[foldr]

I think this is a very implausible take for two reasons.

First, the King doesn't have that kind of power over the justice system in the UK. He cannot choose when, whether or why Andrew is arrested.

Second, Andrew's arrest is a negative news story for the royal family, not a positive one. Their ideal scenario would have been one where the Andrew/Epstein story gradually dropped out of the news cycle following the stripping of Andrew's royal titles. This arrest, and likely subsequent trial, are just going to keep it in the news for months or years to come.

[throwaway85825]

First, the King approved the arrest because the family has veto power over all actions that effect them. Same happened when they tried to tax the family years ago.

This is a limited hang out negative story. The important thing for the family is that only andrew is implicated not the family as a whole.

[foldr]

The King doesn't have veto powers over arrests of members of the royal family, and he was not notified before the arrest.

In general, members of the Royal Family do pay taxes, so I'm not sure what you're referring to there. (The sovereign and Prince of Wales are exempt by law, but they have paid tax voluntarily since 1993.)