Prince Andrew 'too terrified' for US return as book claims Queen 'knew what was going on'
Disgraced Prince Andrew may 'never set foot' on US soil again, sources say, as lawmakers press for him to provide testimony under oath about his friendship with Jeffrey Epstein.
The Duke of York, once branded 'Air Miles Andy' for his relentless jet-set lifestyle, has not been to North America for more than a decade. Now, according to senior sources, he is 'too terrified' to even contemplate the trip. Andrew's fear of flying to the States came as he was portrayed as a 'serial sex addict' and shameless abuser of privilege in an incendiary new biography that claims the Queen knew about his conduct and 'allowed it to happen'.
The Prince's hopes of ending his self-imposed exile briefly flickered last month when reports suggested the Queen's second son might risk a return to travelling after the FBI shelved its probe into his ties to Epstein. But those plans have been obliterated by a fresh wave of anger after Donald Trump U-turned on his campaign promise to release all files detailing his former friend's criminal activities.
Furious US lawmakers have now issued subpoenas demanding the files and summoning those connected to the case to appear before Congress. The calls have rapidly snowballed, with lawyers, victims and politicians insisting Andrew should volunteer to give sworn testimony, even though he cannot be legally compelled to do so.
For the 65-year-old prince, the political climate across the Atlantic has turned toxic. One well-placed Washington insider told the Mirror: 'If Prince Andrew sets foot on US soil again, he will be met with an avalanche of political, legal and media scrutiny. He knows it and so does Buckingham Palace. The safest option for him is to stay put in Britain and hope the storm dies down. But it won't.'
The revived pressure follows years of controversy over Andrew's long friendship with Epstein, who was found dead in a New York jail cell in 2019 while awaiting trial on sex trafficking charges. Court documents and witness statements have repeatedly placed the royal in Epstein's orbit, including allegations, which Andrew vehemently denies, from Virginia Giuffre that he sexually abused her when she was 17.
He eventually paid millions in an out-of-court settlement to end her US civil case. Trump's decision to block the Epstein file release has poured petrol on the flames. Critics in Washington accuse the administration of shielding high-profile figures from embarrassment, a move that has hardened calls to drag every associate of the disgraced financier back into the spotlight.
Even many of the president's staunchest MAGA supporters have broken ranks, decrying the US leader's claims that the files are a 'hoax' orchestrated by rival Democrats.
For Andrew, the consequences are stark. Senior diplomatic sources say the unofficial ban on travel now extends far beyond America, with some close allies of Washington unlikely to roll out the red carpet for a royal under such scrutiny. 'He's effectively a grounded duke,' one insider said.
Behind palace walls, aides are understood to be advising the prince to remain in the UK and avoid any appearance that could reignite public fury. But with Epstein's network still under the microscope in Washington - and the possibility of new names being made public - Andrew's past associations are unlikely to vanish.
As the Washington source warned bluntly: 'America isn't safe for him. And with Epstein's shadow still looming, it may never be again.' It comes as The Rise and Fall of the House of York, by author Andrew Lownie, alleges the Duke slept with more than 1,000 women, brought sex workers into Buckingham Palace, groped under dinner tables, and left 'soiled' tissues for staff to collect.
The book also accuses Andrew of using taxpayer-funded overseas trade trips for private business, accepting questionable gifts and loans from wealthy associates, and cultivating ties with Epstein. Lownie claims the late Queen 'knew exactly what was going on and allowed it to happen', while King Charles and Prince William have long viewed Andrew's behaviour more critically.
