last names. It is understood the palace has examined the 1960 privy council declaration, which includes a hyphen, and will use one from now on." The royal family's website also now uses the hyphen. Aoi (青い) (talk) 06:35, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

To add to this article: the fact that an email in the Epstein files (document no. EFTA00866465) has been found to state that Virginia Giuffre had consensual sex with Prince Andrew. Source: https://www.justice.gov/epstein/files/DataSet%209/EFTA00866465.pdf ~2026-90336-1 (talk) 00:14, 19 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

That's already in Relationship of Prince Andrew and Jeffrey Epstein#Allegations and related developments. One claim in one private email sent by a journalist does not merit inclusion here. DrKay (talk) 08:24, 19 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Change:

To: Add the following sentence to the "Jeffrey Epstein and related associations" section (or the most relevant legal/controversies section):

"On 19 February 2026, Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor was arrested on suspicion of misconduct in public office." ^[1] Bslink (talk) 10:10, 19 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like this has already been added by other editors. It also looks like there's a minor edit war going on over where to put it and how to word it. Salmon Of Ignorance (talk) 10:49, 19 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

This bbc article doesn’t seem to confirm it’s related to sexual abuse allegations. It states …investigate a complaint by the anti-monarchy group Republic, which reported Mountbatten-Windsor for suspected misconduct in public office and breach of official secrets.

As far as I can tell RS are suggesting the arrest is tied to alleged sharing of official secrets to Epstein. Until we have confirmation this is/isnt related to alleged sex crimes, it probably shouldn’t be placed here. Zenomonoz (talk) 13:47, 19 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

You are right - the text is all correct and doesn't mention sexual abuse but it is under the sexual abuse header. Salmon Of Ignorance (talk) 14:15, 19 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I have moved it to a completely different section of its own because it is significant enough and doesn't really work anywhere else on the page because it will be hidden away and people will think it isn't there and keep readding it. ItsShandog (talk) 14:46, 19 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Did we come up to a consensus on what is to happen if Andrew dies sometime soon and not decades from now, and the new era of him being stripped of his princely title and the suppression of his use of Duke of York has not beaten out the older style use? To my understanding, the rules state that once dead, the most common name for him should be the title, which would be a reversal of the change that occurred back in November. Does anyone know what the plan is? The Stratman (talk) 18:43, 19 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

There is no plan, because if there were, we'd all know about it, Wikipedia being a consensus-driven project all of whose transactions are online for everyone to see. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 19:01, 19 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the update. What do you think we should do since it's consensus based? The Stratman (talk) 19:05, 19 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@The Stratman wikt:cross that bridge when one comes to it --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 19:49, 19 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I would protect this page against unregistered accounts for now because he just made headlines connected to Epstein, which in itself is connected to Trump. Wikis6501 (talk) 19:19, 19 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind since mine is an account I have access lol. Wikis6501 (talk) 19:21, 19 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to add about prince andrews recent arrest in february of 2026 ~2025-43105-74 (talk) 19:42, 19 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

•  Not done: it's not clear what changes you want made. Please detail the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScalarFactor (talk) 20:02, 19 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Quite obvious what is being asked here. However, this information has already been added to the article. Strugglehouse (talk) 20:37, 19 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I’m looking for input on what the most appropriate section heading should be for the material about Andrew’s 2026 arrest. Another editor has suggested “Allegations of misconduct in public office”, while I’ve used “Arrest and police investigation” because it’s shorter, easier to locate, and reflects the most significant part of the section. The details of the allegation itself are already explained within the section, so a more concise heading seemed clearer. I’d appreciate thoughts on which heading editors feel is more accurate and neutral under BLP.ItsShandog (talk) 20:41, 19 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The arrest was related to police investigations into allegations of misconduct in public office. For that reason, I think the section name should reflect that it was not just a random arrest, or that he was arrested before the new investigation started. It may be appropriate for the arrest to have a subsection of its own in the new section if more details emerge about the investigation. -- DeFacto (talk). 20:55, 19 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with DeFacto on this. In addition to what DeFacto said, a lot of people initially assumed that the arrest was related to the Epstein sex trafficking rather than misconduct in public office, so providing clarity in the heading would likely be helpful to readers. Aoi (青い) (talk) 23:50, 19 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I changed it to that after starting this. ItsShandog (talk) 08:05, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Was he the most recent sibling of the monarch to be arrested since Elizabeth I? What about James Scott, 1st Duke of Monmouth? He could have been the most recent legitimate sibling since Elizabeth I, but there could be some dispute about whether Elizabeth was legitimate. PatGallacher (talk) 01:41, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Monmouth had lots of siblings or half-siblings, but none of them was a monarch. His father and uncle were (the latter reigning at the time of his arrest), and his first cousins included two later queens and a pretender.—Odysseus1479 03:55, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

In the "Allegations regarding behaviour" section of the article, former royal protection officer Paul Page makes a number of serious allegations against Andrew. My view is that if serious allegations are made on a biography by a convicted fraudster, it is due weight to briefly mention that fraud conviction to give some additional context, because otherwise readers may assume the former royal protection officer is an impeccable source. As per WP:BLP, all biographies should be written cautiously. I'm entirely impartial about the allegations against Andrew, but I suspect that if a convicted fraudster made serious allegations about for example, Keir Starmer or Kemi Badenoch, it would be due weight to briefly mention the fraud conviction in their biographies.

The Guardian reported that Paul Page "defrauded colleagues, friends and others out of life savings, redundancy cash, pension payouts, retirement money and loans. Many of his "innocent dupes", including police officers guarding the Queen, lost five- and six-figure fortunes."

Sergeant Adam McGregor, a royal protection colleague, lost £150,000 and had to sell his home to stave off bankruptcy. "I was totally sucked in by Paul. He is a very charismatic person," McGregor said.^[1]

Given that Page's crimes included defrauding police officers and royal protection colleagues out of very large sums of money, it does raise a question mark about the integrity of Page as a reliable witness. Because biographies should be written cautiously, I do think it is due weight to briefly mention his fraud conviction alongside the serious allegations Page has made about Andrew. I am therefore today reinstating the brief mention of Page's fraud conviction to the article. Regards, Kind Tennis Fan (talk) 05:22, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Kind Tennis Fan I totally agree, and I have now restored a sentence from an earlier version of the article which mentions that he was involved in a huge property scam in 2009. It should not have been removed in the first place. Keivan.f^Talk 18:27, 21 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

There's simply that he was arrested, but no citation on any public file, date or exact time? This is important as it's an on-going thing and we don't want to miss anything that could be noted ~2026-11272-05 (talk) 05:39, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew has been released from police custody so the article should mention this. Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:18, 21 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

It does. DrKay (talk) 16:25, 21 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The Order of the Garter should be removed from the illustration of his coat of arms. LeComte1789 (talk) 18:01, 21 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Keivan.f^Talk 18:31, 21 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

May thanks! LeComte1789 (talk) 20:27, 21 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks! LeComte1789 (talk) 20:27, 21 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]