Trigger Warning mention of rape, pedophilia, colonization, racism, cops

*Edited for typos and added links on Feb 20 2026.

**Screenshot** In the foreground, an older man who looks like he’s in his 60s stands in a black suit with many medals on his chest. Behind him stands a uniformed British police officer, seemingly in his 40s. In the background is a beige colored stone wall. Capitalized words in red font across the lower left side of the picture were added by Zarna Joshi and read “PERP WALK??”
This is not a picture of Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor’s perp walk. This is a picture from well before his arrest. The police officer in the picture is there to protect Andrew, not arrest him.

So Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor got arrested today. That’s the Queen’s favorite son I’ve written about before.

This is good news, right? It means that somehow, someway, justice is being done and Virginia Giuffre is finally smiling down from heaven, after her tragic and lonely death last year.

I thought it might be that, until I read the fine print. Then I had a whole different picture.

And then I read the fine print get changed before my eyes, confirming to me that whole different picture.

Confused about what I’m talking about? Here’s what happened:

The AP put out an article that I read this morning that stated clearly that Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor’s arrest was for “misconduct” while in public office. When I read the whole thing, it detailed that he had been arrested because of a Thames Valley Police investigation that showed Andrew allegedly sent confidential British trade reports to Epstein. The UK police were led to do the investigation because of the US Department of Justice’s release of so many Epstein files.

Then I went back to look for that same article to send it to someone, and I saw that it had been changed. The headline was changed from Andrew being “arrested on suspicion of misconduct while in public office” to “arrested on suspicion of misconduct in public office over ties to Epstein”.

When I read the full altered article, I saw that it had all kinds of new content that made it seem like Andrew was being investigated for his relationship to Epstein and Epstein’s sex crimes. The changes additionally made it seem like the UK police were being tougher on Andrew than the earlier version of the article suggested.

If a media outlet amends an article, they’re supposed to say that they’ve amended the article and what their reasons are for doing so. Here, the AP doesn’t say they’ve amended their article or why, which is a major breach of journalistic ethics. It states at the top “Updated 1:02 PM PST, February 19, 2026” but that gives no details about what or how or why.

I went to wayback machine to see if anyone had managed to save the earlier version. Someone managed to save one earlier version. Here’s the headline:

**Screenshot** Headline in white font on black background reads: “**Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor arrested on suspicion of misconduct in public office”** Below is a picture of a white man in his 60s in a dark suit and gold colored tie, standing alone in front of a low fence and greenery.

This above article is an even earlier version than what I read. The version I read was not saved in wayback machine but I saw it and that means I’ve seen three versions of this same article.

Here’s the headline in the latest version:

**Screenshot** Headline in white font on a black background reads: “**Former Prince Andrew arrested on suspicion of misconduct in public office over ties to Epstein”** Below is a picture of an older man in his 60s with his arms seemingly behind his back standing in front of a uniformed police man, with another man standing to his side, holding a some kind of object of office.

Look at the clear difference in how the article was first presented (in as early a version as I could find), and how it’s being presented now. They’re almost two completely different articles. In the earlier version, there’s no mention of Andrew’s alleged sexual misconduct, and the picture of Andrew presents a much softer tone. In the latest version, Epstein is clearly named, and the picture looks like a “perp walk”, even though Andrew didn’t do any perp walk and was in fact taken into custody in private by plainclothes police officers on the king’s estate in Norfolk. These details were in the article I read earlier.

Even now the article says: “Earlier in the day, pictures circulated online that appeared to show unmarked police cars at Wood Farm, Mountbatten-Windsor’s home on the Sandringham Estate in Norfolk, with plainclothes officers gathering outside.”

But they’re not showing those “earlier in the day” pictures of plainclothes police and Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor escorted by those police out of his royal Norfolk home. They’re showing pictures of somewhere else, from another time, that have nothing to do with Andrew’s arrest today.

There is only one vague reference to the fact that the AP changed their article in their latest version but it’s still not a clear admission that they changed any of their writing;

“Police previously said they were “assessing” reports that Mountbatten-Windsor sent trade information to Epstein, a wealthy investor and convicted sex offender, in 2010, when the former prince was Britain’s special envoy for international trade. Correspondence between the two men was released by the U.S. Justice Department late last month along with millions of pages of documents from the American investigation into Epstein.”
““Following a thorough assessment, we have now opened an investigation into this allegation of misconduct in public office,’’ Assistant Chief Constable Oliver Wright said in a statement.”

