Royal Protection Officers Stayed at Epstein Mansion During Official Trip

The newest batch of Jeffrey Epstein documents shines a brighter light on relationships that many once brushed off as side notes. New emails, security decisions, and official records are forcing people to re-examine actions once dismissed as “poor judgment” or simple association. At the centre of this renewed focus are Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor, formerly known as Prince Andrew — Queen Elizabeth II’s second son — and Peter Loughborough, the senior police commander often called her “favourite policeman.”
These revelations do more than make another scandal headline; they show how being close to power lets officials cross lines they are supposed to enforce.

A Royal Role and a Private Correspondence

The questions around Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor are no longer just about photographs in Central Park or claims he later made in a 2019 BBC Newsnight interview that the visit was solely to ‘cut ties. The newer emails shift the focus to what he did while holding an official government role. An email from 2010 shows him forwarding official South-East Asia trade envoy reports, documents linked to his work trips to Singapore, Vietnam, Hong Kong and China, into a private email chain connected to Epstein within minutes of receiving them.

That detail changes the conversation. This was not private social chatter; these reports came from a publicly funded government appointment. Sending official documents to a private individual already convicted of a sex offence raises serious questions about judgment and protocol. It becomes less about who Andrew knew and more about whether he treated government information with the care expected of someone acting on the UK’s behalf.

The issue is compounded by the security arrangements around the same period. Royal protection officers stayed inside Epstein’s New York townhouse for more than a week during Andrew’s late November to early December 2010 visit to New York. A decision later reported to have been coordinated through senior policing and royal household channels. This creates a picture where official resources — both information and protection — appeared to move into Epstein’s orbit with little visible resistance. Supporters say key details are still missing, but the publicly documented facts still make the concern clear: anyone holding an official title must keep a firm line between private friendship and public duty, not blur it.

Protection, Hospitality, and Institutional Judgment

Alongside the email revelations highlighting the security side of Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor’s 2010 trip to New York. Newly highlighted reports state that two Metropolitan Police royal protection officers stayed inside Jeffrey Epstein’s Manhattan townhouse for more than a week while accompanying Andrew. This was not a casual arrangement. Protection deployments involve planning, approvals, and senior oversight because they use public resources and are meant to minimise risk, not increase it. Emails released in the document tranche also indicate that one of the officers was provided with a temporary security access code to the property.

Correspondence involved Andrew’s private secretary, Amanda Thirsk, and Epstein’s executive assistant, Lesley Groff, discussing accommodation for the protection officers. The name drawing scrutiny is Peter Loughborough, the former Metropolitan Police commander who, at the time, headed the Royalty and Specialist Protection unit. Leaked emails show that Loughborough later oversaw royal protection arrangements at Epstein’s residence while serving as one of King Charles’s senior aides.

He later moved fully into the royal household and eventually became Lord Steward. His importance lies in that dual position. He operated at the intersection of policing decisions and royal service, meaning the systems designed to protect the monarchy and the public purse remained closely linked through the same circle of trusted figures.

Embed from Getty Images

Critics argue that allowing officers to stay at the home of a man already convicted of a sex offence shows a serious lapse in judgment, regardless of whether formal procedures were technically followed. Supporters counter that security teams often choose locations based on logistics and control of access rather than personal endorsement. Still, the optics are difficult to ignore. When armed officers funded by taxpayers spend days inside the property of a convicted offender, the public question remains simple: who approved this, and why was it considered acceptable?

This is why Loughborough’s role matters. It is less about accusing one individual of a single decision and more about understanding how close professional loyalty, institutional trust, and royal proximity became. Many critics say the very network charged with safeguarding standards is mixed in the same social and professional circles as the people it was meant to police. Viewed this way, the focus moves beyond a single trip or property to a wider question of whether officials kept the boundaries between protection, privilege, and accountability as firm as they should have. The Metropolitan Police later stated it had identified no wrongdoing by protection officers in relation to the trip.

The Favourite Policeman and the Weight of Proximity

Into this environment steps Peter Loughborough, widely known in palace circles as Queen Elizabeth II’s “favourite policeman.” His relevance comes from the positions he held, first overseeing royal protection policing, then later serving inside the royal household as Lord Steward. The same figure who once supervised the systems meant to enforce standards ultimately became part of the institution those systems existed to protect. That overlap now draws scrutiny.

The criticism is not about a missing memo. It is about a pattern where consequences appear to soften when senior royals are involved. In most public offices, controversies tied to official roles trigger resignations or external investigations. Within the monarchy, they more often result in internal reviews or carefully worded statements. The contrast became sharper when publicly funded protection was later withdrawn from Prince Harry and his family, despite ongoing security concerns, while other royal arrangements faced far less visible consequences. To many observers, that difference reinforces the perception of selective protection rather than consistent policy.

These disclosures shift the focus from one person’s behaviour to the structures that shield it. The question is no longer only what Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor did, but why the surrounding system absorbed the fallout instead of enforcing clear accountability. For critics, this is less about royal duty and more about royal privilege — and whether that privilege has damaged trust in both the monarchy and the country it represents.