- Prime Minister Keir Starmer urged anyone with "relevant information," implicitly including Prince Andrew, to testify in the U.S. Epstein probe.
- Andrew missed a U.S. House Oversight Committee deadline, facing intensified calls for accountability amid released emails and survivor allegations.
- Stripped of titles and evicted from Royal Lodge, Andrew's fall leaves him vulnerable to potential criminal scrutiny as transparency laws advance.
In a pointed intervention that has reignited transatlantic tensions over one of the most notorious scandals in recent royal history, British Prime Minister Keir Starmer has urged former Prince Andrew — now stripped of his titles and living in the shadows of Windsor — to come forward with any information he holds about Jeffrey Epstein’s web of abuse.
Speaking en route to the G20 summit in Johannesburg, Starmer stopped short of naming the disgraced royal directly but made his stance crystal clear: those with “relevant information” in cases like this must testify.
The remarks, delivered on Monday amid a swirl of diplomatic briefings, come just days after Andrew, formerly the Duke of York and now known simply as Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor, blew past a November 20 deadline set by a U.S. House Oversight Committee panel probing Epstein’s sex-trafficking empire.
The FrankNez Media Daily Briefing newsletter provides all the news you need to start your day. Sign up here.
The committee, chaired by Republican James Comer, had requested a transcribed interview with the 65-year-old Andrew over his decades-long friendship with the late financier, who died in a New York jail cell in 2019 while awaiting trial on federal sex-trafficking charges.
“I won’t comment on his particular case,” Starmer told reporters, his tone measured but firm.
“But as a general principle I’ve held for a very long time is that anybody who has got relevant information in relation to these kind of cases should give that evidence to those that need it.”
He doubled down later, adding, “My general position is if you have relevant information you should be prepared to share it.”
The prime minister’s words land like a gauntlet thrown down at Buckingham Palace’s feet, amplifying calls from across the Atlantic for accountability.
For victims’ advocates and lawmakers alike, Andrew’s silence — now stretching into its second week past the deadline — is deafening.
“The documents we’ve reviewed, along with public records and Virginia Roberts Giuffre’s testimony, raise serious questions he must answer, yet he continues to hide,” wrote Reps. Robert Garcia (D-Calif.) and Suhas Subramanyam (D-Va.), the committee’s top Democrats, in a blistering statement released Friday.
They accused the former prince of dodging scrutiny, declaring, “Andrew’s silence speaks volumes.”
“Our work will move forward with or without him,” the lawmakers continued, “and we will hold anyone who was involved in these crimes accountable, no matter their wealth, status or political party. We will get justice for the survivors.”
From Epstein’s Palm Beach Parties to London’s Royal Circles
To understand the stakes, one must rewind to the early 2000s, when Andrew’s path first crossed Epstein’s in a friendship that would ensnare the British monarchy in allegations of exploitation and cover-ups.
Epstein, the convicted sex offender turned shadowy power broker, hosted Andrew at his sprawling New York mansion and private island, Little St. James — locales later branded as hubs for underage trafficking.
A infamous 2001 photograph shows a beaming Andrew with his arm around Giuffre, then 17, flanked by Epstein’s accomplice Ghislaine Maxwell, who is now serving a 20-year sentence for her role in the scheme.
Giuffre has long alleged that Andrew sexually assaulted her on three occasions, claims he has vehemently denied and settled out of court for an undisclosed sum in 2022 without admitting liability.
Yet the specter lingers.
Newly released emails from November 13 reveal Andrew confiding in Epstein amid early scrutiny: “I can’t take any more of this,” he wrote, a raw admission of the toll that has only deepened in the years since.
The U.S. probe, revived under the Oversight Committee’s gaze, isn’t just about one man.
It’s a broader reckoning with how Epstein evaded justice for so long, ensnaring elites from Wall Street to Washington — and, apparently, Windsor.
President Donald Trump’s signing of the Epstein Files Transparency Act earlier this week marks a pivotal escalation: It mandates Attorney General Pam Bondi to declassify government-held documents within 30 days, potentially unleashing a torrent of memos, flight logs, and witness statements that could drag more names into the light.
Democrats, outnumbered on the Republican-led committee, may lack the votes to subpoena Andrew outright, but the law’s passage signals bipartisan appetite for transparency.
Fall from Grace: Titles Stripped, Lodge Evicted
Andrew’s personal unraveling has accelerated this autumn, mirroring the probe’s intensity.
On October 17, he relinquished his Duke of York title following the August release of “Entitled: The Rise and Fall of the House of York,” an explosive unauthorized biography by journalist Andrew Lownie that chronicled the royal’s Epstein entanglements and financial woes.
King Charles III formalized the stripping of his military honors and royal patronages on October 30, a move palace insiders described as “necessary” despite Andrew’s ongoing denials.
Now comes the eviction notice.
Buckingham Palace confirmed last week that formal papers have been served for Andrew to vacate Royal Lodge, his opulent Windsor Great Park home since 2002.
“His lease on Royal Lodge has, to date, provided him with legal protection to continue in residence,” a palace spokesperson said.
“Formal notice has now been served to surrender the lease, and he will move to alternative private accommodation.”
The added kicker: Losing his HRH status has left him “vulnerable” to criminal charges abroad, experts say, stripping away diplomatic immunities that once shielded him.
Andrew, who has retreated from public view, has not commented on the congressional request or Starmer’s nudge.
A source close to him told The Guardian it’s “a decision for him,” underscoring the isolation of a once-insulated figure.
Also Read: A DOJ Whistleblower Now Makes Revelation That Undermines the Judicial System’s Integrity
