ANDREW LOWNIE: Without more openness, the monarchy won't survive
It has been a week of firsts for the man once known as Prince Andrew and for our monarchy. No senior royal has been arrested on such serious charges since the ill-fated Charles I in 1647.Yet the biggest novelty of all is that it now seems – finally – that there is one law for the Windsors and for the rest of us, too.It is perhaps an irony that Andrew – who denies all wrongdoing – has been questioned in relation to a Common Law offence, Misconduct in Public Office, for which the maximum sentence is life imprisonment.Yet all too many questions remain for the police, Government and monarchy itself, and not least: why is it only now that Thames Valley Police are investigating the King’s brother?As the Mail on Sunday revealed yesterday, even Charles was warned as long ago as 2019 that the Royal Family’s name was being ‘abused’ by Andrew’s business associations. According to emails seen by the paper, a whistleblower told the Palace he had secret financial links to controversial millionaire financier David Rowland – whom Andew, on numerous occasions, alerted to business opportunities arising from his work as trade envoy.It also emerged over the weekend that Metropolitan Police officers were instructed to provide security for a celebrity dinner party at Jeffrey Epstein’s New York home in 2010, following claims from a former senior protection officer that Met bodyguards may have ‘wilfully turned a blind eye’ during visits to Epstein’s private island.These revelations add to a growing picture that those high up in the Establishment have known about Andrew’s alleged misdemeanours for decades. It’s true that the millions of documents released by the US Department of Justice had a dramatic impact, exposing the true nature and scale of Andrew’s friendship with paedophile financier Jeffrey Epstein. The revelations of the last week add to a growing picture that those high up in the Establishment have known about Andrew's alleged misdemeanors for decades According to emails seen by The Mail on Sunday, as early as 2019 a whisteblower told the Palace Andrew had secret financial links to controversial millionaire financier David Rowland The public mood has changed due, not least, to emails suggesting that as Special Representative for International Trade and Investment between 2001 and 2011, Andrew alerted his associates to useful, inside information from which they might have been able to profit.Thanks to the new Epstein files we know that, in 2010, he provided his banker friends Rowland and his son Jonathan with a secret Treasury document that might have helped them purchase a failing Icelandic bank, for example.In the same year, Andrew supplied commercially sensitive information to Epstein amid the £45billion Government rescue of the Royal Bank of Scotland.The released documents also suggest he passed on information about Aston Martin, including claims of internal tensions amid a slump in sales and that he disclosed details of confidential briefings he’d received while on trade visits to south-east Asia and Libya.Crucially, though, many of the ‘revelations’ have not been new at all. Whether he is guilty of any crime or not, Andrew’s behaviour has been questionable for decades. We know this thanks to journalists who have been determined to scrutinise his association with Epstein and the young women in his circle, his unusual financial dealings, his friendship with foreign dictators and, of course, his behaviour as trade envoy.My book, Entitled, raised more disturbing questions. I revealed that Andrew had taken a £3.85million commission for helping a Greek water company secure contracts in Kazakhstan; how he helped to fast-track a banking licence in the Middle East for David Rowland’s Banque Havilland; and how he helped shoe-horn son Jonathan into meetings on a visit to China in 2010.Yet the Palace, police and Establishment as a whole continued to look the other way, as they have done from the outset. It is now the best part of two decades since the facts about the King’s younger brother were first laid before the public – and with startling clarity. Yet officialdom did nothing.Why was there neither a police investigation nor a royal inquiry when, in 2010, Andrew’s former wife, Sarah Ferguson, was filmed by the News of the World selling access to Prince Andrew?Why was there no investigation when it was revealed Andrew had been paid £3million over the asking price for his first marital home, Sunninghill, even though the source of that money was from Kazakhstan, an oil-rich dictatorship, and the possibility of money laundering (with or without his knowledge) was very real? Why was Sarah allowed to spend 30 years monetising her royal status for personal commercial gain? Sunninghill Park, the former marital home of Andrew and Sarah which was sold for £3million over the asking price – and the money came from Kazakhstan, an oil-rich dictatorship We need clarity about the Duchies of Lancaster and Cornwall, which pour billions into the pockets of the King and his heir, WilliamWhy did nothing happen in 2022 when, in an unrelated fraud case, the High Court revealed Andrew’s family had received over £1million from a Turkish millionaire for which they could not account: £750,000 to Andrew, £245,000 to Sarah and £10,000 to Princess Eugenie?Why were no questions asked when it emerged in 2019 that Pitch@Palace, a charity hosted in Buckingham Palace bringing entrepreneurs and investors together, had a clause giving Andrew a 2 per cent cut of any investment? Why was Sarah allowed to spend 30 years monetising her royal status for personal commercial gain?The fact is, the royals have known about Andrew’s activities for years. Not only did they turn a blind eye, I believe they abetted it – as did some of the most powerful influences in British society. I suspect that diplomats, civil servants, policeman and former members of staff knew their careers would be curtailed if they tried to speak truth to power.Of the 3,000 people I approached for my book, only 300 responded. Many of those who knew about Andrew’s activities simply replying ‘not interested’. When truthful stories were brought to the Palace by journalists, they were all too frequently denied. Legal threats were issued or strong-arm tactics and patronage deployed.It is hardly encouraging to learn that Paul Page, a former policeman at Buckingham Palace – who had started revealing the staggering number of women smuggled in to meet Andrew – received a letter in December reminding him of his obligations of confidentiality.And why now, we might ask, is it only Andrew who is being questioned by the police? Why not his ex wife and their two daughters? Why not the heads of the former UK Trade and Investment department, which sponsored his work as envoy?Why is no one in touch with our former ambassadors in Kazakhstan, Azerbaijan, China and Libya – all countries visited by Andrew in his envoy role.Several things must happen now. The Foreign Office and Department of Business and Trade must release all the files relating to Andrew’s period as trade envoy, which are currently scheduled to remain out of reach until 2065.We need parliamentary scrutiny of the royals and their finances and members of the Royal Family or Household must be asked to give evidence. We need a royal register of business interests and the unsealing of royal wills which have so remained firmly – and outrageously – closed.I’ve spent years calling for greater transparency over the royal archives and the way in which the royals brief the media. We need a reform of the royal exemptions in the Freedom of Information Act and clarity about the Duchies of Lancaster and Cornwall, which pour billions into the pockets of the King and his heir, William.Finally, if the King is serious about cooperating with an investigation, he needs to ensure that protection officers, secretaries, equerries and valets talk to the police.Without a new spirit of openness, the monarchy will not survive – neither will it deserve to.Andrew Lownie is author of Entitled: The Rise and Fall of the House of York, published by HarperCollins.
Comments (0)