The Metropolitan police are looking into claims that Prince Andrew asked his taxpayer-funded close protection officer to uncover information about Virginia Giuffre hours before the emergence of a bombshell picture of them together.
Leaked emails that suggest Andrew passed his Met bodyguard Giuffre’s date of birth and confidential US social security number were “deeply concerning”, said a government minister on Sunday.
Ed Miliband, the energy secretary, told broadcasters the allegations should be investigated as it was “absolutely not the way that close protection officers should be used”.
The Mail on Sunday published messages Andrew allegedly sent to Ed Perkins, then the queen’s deputy press secretary, in 2011 saying he had asked one of his close protection officers to obtain information about Giuffre.
According to the messages, Andrew told Perkins he had given the officer Giuffre’s date of birth and confidential nine-digit social security number and claimed she had a criminal record in the US. The email was sent hours before the publication of an infamous picture of Andrew with 17-year-old Giuffre.
Her family has said she had no criminal record. There is no suggestion the police officer complied with the request.
A spokesperson for the Metropolitan police said: “We are aware of media reporting and are actively looking into the claims made.”
Giuffre, who took her own life earlier this year, alleged that she was forced to have sex with Andrew on three occasions including when she was 17, while she was being trafficked by Jeffrey Epstein and his associate Ghislaine Maxwell.
Andrew is under growing pressure over his close links to Epstein, including reports this weekend that he was introduced to a second of the paedophile financier’s victims.
On Friday he relinquished his royal titles, including Duke of York, having already lost the use of his HRH title and after ceasing to be a “working royal”. His ex-wife has also given up her title; she will be known as Sarah Ferguson and no longer Duchess of York. The couple’s daughters will continue to have the title of princess.
Andrew said he had taken the decision after discussions with the king, stating: “With His Majesty’s agreement, we feel I must now go a step further. I will therefore no longer use my title or the honours which have been conferred upon me. As I have said previously, I vigorously deny the accusations against me.” He has not commented on the latest allegations.
Andrew retains the dukedom, which would take an act of parliament to remove. As the son of a monarch he remains a prince, which could only be changed if a letters patent was issued by the king.
after newsletter promotion
Giuffre’s family has renewed calls for Charles to strip Andrew of his “prince” title. On Friday Giuffre’s brother Sky Roberts told BBC Two’s Newsnight his sister would have been “very proud” of the latest development regarding Prince Andrew, but that he would like the king to go a step further and “take out the prince in the Andrew”.
“I think anybody that was implicated … should have some sort of responsibility and accountability for these survivors,” he said.
Asked if he would support such legislation, Miliband said the government would be guided by the royals. “The royal family will have to make its own decisions about what other steps can be taken,” he said. “I think the royal family have said that they didn’t want to take up parliamentary time with this. There are lots of other things that parliament is discussing.”
The Guardian published an extract from Giuffre’s posthumous memoir last week in which Giuffre detailed her first encounter with the “entitled” prince and said he “believed having sex with me was his birthright”.
In a now infamous Newsnight interview in 2019, Andrew said he had severed all links with Epstein after they had been photographed together in New York in December 2010. But emails sent in February 2011 later emerged suggesting he had stayed in contact with Epstein, and sent him a message that read: “Keep in close touch and we’ll play some more soon!”
‘ The preceding article may include information circulated by third parties ’
‘ Some details of this article were extracted from the following source www.theguardian.com ’
