Buckingham Palace Faces Criticism After Claims It “Sat On” Evidence Linked to Andrew for Six Years

Buckingham Palace is facing a new wave of criticism after a Jeffrey Epstein survivor accused the British royal household of protecting Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor, formerly known as Prince Andrew, for years.

The accusation came from Jess Michaels, a woman who says she is a survivor of Jeffrey Epstein. Speaking to The Telegraph, Michaels claimed that Buckingham Palace had known for six years about information that could have exposed Andrew to a criminal investigation, but failed to act decisively.

“Six years ago, the palace knew Andrew wasn’t just a problem; he could face a criminal investigation. And they sat on it,” Michaels said.

The claims followed a BBC report stating that Buckingham Palace received more than 30,000 emails in 2020 related to Andrew’s role as the United Kingdom’s trade envoy. According to reports, some of the emails allegedly involved claims that Andrew shared confidential government information with Jeffrey Epstein while serving in that role between 2001 and 2011.

Andrew, 66, was arrested in February 2026 at the Sandringham estate in Norfolk, England, on suspicion of misconduct in public office. He has denied the allegations.

Buckingham Palace declined to comment in detail, citing the ongoing investigation. In a response to the BBC, the palace said: “Since there is an ongoing police enquiry concerning Mr Mountbatten-Windsor, it is not possible to provide any comment on these matters.”

But that silence has not eased public pressure. Instead, it has raised more questions: if this information was sent to the royal household as far back as 2020, why did the matter only truly erupt after Andrew’s arrest?

Jess Michaels said the situation is a familiar example of how powerful institutions operate. According to her, such systems often protect powerful men while leaving victims to carry the burden alone.

“This is what institutions do. They protect powerful men and leave the people they harmed to carry it,” Michaels said.

She also defended the late Virginia Giuffre, who accused Andrew of sexually abusing her when she was underage in connection with Epstein’s network. Andrew has always denied Giuffre’s allegations and reached an out-of-court settlement with her in 2022. Virginia Giuffre died by suicide in April 2025.

“Virginia Roberts Giuffre was telling the truth, and she didn’t live to see them admit it,” Michaels said. “That breaks my heart, and it should break everyone’s.”

That line quickly became one of the most emotional details in the case. For years, Giuffre was one of the most visible figures speaking out about Epstein’s network and its links to powerful people. The fact that she is no longer alive as new investigations expand has made the story even heavier in the eyes of the public.

The Andrew case is not only about old allegations connected to Epstein. According to Thames Valley Police, the investigation has now expanded to include allegations of sexual misconduct. In a statement in May, police said they were continuing to assess reports that a woman was taken to an address in Windsor in 2010 for sexual purposes.

Police said they had contacted the woman’s legal representative and stressed that, if she chooses to make an official report, it will be taken seriously and handled with care, sensitivity, and respect for her privacy and right to anonymity.

“We recognize how difficult it can be to speak about experiences of this nature, and any contact with police will be led by her wishes, when and if she feels ready and able to do so,” authorities said.

Thames Valley Police also confirmed that they are working with the U.K.’s Crown Prosecution Service and the United States Department of Justice to examine several aspects of alleged misconduct mentioned in the Epstein files.

Assistant Chief Constable Oliver Wright said a team of highly experienced detectives is working carefully through a significant amount of information that has come in from the public and other sources.

“We are committed to conducting a thorough investigation into all reasonable lines of enquiry, wherever they may lead,” he said.

On the royal side, King Charles III issued a statement after Andrew’s arrest. He said he had learned the news with “the deepest concern” and emphasized that what must now follow is a full, fair, and proper process handled by the appropriate authorities.

“In this, as I have said before, they have our full and wholehearted support and cooperation,” the King said.

Still, many believe that current statements are not enough to answer the biggest question: why did warning signs that allegedly existed years earlier not lead to clearer action?

According to reports, the Lord Chamberlain — the most senior officer of the royal household — allegedly received tens of thousands of emails in 2020. Those emails were reportedly taken from a personal business contact of Andrew. Some of the material allegedly related to Andrew’s activities while he was serving as trade envoy.

If these claims are proven, the case could raise serious questions not only about Andrew personally, but also about how Buckingham Palace handled sensitive information involving a senior member of the royal family.

For years, Andrew has been one of the most controversial figures in the British royal family. His relationship with Jeffrey Epstein became the focus of global media attention, especially after his disastrous 2019 BBC Newsnight interview. That interview is widely viewed as one of the biggest public relations failures in modern royal history, as Andrew attempted to explain his ties to Epstein but only deepened public outrage.

Afterward, Andrew stepped back from royal duties, lost several honorary roles, and was increasingly pushed out of the royal family’s public life. But with the latest developments, the question is no longer only whether Andrew has been isolated from the monarchy. It is whether the palace knew more than it admitted, when it knew it, and how it chose to respond.

For Epstein’s survivors, this is not just a reputational scandal. It is a fight over responsibility, truth, and the right to be heard. Jess Michaels said the women who spoke out for years had to endure doubt, silence, and the weight of powerful institutions.

That is why her claim that the palace “sat on” evidence is not just an accusation about administrative inaction. It points to a much larger question: are powerful people protected longer, more carefully, and more forcefully than ordinary people?

Buckingham Palace continues to avoid further comment while the investigation is ongoing. Andrew continues to deny the allegations. But the police investigation, the involvement of legal authorities in both the U.K. and the U.S., and renewed statements from Epstein survivors show that the matter is far from over.

What has drawn particular attention is the timing. After years of Andrew being seen as a royal “problem,” the allegations have now moved from a crisis of image to a crisis of law. If the emails, the Epstein files, and survivor testimony lead to more serious conclusions, this could become one of the biggest crises Buckingham Palace has faced in the modern era.

And at the center of it all remains the painful question raised by Jess Michaels: if Virginia Giuffre was telling the truth, why did it take so many years, so many files, and so many survivors speaking out before the world began to listen?