Buckingham Palace signals cooperation over Andrew probe

Buckingham Palace has said it stands ready to support any police inquiry into the Duke of York after disclosures raised questions about whether Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor shared confidential United Kingdom trade material with the late financier Jeffrey Epstein. The statement, issued on Monday, underscored the Royal Household’s position that it will cooperate fully should investigators seek assistance.

The Palace said it would “support any appropriate investigation” in line with established procedures, stopping short of commenting on the substance of the claims. The response followed the emergence of emails that appeared to suggest the King’s younger brother may have circulated sensitive trade-related documents during his association with Epstein, who died in custody in 2019 while facing sex-trafficking charges in the United States.

The Duke of York has long denied wrongdoing connected to Epstein, severing ties with the financier years before Epstein’s arrest. The new material, which has not been tested in court, shifts attention from personal conduct to questions of national interest and information security, prompting scrutiny over whether any official documents were shared improperly and, if so, how they were obtained.

A Palace spokesperson emphasised that Andrew no longer undertakes public duties and does not act on behalf of the monarch or resulting governments. Any assessment of the emails’ authenticity and significance would rest with law-enforcement authorities, the spokesperson added, noting that the Royal Household does not interfere in police work.

The matter places renewed focus on the boundaries between members of the Royal Family and state business. While senior royals routinely receive briefings and engage with trade and diplomatic initiatives, access to classified or commercially sensitive material is tightly controlled. Experts in constitutional practice say that if documents were shared without authorisation, investigators would need to establish their classification, how they were obtained, and whether any laws governing official secrets or data protection were breached.

Andrew, 65, stepped back from public life in 2019 following widespread criticism of his association with Epstein. He later reached a civil settlement in the United States with Virginia Giuffre, who accused him of sexual assault when she was a minor; the settlement contained no admission of liability. Since then, his role within the Royal Family has been curtailed, with patronages and military affiliations returned to the Crown.

The Palace’s stance also reflects the position of King Charles III, who has sought to draw a clear institutional line between the monarchy and controversies surrounding individual family members. Since his accession, Charles has emphasised a streamlined monarchy and adherence to public accountability, particularly where reputational risks intersect with constitutional responsibilities.

Police forces have not confirmed whether a formal investigation is under way. The Metropolitan Police Service has previously said it would assess any credible new evidence relating to Epstein-linked matters in the United Kingdom. Legal specialists note that the threshold for opening an inquiry depends on whether the material suggests a potential criminal offence within the force’s jurisdiction.

Questions around the emails include their provenance, the timeframe in which they were exchanged, and the nature of the trade information referenced. Former trade officials say sensitive negotiating positions, if disclosed, could undermine commercial interests or diplomatic relationships, though much depends on whether the documents were outdated, publicly available, or preliminary in nature.

For Buckingham Palace, the episode revives a delicate balancing act: maintaining transparency and cooperation with authorities while preserving the constitutional neutrality of the Crown. The Palace’s wording was calibrated to avoid prejudging outcomes or endorsing allegations, a familiar approach in matters involving legal uncertainty.

Public reaction has been mixed, with some commentators arguing that any suggestion of mishandling official information warrants swift scrutiny, while others caution against drawing conclusions before investigators have assessed the evidence. Advocacy groups focused on government accountability have called for clarity on safeguards governing access to state documents by non-serving royals.