MPs and campaigners say the former prince should be questioned by both the police and parliament after files indicate he may have passed confidential trade material to Jeffrey Epstein.
Latest Epstein documents have put fresh pressure on the royal family, centring on allegations that Prince Andrew — now Andrew Mountbatten‑Windsor — passed sensitive materials to Jeffrey Epstein while acting as a government trade envoy.
Newly released files, including emails and detailed itineraries from a 2010 Southeast Asia trade visit, appear to show trip notes and situational reports shared outside official channels.
Journalists who reviewed thousands of pages say the records contain specific schedules, meeting locations and commentary that would usually be handled as restricted information. Campaign groups and some MPs argue that sending such material to a private individual could amount to misconduct in public office or even breach the Official Secrets Act.
Police and parliamentary actors respond
Thames Valley Police confirmed they have received a report and are carrying out an initial assessment. That step is typically a preliminary review rather than the start of a full criminal investigation; the force said it will decide on next steps after its enquiries.
The complaint that triggered this assessment was submitted by an anti‑monarchy campaigner who alleged possible misconduct and improper handling of official material.
Parliamentarians have pressed for answers too. Opposition MPs have tabled written questions and urged ministers to clarify who authorised distribution of the records, whether safeguards were followed, and to hand over files to relevant committees. Several members of Parliament have called for Andrew to be questioned by both police and parliamentary bodies, arguing for consistent scrutiny of senior figures whose communications appear in the same trove of documents.
What the documents reportedly show
Legal analysts highlight two central concerns: sharing operational details can undermine diplomatic confidentiality and put staff at risk, and sending taxpayer‑funded material to a non‑government recipient raises accountability questions. Whether any laws were broken depends on whether the records met the legal threshold for official secrecy and on the sender’s intent — matters investigators will examine.
Reporters say the itinerary lists stops including Hanoi, Saigon, Singapore, Kuala Lumpur and Hong Kong. Government sources contacted so far have not confirmed whether the files contained classified information or whether formal safeguards were breached.
Palace and government reactions
Public statements have been measured. Buckingham Palace said the King had expressed “profound concern” and that the household would “stand ready to support” Thames Valley Police if asked, while noting it had not yet been contacted by the force. The Cabinet Office said the specific allegations were for the royal household and law enforcement to handle, even as Commons anger over the disclosures was widely acknowledged.
That hands-off posture has frustrated some politicians and campaigners, who say it leaves unanswered questions about accountability and next steps. Constitutional experts warn that the line between the royal household’s administrative role and the independence of police investigations could complicate cooperation.
Reputational fallout and current arrangements
The revelations have intensified pressure on the royal household. The former duke previously lost military affiliations and royal patronages after earlier disclosures about his links to Epstein; he has consistently denied wrongdoing. The King expedited the former prince’s move from Royal Lodge, and he is temporarily staying at Wood Farm Cottage on the Sandringham estate while alternative arrangements are made.
Public reaction at royal events has been mixed: some appearances were greeted warmly, but crowds and journalists repeatedly pressed the monarch about when he first learned of the allegations. Senior working royals, including the Prince and Princess of Wales, said they were “deeply concerned” and emphasised their focus on victims.
What happens next
The immediate timetable depends on whether Thames Valley Police move beyond their assessment and whether parliamentary committees open formal inquiries. Police, with their own legal standards and burden of proof, will decide whether there is enough to warrant a criminal investigation. Parliament’s scrutiny, which follows a different route, could lead to hearings or administrative reviews.
Meanwhile, journalists continue combing the released files and campaigners are monitoring police progress closely. For now, the combination of document leaks, formal complaints and political pressure has kept the story very much alive — and left the palace under renewed reputational strain.
