Prince Andrew is facing renewed scrutiny in Britain after royal biographer and former Vanity Fair editor Tina Brown argued that the disgraced royal's reputation as a Falklands War "hero" helped foster what she described as decades of entitlement, exploitation and institutional protection inside the monarchy.
Writing in her Substack essay titled Can the Andrew File Get Any Worse?, Brown revisited the Duke of York's rise within the royal family and claimed the adulation he received after the 1982 Falklands War contributed to "a farcically warped view of his own minimal abilities."
The essay arrives as Prince Andrew continues to live largely outside public royal life following the fallout from his association with convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein and the civil sexual assault lawsuit brought by Virginia Giuffre, which Andrew settled in 2022 without admitting liability.
Brown's latest assessment goes beyond Epstein, however. Instead, she portrays Andrew's downfall as the predictable result of a royal culture that she argues shielded him from accountability for decades.
According to Brown, Andrew returned from the Falklands conflict elevated by patriotic British tabloids and treated as a national symbol despite serving as a Sea King helicopter co-pilot rather than in a senior combat role.
She wrote that "jingoistic newspaper accolades spread out on the breakfast table at Balmoral" after the war helped create lasting distortions in how Andrew viewed himself and his status inside the monarchy.
Quoting a friend from Andrew's younger years, Brown argued the problem "wasn't just the Queen's favouritism," but the combination of royal privilege and public praise that reinforced what she described as his inflated self-image.
The portrait Brown paints is one of a prince who grew accustomed to institutional flexibility and exceptional treatment. She cited accounts claiming military helicopters were allegedly made available to Andrew "whenever he wanted," including trips to golf outings at St Andrews Links.
Brown's essay heavily references claims from author Andrew Lownie and his biography Entitled, which examines Andrew's years as Britain's special representative for international trade and investment.
According to Brown, former officials allegedly viewed Andrew as "the bane of the Foreign Office," accusing him of inappropriate conduct, excessive spending and embarrassing behavior during overseas diplomatic assignments.
She wrote that civil servants complained Andrew was "running around the world with his rampant sceptre, telling toilet jokes" while allegedly using taxpayer-funded accommodations for "cavorting 'masseuses.'"
None of those allegations have been proven in court, and Buckingham Palace has historically denied accusations that Andrew improperly used public money or abused official privileges.
Brown nevertheless argued that the larger issue was institutional. In her view, the monarchy's status and mystique insulated Andrew from scrutiny that would likely have damaged a public figure outside royal circles far earlier.
She wrote that Andrew and his former wife Sarah Ferguson eventually came to "symbolise a rot at the heart of the whole royal system, in which the monarchy's 'aura' allows its members absolute impunity."
Brown also referenced longstanding controversies surrounding Ferguson and Epstein, as well as allegations tied to music mogul Sean 'Diddy' Combs, though many of those claims remain disputed or denied.
The renewed criticism comes as Prince Andrew remains largely absent from official royal duties after being stripped of his honorary military titles and royal patronages by King Charles III and the late Queen Elizabeth II.
Brown's essay also references ongoing investigative scrutiny surrounding Andrew's connections to Epstein. While the article describes the ex-prince as remaining under "criminal investigation," Andrew has not been formally charged with a criminal offense and continues to deny wrongdoing.