When I look at the whole article, I see that the AP have changed the entire thing from the headline to the main picture to the content and they don’t tell their reader how they’ve changed it. Ethical journalistic conduct of long standing demands that a media outlet inform its reader if they change even one word they’ve published. They’re also supposed to tell their reader what they changed and why they changed it. Here, the AP have changed the entire article, including the tone of the article, without mentioning a word about what or why except to say “Updated”.

You might wonder why this matters, why anyone would care, why I’m so bothered by the details. I’m bothered because it’s important. I’m pointing out to you how you’re being manipulated. I’m teaching you English Language 101 right now.

The real details are that Andrew’s arrest has nothing to do with rape or sex trafficking or sexually abusing minors, and everything to do with the fact that Andrew might have exposed the secrets of rich people’s global money grubbing.

If the UK police cared about Andrew’s alleged sex crimes, why has he not been criminally investigated for them? If the media cared about his alleged sex crimes, why would they not put immense pressure on the police to investigate those crimes? The AP is making this current arrest seem like the same thing when it is clearly not the same at all.

Why did it take the US Department of Justice’s release of some Epstein files to prompt an investigation in the UK but only in relationship to trade reports?

Saying that Andrew may have shared confidential trade reports with Epstein while he was in a public role as a trade envoy for the UK, is a polite way of saying “espionage”. Andrew may have betrayed his country, allegedly.

I think that a prince of the realm allegedly raping minors should also be counted as betraying his country but the UK police clearly don’t think so, otherwise they would have investigated him for that betrayal long ago. That suggests strongly that the UK police don’t take rape seriously, they don’t take abuse of minors seriously, and they don’t take the public seriously. It suggests strongly that the UK police only care about money. That seems to be the crux of it.

It’s not that financial crimes aren’t important. Of course financial crimes are important. So is rape. Why are all of Andrew’s alleged crimes not being investigated?

By the way, I highly doubt the British police see financial crimes the same way you and I do. To them, the crime is that Andrew allegedly exposed rich peoples’ backroom trade dealings. They didn’t arrest Andrew for colonial looting even though the royal family has been colonially looting countries for centuries, as evidenced by the crown jewels.

My opinion (that I cannot yet prove but I’ll still tell you) is that King Charles III (and very likely Prince William) is angry that Andrew may have shared corrupt British trade dealings with Epstein, potentially exposing colonial looting by the royal family. I think that King Charles III wants to teach Andrew a lesson — and simultaneously warn every other member of the royal family — to never mess with his money. Public disgrace keeps everyone in line in that family.

In the latest version of the AP article, King Charles III is quoted:

““Let me state clearly: the law must take its course,’’ the king said.”

It’s unprecendented for a reigning monarch of England to comment in such a way. The last time a senior member of the royal family was arrested was four hundred years ago, when King Charles I was arrested, tried, and beheaded during England’s civil war.

Andrew’s arrest comes with an added benefit for King Charles III — of seeming to do something about Andrew’s alleged sex crimes when, in fact, King Charles III has done nothing about that at all. He hasn’t investigated Andrew’s alleged sex crimes, and he hasn’t publicly urged an investigation. He won’t do anything until public pressure forces him to do so.

King Charles III making Andrew move out of Royal Lodge doesn’t count as doing something, by the way. He simply moved his brother from one royal residence to another royal residence.

The latest version of the AP article even states: “Last week, the palace said it was ready to cooperate with police investigating Mountbatten-Windsor.” As if the king is taking tough action against Andrew by cooperating with police (and as if the police don’t literally work for the king). Logically, any reasonable person might understand that King Charles III only being ready to cooperate since last week indicates that before last week the king didn’t cooperate with police regarding his brother’s alleged crimes, whether sex or trade or espionage.

Rape is a crime. Sex trafficking is a crime. Raping and sex trafficking minors is a crime. Andrew has not been investigated or charged for any of these alleged crimes despite evidence, publicly available for years, linking him to such crimes. King Charles III had the power and influence since his mother’s death, and even well before his mother’s death, to ensure both investigation and criminal charges for his brother. He did not.

It seems to me that the public are being led to feel grateful that King Charles III is finally willing to “cooperate” with police. The same police who work for him.

Even though Andrew has long been the focus of the royal family’s sex scandals, Andrew’s ex-wife was also involved with Epstein. Andrew’s daughters are also connected to Epstein.

