Full Analysis Summary
Reported arrest and police probe
Large parts of the UK and international press report that Andrew Mountbatten‑Windsor was arrested on 19 February on suspicion of misconduct in public office.
They say he was held for roughly 10–11 hours and was released under investigation.
Reports say police have searched properties linked to him, including Royal Lodge and other addresses.
The Thames Valley and Metropolitan Police have asked current and former protection officers to review relevant material.
Those reports say the forces are coordinating inquiries with other UK forces and US authorities.
Several outlets link the probe to newly released material tied to Jeffrey Epstein and say inquiries are ongoing.
Coverage Differences
Tone
Some outlets emphasise the historic and unprecedented nature of the arrest, while others focus on the operational police steps (searches, interviews) and inter‑force coordination. For example, NPR frames the arrest as 'historic' and compares it to centuries‑old precedents, while Thames Valley/Met‑focused reports highlight searches and officer contacts (operational detail).
Narrative Framing
Some sources foreground links to Jeffrey Epstein files as the investigative lead, while others note that police have not received new sexual‑offence reports and limit reporting to possible misconduct in public office and document‑related lines of inquiry.
Royal response to investigation
Buckingham Palace, the King, and senior government figures have publicly said they will cooperate with police and that 'the law must take its course.'
Multiple reports note King Charles’s personal statement of concern and that the royal household is cooperating with investigators.
Several outlets also recount that Andrew had earlier been stripped of certain styles and duties and moved out of Royal Lodge.
Andrew remains in the line of succession in the absence of parliamentary action.
Coverage Differences
Tone
Mainstream outlets tend to present the King’s statement and palace cooperation as an official, procedural response (quotes such as 'the law must take its course'), while some regional outlets echo the same phrase but add local public reaction or detail about royal movement from residences.
Missed Information
Some sources state Andrew was stripped of titles in October 2025 while others say he lost some styles 'last October' without giving the exact date — both report palace action but differ slightly in specificity.
Andrew succession options
Government ministers and Whitehall lawyers are reported to be preparing potential legislative routes to bar Andrew from the line of succession.
Every outlet that addresses the legal path stresses this would require primary legislation and consultation with the other Commonwealth realms where the sovereign is head of state.
Officials and legal commentators warn the change would be complex and slow.
They say ministers expect to await the outcome of police inquiries before tabling any formal proposals.
Coverage Differences
Legal detail
Multiple sources agree new legislation would be required, but they vary in emphasis: some (Oxford Mail, southwalesguardian) repeat Press Association wording about needing an Act of Parliament and consent of other realms; others (BBC, The Independent) emphasise consultation across 14 other Commonwealth realms and the need for royal assent and parliamentary process.
Narrative Framing
Some outlets present the legislative option as a 'nuclear' contingency being quietly prepared (International Business Times UK), while other outlets adopt a cautious framing — reporting officials say they will wait until police work finishes (BBC, The Independent).
Public and political reaction
A widely reported YouGov poll cited across outlets found roughly 82% of respondents want Andrew removed from the succession.
Several party figures and commentators have publicly urged his removal or questioned whether he should retain any royal role.
Coverage ranges from reports of local public anger and calls for immediate action to sober legal analysis of how difficult legislative removal would be.
Coverage Differences
Tone
Some outlets foreground public outrage and calls for removal (Punch Newspapers, Al Jazeera, The Hindu), while others (GB News, Royal Central) emphasise historical and constitutional precedent and legal complexity.
Unique Coverage
Some outlets add personal or local angles — e.g., coverage of Sarah, Duchess of York’s reaction or Windsor local sentiment — which others omit while focusing on constitutional mechanics.
Succession claim verification
On the specific claim that 'Defence Minister Luke Pollard demands the UK government remove Andrew Mountbatten‑Windsor from the line of succession now': that demand does not appear in the provided source excerpts.
None of the supplied snippets, across mainstream, regional and international outlets, quotes or reports a demand by a Defence Minister named Luke Pollard.
Given the absence of that name or quoted demand in the sources you provided, I cannot confirm or attribute this demand to a government Defence Minister based on these articles.
The sources instead report ministers, legal advisers and party figures broadly discussing possible legislative steps and public calls for removal.
Coverage Differences
Missed Information
Major coverage in the provided snippets repeatedly attributes discussion of legislative options to 'ministers', 'the government' or specific figures like the Prime Minister in some pieces, but none mention a Defence Minister Luke Pollard or a quoted demand by him; this is an absence across many outlet types.
Unclear Claim
Because the supplied material is silent on Luke Pollard, the claim cannot be corroborated here; if you have a specific article or quote naming Luke Pollard, please provide it and I will integrate and cite it precisely.