In recent weeks, the House committee investigating Donald Trump’s ties to Jeffrey Epstein have released reams of documents, especially older documents from the early ‘00s. Some of those documents are emails, which is how we now know that Prince Andrew and Sarah Ferguson were in close contact with Epstein even after he got out of prison. But did you also know that Epstein loaned his private plane to Andrew in 2006, two months after Epstein was arrested?

Prince Andrew used Jeffrey Epstein’s private jet to fly to Scotland two months after the paedophile financier was arrested for having sex with under-age girls, new flight logs have revealed. Flight records released in the US show that the prince flew into Edinburgh airport with Ghislaine Maxwell and two other passengers for a private wedding in September 2006.

Epstein was arrested in July 2006 on a count of soliciting prostitution from a minor after a family reported that their 14-year-old daughter had been molested at his mansion.

In total, records showed Andrew used Epstein’s private jets on four occasions – including in May 2000 with Epstein, Maxwell, the celebrity chef Adam Perry Lang, a bodyguard and three others.
Two flights in 1999 also had Prince Andrew as a named passenger.

The flight logs were revealed after the US House oversight committee published hundreds more documents from Epstein’s estate on Friday, hours after Andrew announced that he would stop using his titles and honours.

[From The National]

These are just the flight records that the House has access to right now, and these are only the flight records where they bothered recording Andrew as a passenger. I do not believe that Andrew only flew on Epstein’s plane – colloquially called Lolita Express – just four times over the course of their decades-long friendship. Speaking of, the politics around Andrew’s titles is getting heated.

Sir Keir Starmer is facing calls from MPs to legislate to strip Prince Andrew of his dukedom, amid claims that there would be “significant” support for the move. Labour backbenchers are among those who want the government to intervene to ensure proper “justice”, despite Andrew having vowed to stop using his title. Downing Street on Monday distanced itself from the row, insisting that the future of Andrew’s titles was “a matter for the Palace”.

However, Starmer is facing mounting pressure from Labour MPs to pass an act of parliament, which is the only way to formally strip a royal of their title. The government would probably have to back the bill for it to stand a chance of passing.

Graham Stringer, a veteran Labour backbencher, said there should be a debate in the Commons followed by an act of parliament to formally strip Andrew of his titles. He told The Times: “I would be surprised if there weren’t a significant number of MPs who would want parliament to intervene. The government will not want to, but might bow to pressure.”

Rachael Maskell, an MP who had the Labour whip removed in July for rebelling against the government, is spearheading a campaign to bring forward legislation to strip Andrew of his title. She is discussing the plans with parliamentary officials, given limited routes available to backbenchers to force legislation through both Houses, and believes legislation is required so that “justice could be served”. Other MPs, including Stephen Flynn, the SNP leader in Westminster, suggested there would be cross-party support for an act of parliament.

He told the Telegraph: “The family of Virginia Giuffre, whose life was destroyed, are angry and aghast, the public across these isles are angry and aghast, and they both deserve to know that some MPs share their outrage. So I won’t sit silent — if an act of parliament is required to strip the likes of Peter Mandelson and Prince Andrew of their titles, then there can be no justification from this Labour government as to why that is not immediately happening.”

Andrew was also urged to be more open about his friendship with Epstein. Sarah Owen, a Labour MP and chair of the women and equalities select committee, told The Times: “Many people will be less concerned about royal titles and rightly more concerned about the horrific things Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor has been accused of. While there’s traditionally been a lot of affection for other members of the royal family, that good faith can’t be taken for granted in Andrew’s case. Whether it’s his reported close ties with alleged Chinese spies or friendship with Epstein, the British public deserve total transparency in order to judge for themselves if Andrew is fit to retain the title ‘Prince’ and all the privilege that goes along with it.”

Downing Street declined to get involved in the row. The prime minister’s spokesman said: “It’s a matter for the royal family. Prince Andrew has confirmed he won’t use his titles, and we support the judgment made by the King.”

The spokesman denied that ministers were scared of the reaction from the royal family, saying: “The government isn’t scared of anyone or anything.”

[From The Times]

Maybe I have the wrong read on Starmer and the politics of this situation, but I don’t think Starmer is actually inclined to protect Andrew or cover-up Andrew’s misdeeds. I think Starmer just doesn’t want this to blow up and hijack the other sh-t that’s happening in the country. I also get the sense that most serious politicians (on all sides) see the royals as overrated and unimportant in the larger sense, so it’s easy for them to shrug off this York fiasco as a sideshow. That’s a mistake, btw. It’s a huge deal, and it touches on so many larger issues: political corruption, sexual abuse, abuse of power, and how men protect other men and predators protect their fellow predators. The Starmer government should take this more seriously.

Photos courtesy of Avalon Red.