MPs Demand Inquiry into Prince Andrew’s Epstein Connections

Parliament is facing increasing pressure to investigate the royal family’s knowledge of Prince Andrew‘s connections to Jeffrey Epstein and to establish a process for revoking his titles. Calls for action intensified over the weekend, with MPs urging a formal police inquiry and a reassessment of longstanding rules that limit parliamentary scrutiny of the royal family.

The Metropolitan Police confirmed they are examining claims that Andrew requested his bodyguard to gather information on Virginia Giuffre, who accused him of sexual assault. This inquiry follows the release of emails suggesting that Andrew provided his officer with Giuffre’s date of birth and US social security number shortly before a controversial photograph of them surfaced in 2011. A police spokesperson stated, “We are aware of media reporting and are actively looking into the claims made.”

As the scandal unfolds, Andrew has already surrendered some royal titles, including the Duke of York, having lost the right to use his HRH title after stepping back from royal duties. He retains the dukedom, which would require parliamentary action to remove, while his status as a prince could only be revoked through a letters patent from the king.

Despite Andrew’s vehement denial of any wrongdoing, many MPs and advocacy groups are demanding further action. Ed Miliband, the Energy Secretary, expressed concern over the leaked emails, stating they were “deeply concerning.” He emphasized that the royal family must decide on the next steps, but suggested that they should not avoid parliamentary scrutiny.

In response to the ongoing controversy, Rachael Maskell, the Labour MP for York Central, has announced plans to write to ministers this week in support of her proposed bill. This legislation would empower the king or a parliamentary committee to strip Andrew of his titles. “It’s important that this matter is dealt with once and for all,” Maskell said, highlighting the trauma faced by victims and survivors.

Another Labour MP, Nadia Whittome, asserted that the state should take action to remove Andrew’s titles rather than allowing him to resign voluntarily. “This is about accountability,” she stated. Maskell’s proposed legislation echoes a similar act from 1917 that enabled the removal of titles from peers who fought against Britain in the First World War.

A senior Labour backbencher described Andrew as a “disgrace,” calling for a parliamentary motion to strip him of all titles. When asked if he would support such legislation, Miliband indicated that the royal family would need to make its own decisions regarding Andrew’s status.

Clive Lewis, the Labour MP for Norwich South, called for a thorough investigation into Andrew’s actions, emphasizing the implications of monarchy and entitlement. He noted, “The bigger story here is the monarchy itself,” which has prompted a call for greater transparency.

In addition, George Foulkes, a Labour peer, has written to the clerks of the Commons and Lords seeking a review of rules that restrict parliamentarians from questioning royal family matters. Foulkes expressed frustration at being unable to ask about Andrew’s role as a UK special representative for trade and investment, which he held until 2011 amidst multiple controversies.

Public sentiment is shifting, as evidenced by over 1,000 letters sent to MPs over the weekend advocating for a comprehensive inquiry into the royal family’s connection to Epstein. The campaign group Republic has accused MPs of complicity in their silence and called for immediate investigation. Graham Smith, a representative from Republic, remarked, “Public anger is what’s going to push this forward.”

Recent media reports have also intensified scrutiny on Andrew’s past actions. An extract from Giuffre’s posthumous memoir revealed her first encounter with Andrew, describing him as feeling entitled to abuse. The Mail on Sunday published messages allegedly sent by Andrew to Ed Perkins, a former deputy press secretary to the queen, indicating he sought damaging information about Giuffre.

As the controversy continues to unfold, the implications for Andrew and the royal family grow increasingly significant. The public and parliamentary response reflects a desire for accountability and transparency regarding the monarchy’s role in this ongoing scandal.