The Cabinet Office’s redaction of files relating to Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor has been compared to the controversial handling of the Epstein files.
Andrew Lownie, biographer of the former prince, said the decision to remove parts of the documents after they were released to journalists was “panicking”.
Mr Lownie, the author of Entitledhe said: “It’s a bit like Trump’s redactions (in the Epstein files). He’s panicking a little and doing things without realizing the consequences, trying to leave it or reduce it.
“I think there’s just a lot of panic. Everything to do with Andrew is being taken off the record because they’re worried about what he might reveal.”
Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor, the King’s brother, has been formally stripped of his ‘prince’ titles and asked to vacate the Royal Lodge (PA)
The Cabinet Office has been accused of covering up the royal family after it emerged that official papers referring to Andrew were withheld from the National Archives.
The annual release of government papers under the 20-year rule to the archives in Kew, south-west London, includes file No 10 from 2004 and 2005 on royal visits.
The version made available to embargoed journalists, so they could prepare stories in advance, included minutes of a meeting where officials discussed the travel plans of the royals – including the then Duke of York, when he was a UK trade envoy.
However, the minutes were later written out of the file before it was released to the public.
The Cabinet Office, which is responsible for transferring the files to the National Archives, blamed an “administrative error”, saying they were never meant to be released.
However, Graham Smith, chief executive of anti-monarchy campaign group Republic, said there was no justification for withholding the documents, especially as Andrew was stripped of his royal status amid ongoing controversy over his links to pedophile financier Jeffrey Epstein.
Labor MP Rachael Maskell also urged the government to provide clarity on why the files were not published.
Mr Lownie said all files relating to Andrew’s time as trade envoy up to 2005 should be released and asked parliament to investigate.
He told the Times: “It’s still a huge cover [concerning] Andrew’s excessive spending, some of which benefits the country, and continues. I believe there needs to be a full parliamentary inquiry into Andrew’s decade as special representative.”
Disgraced financier Jeffrey Epstein (DOJ)
Earlier this month, Andrew, who has always denied any wrongdoing, was formally stripped of his last remaining royal titles following controversy over his links to Epstein.
The written files showed discussions by senior palace and Foreign Office officials about Andrew’s travel plans as a UK trade envoy – nicknamed “air miles Andy” – with visits to China, Russia, South East Asia and Spain.
Officials have also raised the question of whether the Football Association is willing to pay for him to attend the Euro 2004 tournament in Portugal as a 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 documents containing communications with the sovereign, as well as personal data or confidentiality, were “dubious”.
McClean added: “It seems to show how even the most innocuous material concerning even minor members of the royal family is routinely withheld. In this case it is especially worrying that information about Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor’s activities as a UK trade representative is being blocked from being released to the National Archives, as this relates to his role as a public servant rather than as a royal or private member, rather as a citizen.
The Cabinet Office said: “All records are managed in accordance with the requirements of the Public Records Act. Any release is subject to an extensive review process, including the involvement of expert stakeholders.”