Andrew detectives are ignoring me, says whistleblower who has instead given FBI his evidence that shamed royal smuggled women into Buckingham Palace
A former royal protection officer, Paul Page, says he has passed evidence to the FBI alleging Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor smuggled women into Buckingham Palace, claiming Thames Valley Police ignored his attempts to raise the matter locally. He also sent his dossier to US Representative Thomas Massie, who recently accused Andrew of committing sex crimes with Jeffrey Epstein, adding international pressure to the ongoing investigation into the disgraced royal's conduct.
Page, who worked at the Palace for six years, alleges that between 1997 and 2004 security rules were relaxed to allow Ghislaine Maxwell and other young women to enter secretly, sometimes several times a week, without their names being logged. Andrew was arrested in February on suspicion of misconduct in a public office over his time as a trade envoy and remains under investigation; he denies all wrongdoing. Page says he later received a letter reminding him of confidentiality obligations to the Royal family, which he viewed as an attempt at silencing him, and has lodged a formal complaint, now being investigated by the Met.
- Whistleblower says police ignored his evidence against Andrew, so contacted FBI
- Claims women were secretly smuggled into Buckingham Palace 1997-2004
- Andrew remains under investigation; denies all wrongdoing
New here? Start with this
Paul Page is a former royal protection officer who spent six years working at Buckingham Palace. He alleges that between 1997 and 2004, security rules were relaxed to let Ghislaine Maxwell and other young women enter the Palace secretly, without their visits being logged, so they could see Prince Andrew, formally known as Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor since he lost his titles.
Andrew has faced sustained scrutiny over his past association with the convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein and Maxwell, Epstein's former partner who was convicted of trafficking young women and girls for him. Andrew was arrested in February on suspicion of misconduct in a public office relating to his time as a UK trade envoy, and remains under investigation; he denies any wrongdoing.
Page says his attempts to raise concerns with Thames Valley Police, which covers the area around Windsor, went nowhere, so he passed his evidence to the FBI and to Thomas Massie, a US congressman who has separately made allegations against Andrew. Page also received a letter reminding him of confidentiality duties to the Royal family, which he took as an attempt to keep him quiet, and he has lodged a formal complaint that the Metropolitan Police are now investigating.
Both sides, in good faith
The strongest fair case each way — we don't pick a winner.
The case for
Those who back Page's actions would argue that when a former royal protection officer alleges he raised serious concerns internally about vulnerable young women being brought unannounced into a royal residence and was met with silence, taking that evidence to the FBI and a US congressman is a legitimate last resort rather than misconduct. They would say whistleblowers exist precisely because internal channels can be captured by the interests of the powerful, and that a letter reminding him of confidentiality obligations, arriving after his complaint, understandably reads as an attempt to deter further disclosure. Given the gravity of the underlying claims and Andrew's continuing legal jeopardy, they would contend that public and international scrutiny serves the wider public interest and protects any potential victims, whatever discomfort it causes the institution.
The case against
Those urging caution would argue that these remain unproven, one-sided allegations from a single former employee, aired publicly before any court or independent inquiry has tested them, and that Andrew, like anyone, is entitled to a presumption of innocence while he denies all wrongdoing. They would note that routing serious claims to a foreign legislator and the FBI, rather than through established British police and judicial processes, risks turning a matter of fact into a matter of publicity and political theatre, potentially prejudicing any future investigation. They might also point out that confidentiality obligations for royal household staff commonly exist for legitimate security reasons unconnected to any cover-up, and that reading the reminder letter as an attempt at silencing is itself an inference rather than an established fact.