The book also targets Sarah Ferguson, alleging extravagant spending and reliance on dubious benefactors.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Guardian
an hour ago
- The Guardian
Some Democrats want to use gerrymandering. That's a bad idea
When Texas Republicans unveiled yet another contorted congressional map last week – one that would all but erase Austin's Latino-led seat and increase the Republican party's federal House tally by up to five seats in total – the outcry from Democrats was immediate and justified. But beyond the Democratic state legislators' brave effort to stymie the proposal by boycotting the vote, a different refrain has also been heard by leading Democrats in other states: if they do it, why can't we? Governor Gavin Newsom of California has vowed to 'fight fire with fire', advancing a proposal that would redraw California's own congressional map to offset Republican gains in Texas. New York's Kathy Hochul has also embraced the prospect of aggressive gerrymandering in Democratic-controlled states, sidestepping the independent commissions that Democrats themselves had once championed and successfully implemented in both California and New York. It is an understandable impulse, but it is the wrong one – for both strategic and principled reasons. To begin with, Democrats are destined to lose a gerrymandering arms race. They control fewer state legislatures and the very nature of electoral map engineering currently favors Republican power-grabbing, since most Democratic voters live in densely populated urban areas, which makes it easier to concentrate them in fewer electoral districts. A simulation conducted through 538's Atlas of Redistricting in which every state is aggressively gerrymandered to maximize the House seats of the party in power at the state level results in a notional House of 262 Republicans and 173 Democrats: a 30-plus seat jump for the Republican party compared with a non-partisan map that maximizes for district compactness. Nor is this a far-fetched scenario. Rather than forcing the other side to back down, retaliation appears more likely to lead to further escalation, in this as in other domains of all-out binary conflict. When running for governor of Illinois in 2018, JB Pritzker had initially pledged to back an independent districting commission but subsequently signed one of the most brutal Democratic gerrymandering plans in the country, which has yielded just three Republican districts out of 17 in a state where Donald Trump won 43% of the votes in 2024. That precedent is now being pointed to by Texas Republicans to justify their own gerrymandering plan. But there is also a deeper reason why 'fighting fire with fire' is a bad idea when the goal is to protect democracy from purported challenges to it: the 'fire' in question amounts to a violation of one of democracy's core values – ultimately, the principle of voting equality – and would therefore end up doing the work of democracy's enemies for them. The metaphor of 'fighting fire with fire' can in fact be traced back to the thought of the German émigré scholar to the United States, Karl Loewenstein, who in the 1930s recommended the use of self-consciously 'anti-democratic means' – such as party bans and restrictions of voting rights – to fight fascism, in the name of what he called 'militant democracy'. Far from achieving their intended goal, such measures were instrumental in the consolidation of the Nazi regime in Germany, given that Adolf Hitler was first nominated chancellor through an emergency presidential decree intended to forestall the prospect of a socialist takeover (construed as a greater threat for German democracy than nazism itself), and that the ban on other political parties Hitler quickly imposed was justified on the grounds that it was necessary to protect the German constitutional order in the aftermath of the Reichstag fire of 1934. Similarly perverse uses of the logic of 'militant democracy' have since become a standard component of the authoritarian playbook – from Augusto Pinochet's 1973 coup in Chile to Recep Tayyip Erdoğan's 2016 counter-coup in Turkey, both of which undid democracy in their countries under the guise of protecting it against purported enemies. A fully gerrymandered congressional map in the United States would thus not just be bad for Democrats. It would also be terrible for American democracy since it would effectively disenfranchise local minorities across the country, yielding an overall competition between two mirroring forms of authoritarianism: Democratic or Republican one-party rule at the local level. If Democrats want to continue to portray themselves as the party of democracy against the Trump administration's thinly veiled authoritarian ambitions, they should begin by practicing on own their turf the same principles of democratic civility and self-restraint they accuse their opponents of violating. Crucially, this doesn't mean 'doing nothing' in the face of Republican gerrymandering. The point is rather that (big and small 'D') Democrats should use democratic rather than authoritarian means to protect democracy against its enemies – which is to say, win elections by advancing more attractive policy platforms and mobilizing voters more effectively in support of them, rather than by changing the rules to their own benefit. That the Trump administration's substantive policy decisions – from its inflationary trade wars to the fiscally regressive One Big Beautiful Bill Act – seem destined to do most harm its own electoral constituencies offers plenty of opportunity for fair-and-square political comeback. Ultimately, however, the Democrats' chances of success in upcoming electoral cycles will depend on their capacity to present a more attractive political alternative to the current Republican party's brand of populist authoritarianism. Instead of mirroring their opponents, Democrats should therefore seek to differentiate themselves from them, which at present can only mean: strict adherence to democratic norms and forthright advocacy of a more progressive policy platform. When a house is on fire, more fire won't help. What is needed is water – which is to say, something different, that is at the same time an antidote against fire's damaging effects. Carlo Invernizzi-Accetti is an associate professor of political science at the City University of New York, City College
Reuters
3 hours ago
- Reuters
Razor-thin race will test Milei's popularity in Argentina
BUENOS AIRES, Aug 13 (Reuters) - Argentina's wild-haired, firebrand President Javier Milei will face a crucial litmus test in an upcoming local election that could derail ambitious economic reforms as his austerity-fueled experiment fuels social tensions. Milei has been able to tame runaway inflation with a ruthless austerity plan and he aims to keep his unorthodox economic experiment going by generating more investor confidence and blocking any laws that the current opposition-controlled Congress could pass that would affect the country's finances. That plan hinges on an electoral victory in the October midterms. While the October outlook is favorable for Milei, analysts say a local election in the province of Buenos Aires on September 7 could pose a challenge to the radical right-wing leader. His party will be up against the powerful center-left Peronists on their home turf, which they currently govern and which is also home to 40% of the country's voters. "The only question mark is the province of Buenos Aires," said Lucas Romero, an analyst for consulting firm Synopsis, who said the local election could be an indication of how the October vote might play out. Defeat in October would "hinder his ability to assure the market that his economic changes can last years." "And the impact of the September election would cast doubt on that election," he added. While many voters have celebrated the reduction in inflation, which is expected to fall below 30% annually this year compared to triple-digit figures in the recent past, the drastic cuts in public spending have sparked protests from retirees, teachers, and doctors. A recent poll by the consulting firm D'Alessio IROL/Berensztein showed that Milei's approval rating dropped to 43% from 46%, while disapproval has grown to 55% from 53%. The consulting firm Trespuntozero highlighted that Milei's popularity—a key factor in the ruling party's election campaign—fell nearly 4 points to 44% in August. "The province of Buenos Aires is in a dead heat between Peronism and La Libertad Avanza (Milei's party)," Shila Vilker, director of Trespuntozero, told Reuters, adding that voting intent for Libertad Avanza is slightly below that 44%. "The government's main focus is winning the October elections," a government source who asked not to be identified told Reuters. "The September elections (in Buenos Aires) are difficult to analyze: in some areas we have an advantage, but it's more complicated in others." An August survey by the consulting firm Analogias had Peronism — grouped under the name Fuerza Patria — polling at 36.9% and La Libertad Avanza was at 32.3%. "It's going to be a close election. We're going to have a good result in some areas, they're going to have a good result in others," said Jessica Rey, Minister of Communications for the province. "We want to show that the 'chainsaw' (the symbol of Milei's austerity measures) is not the solution."
