Royally Devoted
Prince Andrew

US Prosecutors Formally Request to Have a Word with Prince Andrew

We reported yesterday that Prince Andrew was almost certainly done as a full-time working Royal. Now we’re hearing reports that US prosecutors have all but subpoenaed him to answer questions about Jeffrey Epstein. Here’s the latest on Andrew’s very own annus horribilis.

Mutual Legal Assistance Treaty

Federal prosecutors in New York are not accepting “no” for an answer. Despite Prince Andrew’s initial offer to cooperate with the investigation into his dead buddy’s sex trafficking, he has failed to answer any questions.

Now he may not have a choice.

The prosecutors are putting pressure on Andrew using the Mutual Legal Assistance Treaty between the US and the UK. Essentially, it’s an international subpoena. The request does not necessarily mean the prosecutors think Andrew has done anything illegal.

However, given the allegations against the Prince from Virginia Roberts Giuffre, he may have a hard time talking about his friendship with Epstein without revealing his own alleged crimes.

“Contrary to Prince Andrew’s very public offer to cooperate with our investigation into Epstein’s co-conspirators, an offer that was conveyed via press release, Prince Andrew has now completely shut the door on voluntary cooperation,” US Attorney Geoffrey Berman said.

Why Does Andrew Still Have His Security Detail?

One of the biggest issues when Meghan and Harry decided to leave? Who would pay for their security. Tabloids would not let go of the story for a solid 3-4 months. Even Trump chimed in to say that America wouldn’t foot the bill for the Sussex security detail.

Eventually, the couple clarified that they would be paying for their own protection, but that any further details would be kept private.

Prince Andrew, however, still has his taxpayer-funded security detail. Apparently, it costs £300,000 (about $450,000) to keep Andrew safe. His bodyguard funds were on the chopping block last week, per information from the UK Home office.

However, The Sun reports that the Queen personally intervened to ensure that her (alleged) favorite child still gets protection. Graham Smith, a spokesperson for an anti-monarchy group, told reporters:

“If Andrew is not performing public duties, there is no reason to employ security. He can privately pay for any security he wants. If the Home Office and police have looked at the risk and judged that he does not warrant round-the-clock security then it is appropriate.”

Honestly, he’s not wrong. Why should Andrew get taxpayer-funded perks like 24/7 security when he is no longer a representative of the Royal Family? How is the situation any different from Harry and Meghan?

Ella Lyons

Ella Lyons

I grew up thinking I would marry Prince William. Obviously, that didn’t work out, but now I put my encyclopedic knowledge of the British Royal Family to good use at Royally Devoted!

Ever wonder about the secret coded language of the Queen’s handbag? Confused by what to say if you ever meet Royalty? I’ve got you covered.

Keep calm, carry on, and be sure to allow notifications so you never miss an update from Royally Devoted!

Add comment