Redacting Andrew files ‘like removing Trump from Epstein documents’
The Cabinet Office’s redaction of files on Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor has been compared to the controversial treatment of the Epstein files.
Andrew Lownie, the former prince’s biographer, said the decision to remove parts of the documents after they were revealed to journalists was “panic”.
Mr Lownie, author OfficialHe said: “This is a bit like Trump redactions [in the Epstein files]. They panic a bit and do things without thinking about the consequences, trying to quit or downplay it.
“I think there’s a lot of panic. Anything related to Andrew is being taken off the record because they’re worried about what it might reveal.”
The Cabinet Office has been accused of a royal family cover-up after it was revealed official documents referring to Andrew had been withheld from the National Archives.
The annual release of government documents under the 20-year rule at the archives at Kew, south-west London, includes file 10 relating to royal visits from 2004 and 2005.
The version made available to embargoed journalists so they could prepare stories in advance included minutes of a meeting in which officials discussed the travel plans of royals, including the Duke of York, when he was the UK trade envoy.
However, the minutes were later removed from the file before being made public.
The Cabinet Office, which was responsible for transferring the files to the National Archives, said it had never intended to release the files and described the situation as an “administrative error”.
But Graham Smith, chief executive of anti-monarchy campaign group Republic, said there was no justification for withholding the documents, particularly as Andrew has been stripped of his royal status amid ongoing controversy over his links to pedophile financier Jeffrey Epstein.
Labor MP Rachael Maskell also called on the government to clarify why the files were not released.
Mr Lownie said all files relating to Andrew’s time as trade envoy until 2005 should be published and called for parliament to investigate the matter.
he said Times: “A massive cover-up was carried out [concerning] Andrew’s excessive spending, little of which benefits the country, continues. “I believe there should be a full parliamentary inquiry into Andrew’s ten years as special envoy.”
Earlier this month, Andrew, who has always denied any wrongdoing, was officially stripped of his last remaining royal titles following controversy over his links to Epstein.
Redacted files showed discussions between senior palace and Foreign Office officials about Andrew’s travel plans as UK trade envoy, with visits to China, Russia, Southeast Asia and Spain – earning him the nickname “air miles Andy”.
Officials also raised the issue of whether the Football Association would be prepared to pay him to attend the Euro 2004 tournament in Portugal as a royal representative.
University of Bristol researcher Alison McClean also told the paper that three exemptions cited by the Cabinet Office for documents involving communications with the monarch, as well as personal data or designed to protect privacy, were “dubious”.
McClean added: “It shows how even the most innocuous material involving even junior members of the royal family is routinely withheld. In this case, the prevention of the release to the National Archives of information relating to Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor’s activities as a UK trade representative is particularly worrying because it relates to his role as a public servant and not as a member of the royal family or indeed as a citizen.”
The Cabinet Office said: “All records are managed in line with the requirements of the Public Records Act. Any release is subject to a thorough review process, including the involvement of specialist stakeholders.”
