The arrest of Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor plunges the royals into the biggest crisis since the abdication of Edward VIII nearly a century ago.

To find a precedent for a person who is so close to the throne – once second, now eighth in line – we have to go right back to Charles I, captured then arraigned in 1647. He was taken into custody and executed for failing in what was perceived to be his duty as King. And the same questions were being asked of him that are being asked today: if you have a royal and he is born to the job through his blood, can you remove this position from him?

It has been done before, but violently. The Duke of Monmouth, illegitimate son of Charles II, was leading a rebellion to unseat his uncle, the deeply unpopular James II, and was captured in 1685. He was executed for treason.

A few years later, James lost his throne to his daughter and her husband, Mary II and William III. There have been many arrested royals over the long course of years.

Anne Boleyn was arrested and sent to the Tower of London before being executed by Henry VIII; Catherine Howard, his fifth wife, was also arrested and executed; Mary I sent her sister Elizabeth, the future Elizabeth I, to the Tower, and then into house arrest; Elizabeth I put Mary Queen of Scots under imprisonment for suggested involvement in the death of her own husband, then tried her for treason – Mary declaring throughout the trial that as a sovereign of Scotland, she could not be tried in such a way.

And before the Tudors, there was a panoply of royals who were arrested and imprisoned, from the Empress Matilda sending Stephen to prison in 1141 as part of her battle to take back the throne from him (it was rightfully hers), to the fascinating comparison of the Duke of Clarence, brother of the King, Edward IV, who was arrested in 1477 on the orders of his brother, after being involved in various battles against Edward. He was taken to the Tower, found guilty of treason and was executed in February 1478 – and later was said to have been drowned in a butt of Malmesy wine (a sort of madeira).

But these were royals, in the main, being arrested by other royals and accused of plotting against the throne – the big cheese accused the little cheese of trying to snatch their power. Many were entirely innocent (cough, Anne Boleyn).

World monarchs have been imprisoned when the new rulers seized power – from Louis XVI and Queen Marie Antoinette to the Queen Lili’uokalani of Hawaii, imprisoned in her Palace in 1895 after her throne was taken. But there is no power struggle here – it’s not that Andrew has been staging a rebellion in an attempt to take King Charles’s throne or that the new rulers wanted him out of the way.

Unlike all these other arrests, Charles did not set this in motion, he is not controlling it – and was, we are told, not warned in advance. Unlike kings getting troublesome brothers out of the way, it does not benefit him. Quite the opposite. If Andrew was to be charged, and then put on trial, this raises the possibility that the King might be asked to give evidence in a trial.

And as we think these matters are connected to Andrew’s role as trade envoy – his office was in Buckingham Palace, so should the Palace be searched? The King’s powerful statement yesterday morning made it clear that Andrew was a separate entity to the other royals and that law must have its process. But people are already asking: what and when did the royal household know and what did the King know?

Andrew has been brought down, we might say, by three images: that photo of him with Jeffrey Epstein in 2010 in Central Park, after Epstein had been convicted of a crime of procuring a child for prostitution; the photo in the possession of Virginia Giuffre of him with her in London when she was only 17, which he claimed was doctored – we know, of course, it was not; and then finally that photo of him last night, being driven out of Aylsham police station, seemingly in shock. These three images are the images of his fall – and there may be others to come.

These are unprecedented waters for the royal family. And unlike Edward VIII’s abdication, which was essentially only fully revealed to the public when the whole matter had been decided, we have no idea what will happen next – and it is only the beginning.

Unlike the Duke of Clarence, the Duke of Monmouth or even others such as Anne Boleyn or Mary Queen of Scots, the royals are not controlling this process. It is the law. And the process of law has only just begun.

There is no way I am giving my life up to grandparent

Grandparents who refuse to do childcare need to get a grip

Private school parents want their children to be better than yours – deal with it

Want to understand Beatrice and Eugenie’s blind loyalty? Just follow the money

© iNews