Redacting Andrew files ‘like removing Trump from Epstein papers’

The Cabinet Office’s redaction of files relating to Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor has been compared to its controversial treatment of the Epstein files.

Andrew Loney, the former prince’s biographer, said the decision to remove parts of the document after it had been released to journalists was “appalling”.

Mr. Loney, author entitled toSaid: “It’s a bit like Trump’s redaction (on the Epstein files). They’re a little scared and they do things without realizing the consequences, try to get away with it or play it off.

“I think there’s just a huge panic. Anything that might have to do with Andrew is being taken off the record because they’re worried about what it might reveal.”

The Cabinet Office was accused of a cover-up for the royal family after it emerged that official documents referring to Andrew had been withheld from the National Archives.

The annual release of government documents under a 20-year rule at the archives at Kew, southwest London, includes file number 10 of 2004 and 2005 on royal visits.

Made available to journalists under an edition restriction, so they could prepare stories in advance, the minutes included meetings where officials discussed travel plans for the royals – including the then Duke of York, when he was Britain’s trade envoy.

However, the minutes were later redacted from the file before being released to the public.

The Cabinet Office responsible for transferring the files to the National Archives has blamed an “administrative error”, saying they were never intended to be released.

However, Graham Smith, chief executive of anti-monarchy campaign group Republic, said there was no justification for withholding the documents, especially since Andrew was stripped of his royal status amid ongoing controversy over his relationship with pedophile financier Jeffrey Epstein.

Labor MP Rachel Maskell also called on the government to explain why the files had not been published.

Mr Lonnie said all files relating to Andrew’s time as trade envoy up to 2005 should be released and Parliament should be called for an inquiry.

He told The Times: “There has been a huge cover-up [concerning] Andrew’s lavish spending, little of it benefits the country, and it continues. I believe there needs to be a full parliamentary inquiry into Andrew’s decade as Special Representative.

Earlier this month, Andrew, who has always denied any wrongdoing, was formally stripped of his last remaining royal titles following a row over his relationship with Epstein.

The redacted files show palace and Foreign Office officials discussing Andrew’s travel plans as Britain’s trade envoy – earning him the nickname “Air Mile Andy” – with visits to the UK, Russia, Southeast Asia and Spain.

Officials also raised the issue of whether the Football Association would be willing to pay for Portugal to participate in the Euro 2004 tournament as the royal representative.

Alison McClean, a researcher at the University of Bristol, also told the paper that the three exemptions cited by the Cabinet Office, designed to protect communications with the sovereign, as well as documents containing personal data or privacy, were “suspicious”.

McClain added: “It seems to show how the most innocuous material about even junior members of the royal family is routinely withheld. In this case it is particularly worrying that information about Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor’s activities as a UK trade representative has been prevented from being released into the National Archives, as it relates to his role as a public servant or family member. Indeed, as a private citizen.”

The Cabinet Office said: “All records are managed in accordance with the requirements of the Public Records Act. Any release is subject to a detailed review process, involving specialist stakeholders.”