Daily Mirror
4 hours ago
- Daily Mirror
Washington Mayor slams Donald Trump's city takeover as troops flood capital
Donald Trump has hinted he will send the National Guard wing of the US armed forces to Democrat-run cities in what his supporters call a crackdown on rampant crime The Mayor of Washington DC has slammed Donald Trump's takeover of the city an "authoritarian push" as National Guard troops flood the US capital. Democrat mayor Muriel Bowser slammed Mr Trump over his crime crackdown as the US military prepares to patrol the district's streets after the Republican president branded the capital a "lawless" city. Speaking about the move on Tuesday night, she said: "This is a time when the community needs to jump in. To protect our city, to protect our autonomy, to protect our home rule. "Get to the other side of this guy and make sure we elect a Democratic House so that we have a backstop to this authoritarian push." The mayor's combative stance comes after she branded the takeover as "unprecedented," although she admitted she was not "totally surprised." It comes after Donald Trump was seen with a mystery mark in Scotland after his chronic health diagnosis. The National Guard arrived in the US capital at about 8pm on Tuesday after Mr Trump said he wanted to curb violent crime in the city. Mr Trump activated the national guard following an attempted carjacking involving DOGE employee Edward Coristine, who was beaten while trying to protect a woman. His comments are a stark contrast to his previous responses to crime in Washington DC. Following his inauguration, Mr Trump pardoned nearly 1,600 people convicted or awaiting trio for the January 6, 2021 Capitol riots with more than 600 having been convicted or pleading guilty to assault, or obstructing law enforcement and 170 of having used a deadly weapon. National Guard troops have been seen in the capital with a master sergeant telling The New York Times military Humvees parked on the National Mall was part of a "presence patrol." The Washington Post said Pentagon documents said there could be 600 troops on the ground within a single hour anywhere in the US should they be given approval. Mr Trump suggested on Monday that he could extend the takeover to other major cities in the US, such as New York City and Chicago, all Democrat-run states. Mr Trump said: "This will go further. "We're going to take back our capital…and then we'll look at other cities also." Mr Trump has the ability to send troops to Washington DC as it is not a state and is under tight federal control, his efforts to do so in states - such as California - has been challenged in the courts. While Mr Trump signalled out Democrat-run states, FBI crime statistics show four out of the five US cities with at least 100,000 residents that had the highest number of crimes against 100,000 people, were in Republican voting states. Not every agency reports to the FBI, and therefore the list is not fully complete: Memphis, Tennessee Cleveland, Ohio Toledo, Ohio Little Rock, Arkansas Peoria, Illinois Springfield, Illinois Detroit, Michigan Akron, Ohio Beaumont, Texas Rockford, Illinois Figures from Washington DC's Metropolitan Police indicates crime remains high in the capital but also suggests violent offences have fallen following a peak in 2023 and 2024. It has since reached its lowest levels in 30 years. Violent crime is down 26 per cent this year compared to the same time period last year and instances of robbery are down 28 per cent. Violent crime data is collected differently by the metropolitan police and FBI, with public data indicating a drop of 25 per cent for 2024 and a nine per cent drop, respectively. Critics have said Mr Trump's efforts are a distraction from mounting criticism over how his administration has fumbled the handling of releasing files related to the death and connections of Jeffrey Epstein. But Republicans have argued crime in major cities is out of control and has not been curbed by Democrats who run many densely populated areas of the country.
