Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor questioned: ‘Why did you never answer them’

Royal biographer Andrew Lownie has just referenced another connection Andrew Mountbatten Windsor had with a second convicted sex offender, one named Peter Nygård, on his Substack.

What is pertinent to mention regarding Mr Nygård is that the 84-year-old is currently in a Canadian prison and is serving an 11-year sentence over four counts of sexual assault back in 2023, for events happened in the 1980s and 2005,” according to The Sunday Times.

Now, with the Epstein row having caused the former Duke to lose his hereditary title of prince, dukedom and even his military honors another issue has come forward via the Epstein files which connect the disgraced royal to another sex offender.

In response the unofficial biographer that penned Entitled: The Rise and Fall of the House of York even said, “The parallels from the recently released Epstein files regarding Peter Nygård are dark and unsettling.”

Because in them, once again, we see Andrew and Sarah Ferguson having cultivated “a relationship with a man who later proved to be a prolific sex offender, and introducing their daughters to him.” But “once again, we see lavish hospitality accepted without any evident scrutiny of the man providing it or the world he inhabited.”

There is also another concern Mr Lownie claims and it relates to the “deeper truth” that has since been exposed, and it relates to how the Epstein issue was handled on this side of the pond because the United States ‘asked for help’.

Which means “the mechanisms existed. Yet Andrew never sat down with American investigators,” he pointed out, despite having received letters from the US Congress.

“Instead, we were told that cooperation was impossible, inappropriate, or unnecessary. That the matter had somehow closed itself,” he added too.

In an effort to highlight its importance the biographer earlier even said, “This was not a media fishing expedition or an activist campaign. It was a formal request under the UK–US Mutual Legal Assistance Treaty.”

Furthermore, “The request also matters because it makes clear that US prosecutors did not view Epstein as an isolated concern,” Mr Lownie added.

For those unversed in the same formal request, they “sought to question Andrew in relation to a separate international trafficking investigation involving Peter Nygård, indicating that they regarded Andrew’s movements and associations as relevant to more than one live inquiry.”

“It is both heartbreaking and indefensible that multiple opportunities to advance justice for victims were missed, and that neither UK authorities nor Andrew chose to cooperate.”

“The monarchy often speaks about trust, duty, and service. Those concepts cannot survive on reputation management alone. They require transparency and accountability, especially when the questions are this serious.”

The US’s Request in Writing:

For those unversed with the US’ request, it was written to The Central Authority of the United Kingdom with the subject line “Request for Assistance in the Matter of Material Witness PA” dated April 3, 2020.

It said, “The Central Authority of the United States of America ("U.S.") requests the assistance of the Central Authority of the United Kingdom ("UK") under the 1994 Treaty of Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters between the U.S. and the UK, as amended by the 16 December 2004 Instrument and exchange of notes ("the Treaty").”

“The United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York and the Federal Bureau of Investigation (collectively the "U.S. authorities") seek to interview H.R.H. Prince Andrew Albert Christian Edward, the Duke of York, also known as Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor ("Prince Andrew" or "the witness"), relating to two ongoing criminal investigations.”

“In addition, U.S. authorities seek records of certain communications and meetings between Prince Andrew and the subjects of one investigation.”

“With regard to the interview, U.S. authorities request to conduct a voluntary interview of Prince Andrew and request the assistance of UK authorities in arranging for such an interview. In the event that the witness declines to participate in a voluntary interview, U.S. authorities request that UK authorities conduct a compelled interview of the witness under oath.”