Prince Andrew’s Security Detail Tapped for Epstein Estate Guarding Duties

Metropolitan Police officers assigned to Prince Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor were instructed to provide security for a lavish dinner party at the New York home of convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein, according to emails revealed in the Epstein files. The documents, released by the U.S. Department of Justice, indicate that the officers were given specific roles as doormen at Epstein‘s Manhattan mansion during the prince’s 2010 visit, raising questions about the scope of their duties and the nature of their interactions with Epstein.

The emails, first reported by The Sunday Times , describe how Andrew’s personal protection officers were accommodated at Epstein’s multimillion-pound townhouse on 71st Street during the royal’s trip. One message sent the night before the event stated: ‘The Duke’s 2 protection officers along with state security will all be here for tomorrow’s dinner party… Rich has given them instructions on the door,’ according to the Independent . The reference to ‘state security’ suggests U.S. diplomatic protection officers also attended the gathering. The prince’s bodyguards were reportedly given a temporary security code to access Epstein’s property, a detail confirmed by the Metropolitan Police, which emphasized that protection officers are held to the same professional standards as all police personnel.

Epstein, who was convicted of sex trafficking in 2002, hosted the dinner party attended by celebrities including Woody Allen , Katie Couric , and Charlie Rose . The prince, then a working member of the royal family, had been accompanied by close protection officers as part of his security protocols. Andrew has consistently denied any wrongdoing in relation to Epstein, stating in 2019 that he traveled to New York to ‘cut ties’ with the financier. However, the emails have reignited scrutiny over his conduct during the 2010 visit, particularly given Epstein’s criminal history.

The Metropolitan Police has acknowledged the release of the emails and stated it is ‘identifying and contacting’ former and serving officers who may have relevant information. A spokesperson noted that protection officers are subject to the same scrutiny as all police personnel and that their actions are ‘open to scrutiny.’ The force is also collaborating with U.S. authorities to review whether Epstein may have trafficked victims through London Stansted Airport, a claim that has drawn attention from both domestic and international legal experts.

Andrew’s arrest in February 2026 on suspicion of misconduct in public office has further complicated the investigation. The arrest followed allegations that he shared sensitive information with Epstein while serving as the UK’s trade envoy. Although he was released under investigation after 11 hours of questioning, searches of his former residence, Royal Lodge, and his current home in Norfolk continue. The government is reportedly considering legislation to remove Andrew from the line of royal succession, a move that could require parliamentary approval and the support of Commonwealth nations.

The Royal Visits Committee, which oversees travel plans for working members of the royal family, has been implicated in the controversy. The committee includes representatives from the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (FCDO), the Cabinet Office, and the Royal Household. The BBC reported that the FCDO reviewed Andrew’s travel plans for 2008 and 2009 but stated it does not oversee private travel by working royals. This has sparked debate over the extent of oversight for high-profile individuals and the potential for conflicts of interest.

Legal experts have highlighted the complexities of prosecuting misconduct in public office, noting that the charges against Andrew are based on allegations of sharing confidential material with Epstein. The Crown Prosecution Service has not yet formally joined the investigation, though it has expressed readiness to support police inquiries. Critics argue that the case underscores broader concerns about accountability for public figures, particularly those with access to sensitive information.

The Met’s handling of the case has also drawn scrutiny. Former head of the Royal Protection Command, Dai Davies, questioned whether officers who worked closely with Andrew in the past 20 years could have overlooked ‘untoward’ behavior. He suggested a ‘culture of silence’ may have existed, though the Met has not commented on such claims. The force’s response to the emails has been measured, emphasizing its commitment to transparency while avoiding direct admissions of wrongdoing.

As the investigation unfolds, the case has reignited public debate over the intersection of royalty, law enforcement, and accountability. The Met’s collaboration with U.S. authorities, the potential legislative changes to the line of succession, and the ongoing scrutiny of Andrew’s past activities all highlight the far-reaching implications of the Epstein files. For now, the police force maintains that its officers acted within professional standards, leaving the full scope of their involvement at Epstein’s home to be determined by the ongoing inquiry.