MPs urged to confront royals over Prince Andrew’s links to Epstein | Prince Andrew

Parliament is under growing pressure to examine what the royal family knew about Prince Andrew’s links to Jeffrey Epstein and introduce a mechanism to strip him of his titles.

There were calls on Sunday evening for Andrew to be investigated by police and for old rules barring Parliament from freely scrutinizing members of the royal family and officially stripping their titles to be reconsidered.

The Metropolitan Police have confirmed they are investigating claims Andrew asked his Met bodyguard to dig up information about Virginia Giuffre, who accused him of sexual assault, hours before the explosive photo of them was published in 2011.

Ed Miliband, the Energy Secretary, said leaked emails suggesting Andrew had passed on the date of birth and US social security number of his close protection officer Giuffre were “deeply concerning”.

A Metropolitan Police spokesperson said: “We are aware of media reports and are actively investigating the allegations made. »

The developing scandal forced Andrew to relinquish some of his royal titles on Friday, including that of Duke of York, having already lost the use of his HRH title after ceasing to be a “working royal”.

He retained the dukedom, which would require an Act of Parliament to remove it, while his status as prince could only be removed if letters patent were issued by the king. Andrew has vigorously denied any wrongdoing, and the FBI officially ended its investigation into his ties to Epstein in July.

But MPs and campaigners have called for further action, including a Metropolitan Police investigation into Andrew’s links to Epstein and an Act of Parliament to formally strip the prince of his titles.

Rachael Maskell, Labor MP for York Central, said she was writing to ministers this week in support of her bill giving the king or a parliamentary committee the power to formally strip Andrew’s titles.

“Any time this happens, it clearly must be very traumatic for the victims and survivors, so it’s really important that this issue is put to rest once and for all,” Maskell said. “There are mechanisms that need to be put in place to remove a title.”

Nadia Whittome, Labor MP for Nottingham East, said: “It should be a given that the state removes Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor’s credentials, rather than allowing him to hide behind self-denial and wild statements accusing his accusers. »

Maskell has proposed a Title Removal Bill in 2022 that would allow the monarch or a parliamentary committee to remove titles in Andrew’s case and in the future. A similar law was passed in 1917 to remove the titles of peers and princes who fought against the British in the First World War.

A senior Labor MP and select committee chair described Andrew as a “disgrace” and said he “brought shame to himself and those associated with him”.

“I would be happy to vote for a parliamentary motion to strip him of all his titles,” they said.

Asked by the BBC whether he would support such legislation, Miliband said “the royal family will have to make their own decisions about what further steps might be taken” but had suggested “they didn’t want to take parliamentary time with this.”

Clive Lewis, Labor MP for Norwich South, called for “a thorough and proper investigation into what happened”.

“It’s very clear that Prince Andrew feels he has rights as a prince and as part of the monarchy. The most important story here is the monarchy itself. That’s why I think the king closed up shop. It poses very difficult questions about the way power works in this country,” he said.

George Foulkes, a Labor peer, wrote to the clerks of the Commons and Lords on Sunday evening asking them to review the rules banning MPs from asking questions about the royal family.

Foulkes said that earlier this year the Lords office rejected questions he had tried to ask about Andrew and his 10-year role as the UK’s special representative for trade and investment, which the prince ultimately renounced in 2011 after a series of controversies.

ignore previous newsletter promotion

after newsletter promotion

“I wanted to ask him questions about whether he had a safety briefing, what his role was and a number of other things,” Foulkes said. “The table office told me that questions about the royal family were banned in both the Commons and the Lords.”

Foulkes was eventually allowed to ask specific questions about the royal family’s spending, which Parliament is allowed to question.

Parliamentary rules state that “questions that cast reflection on the sovereign or the royal family” more generally are inadmissible. On Sunday, Foulkes called for the rules to be reviewed “in light of recent events.”

Meanwhile, more than 1,000 letters were sent to MPs over the weekend, urging them to push for a “full-fledged parliamentary or independent inquiry into the royal Epstein scandal”.

Supporters of the Republic campaign group have written to their MPs, accusing them of being complicit in their silence and urging them to call for an immediate investigation. Republic has called for an investigation to examine the actions taken by the Met Police and for Andrew to be prosecuted.

“It is not credible to believe that the Met would not have informed senior members of the royal family about Andrew’s attempts to use them to defame Giuffre. It is also questionable why the Met continues to refuse to investigate, question or charge Andrew,” said Republic’s Graham Smith.

“It is public anger that will move this forward and there is a palpable anger among the public who can see that Andrew being deprived of the use of his titles is not a punishment at all.”

The Guardian last week published an extract from Giuffre’s posthumous memoir in which she details her first meeting with the “entitled” prince and said he “believed that having sex with me was his birthright.”

The Mail on Sunday published messages Andrew allegedly sent to Ed Perkins, then the Queen’s assistant press secretary, in 2011, claiming he had asked one of his close protection officers to obtain information about Giuffre.

According to the messages, Andrew told Perkins that he gave Officer Giuffre the date of birth and her nine-digit Social Security number and claimed she had a criminal record in the United States. The email was sent hours before an infamous photo was released of Andrew with 17-year-old Giuffre.

Her family said she had no criminal record. There is no indication that the police officer complied with the request.

Another leaked email obtained by the Mail on Sunday suggests Andrew’s ex-wife Sarah Ferguson took Princesses Beatrice and Eugenie, then aged 20 and 19, to visit Epstein in New York after he was released from prison.

After a 2011 newspaper interview by Ferguson in which she claimed her association with him was a “terrible error of judgment”, Epstein wrote to Paul Tweed, his UK-based lawyer, in April 2011, and said she was “the first to celebrate my release”. A source close to Ferguson said neither she nor her daughters had any recollection of such a visit.