Here’s the thing: King Charles III himself was best friends with Jimmy Saville, a prolific pedophile and rapist. As a child, King Charles III was mentored by his uncle, the pedophile Lord Mountbatten. Lord Mountbatten is who the royal family took part of their adopted family name from, Mountbatten-Windsor. Their real name is German, Saxe-Coburg-Gotha. So Charles’ close mentor and guide was his uncle, a pedophile.

Do you really think the royal family with all their guards and all their intelligence and all their servants and all their media didn’t know about Lord Mountbatten’s sexual activities? During WWII, even the FBI kept files on Lord Mountbatten’s pedophiliac crimes all over the British empire.

That means that the late Queen allowed a known pedophile to mentor her son and heir who was then a child and is now King Charles III.

It means that her father, the late King George VI, allowed his daughter and heir to marry a man (Prince Philip) who’s uncle was a pedophile (Lord Mountbatten).

It means the entire royal family going back generations is up to their necks in pedophile associations.

For late Queen Elizabeth II’s favorite son Andrew to now be arrested for “misconduct”, and for the current King Charles III to seem to be tough on Andrew, it helps the royal family sweep their other scandals under the rug. Sort of like “the idiot weak link has been arrested, everyone, so go back to sleep now.”

Don’t go back to sleep.

Wake up.

Virginia Giuffre’s family are quoted in the latest version of the AP’s article:

“The allegations being investigated Thursday are separate from those made by Virginia Giuffre, who claimed she was trafficked to Britain to have sex with Andrew in 2001, when she was just 17. Giuffre died by suicide last year.
“Still, Giuffre’s family praised the arrest, saying that their “broken hearts have been lifted at the news that no one is above the law, not even royalty.”
“The family added: “He was never a prince. For survivors everywhere, Virginia did this for you.””

Virginia Giuffre’s bravery in exposing Andrew and so many other alleged perpetrators of Epstein’s network was heroic. She came forward and made it impossible for Andrew to hide, even though accusations against Andrew had quietly circulated for years beforehand. Andrew’s arrest is a victory for her and all of Epstein’s victims and survivors, but unless the public keep demanding the truth this arrest will only win one battle, not the war.

Whether the AP changed their article because they got a memo from their own higher ups or from the British royal family (which has a close friendly relationship with all the world’s biggest press) or from UK police or from US intelligence or from some other powerful people, the point is that the AP changed their article. The way they changed it is manipulative because they changed it to make it seem like the UK police were being tougher on Andrew than they actually are. They made it seem like the king was being proactive for survivors. They changed it to make it seem like it was about Epstein, instead of about money and trade and colonial looting.

If there was no memo from higher ups and it was the editorial team themselves who decided to change everything about their own article, why? And why did they not tell their reader they changed it? Why did the AP allow such an unethical thing to occur?

If they did this to one article then in how many other articles have they done this? For how long have they done this? And why have no other media outlets exposed them for it?

Unless all the other media outlets are doing the same thing…

Don’t be manipulated.

Demand the truth. Search for the truth. Be relentless.

Victims and survivors everywhere need for you to demand the truth. Those who didn’t survive, like Virginia, need the truth.

Be relentless.

Expose all lies and manipulation.

Demand the truth and nothing but the truth.

In the time it took me to write this article, the AP “updated” their article yet again, with still no explanation of how or why they updated it. Their latest version says “Updated 3:57 PM PST, February 19, 2026.”

Screenshot Black font on a white background reads: “By Danica Kirka” and below that: “Updated 3:57pm PST, February 19, 2026”.

The latest update shows the king’s same comment has been moved up to the fourth paragraph, making his voice the most prominent and authoritative of the piece. Much below that, comments from Virginia Giuffre’s sister and brother have been added, doubling down on the idea that this arrest is to do with Andrew’s alleged sex crimes, when it’s actually about money.

The article ends with ““There’ll be no special treatment for him,″ Shaw said” referring to Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor likely being put in a normal police cell. The article doesn’t confirm that Andrew was put in a normal cell, only that it’s “likely” because someone said it was. With all these updates, why didn’t the AP bother to confirm what type of cell he was put into?

Continually changing the article to make Andrew’s arrest seem like something it’s not is special treatment for both Andrew and King Charles III.

I’ve been trying to save each version of the article I see on the wayback machine but the site keeps crashing. I’m not sure if my latest attempt was saved.