King Charles was warned six years ago that Prince Andrew's business entanglements were damaging the Royal Family, according to a whistleblower email now at the center of a widening scandal that has already landed the ex-Duke of York in police custody.
The Mail on Sunday revealed that in August 2019, a whistleblower sent an email to Charles, then Prince of Wales, through the royal lawyers Farrer & Co. The message was blunt: David Rowland, the controversial millionaire financier orbiting Andrew for years, had "abused the Royal Family's name."
Andrew was arrested on Thursday on suspicion of misconduct in public office. He was released under investigation eleven hours later. The charge carries a maximum sentence of life imprisonment, though he has not been formally charged.
The question now reverberating through British politics is simple: what did the Palace do with that warning, and why did it take a police arrest to force the issue?
As reported by the Daily Mail, the August 2019 email did not mince words. Addressed to Charles through Farrer & Co, it laid out what the whistleblower described as a pattern of financial entanglement between Andrew and David Rowland that put the monarchy's reputation at risk.
"HRH the Duke of York's actions suggest that his Royal Highness considers his relationship with David Rowland more important than that of his family."
A second email, sent directly to David Rowland, copied in Charles's private secretary Clive Alderton and the late Queen's solicitor Mark Bridges at Farrer & Co. That message was even more direct:
"The evidence provided unequivocally proves that you have abused the Royal Family's name."
The whistleblower alleged that Rowland "paid HRH The Duke of York to procure a Luxembourg Banking Licence" for his private bank, Banque Havilland. That bank had its licence withdrawn in 2024 by the European Central Bank, a decision it is currently appealing.
So by 2019, the Palace had a documented warning. Andrew's name was already radioactive thanks to the now infamous photograph of him with 17-year-old Virginia Giuffre and his links to convicted paedophile Jeffrey Epstein. And yet the wheels of accountability barely turned.
The financial relationship between Andrew and the Rowland family stretches back decades. Messages seen by the Mail on Sunday appear to show that Andrew allowed Jonathan Rowland, David's son, to effectively join in with his official duties as a taxpayer-funded trade envoy between 2001 and 2011.
The details are striking:
Andrew once told Epstein that Rowland was his "trusted money man." Let that sink in. A member of the Royal Family, serving as a taxpayer-funded trade envoy, allegedly blended his official diplomatic duties with the private financial interests of a man he vouched for to a convicted paedophile.
Jonathan Rowland, responding to the revelations, dismissed the allegations. He said the emails were "stolen" and had been "extensively reported" previously, adding: "You can't procure a banking licence, that's an idiotic suggestion." He claimed "no recollection" of other matters and offered "no idea" when pressed further.
On Saturday, MPs called for police to study the evidence acquired by the Mail on Sunday. The responses crossed party lines, which tells you how politically toxic Andrew has become.
Shadow Home Secretary Chris Philp did not hold back:
"These explosive new MoS findings are shocking, but not surprising. The police should investigate them at once. Andrew has acted disgracefully and deserves nothing less than to face justice over his deals, something which has been denied to Epstein's victims for too long. No one is above the law."
Shadow Foreign Secretary Priti Patel struck a similar tone, noting that "each day new revelations appear and they are all horrific" and calling for urgent police investigations.
Reform UK's Treasury spokesman Robert Jenrick was equally forceful:
"The police must investigate the latest revelation urgently. No stone must be left unturned to establish the truth. Andrew has done his best to wreck Britain's reputation on the world stage through his association with Epstein."
There are now growing calls for the Government to introduce legislation to remove Andrew from the line of succession. He remains eighth in line to the throne. Defence minister Luke Pollard said stripping him of his right to succession was the "right thing to do."
The Metropolitan Police has started the process of identifying and contacting former and serving officers who may have worked closely with Andrew in a protection capacity. The force asked those officers to consider carefully whether anything they saw or heard during their period of service might be relevant to ongoing reviews.
"They have been asked to consider carefully whether anything they saw or heard during that period of service may be relevant to our ongoing reviews and to share any information that could assist us."
The Met refused to confirm how many current and former staff members were involved. A British ambassador reportedly warned the Government more than two decades ago about Andrew's associations. A British diplomat in Moscow also raised concerns. The warnings piled up. The action did not.
Buckingham Palace's response to the whistleblower revelations was characteristic. A Palace source said that "given the ongoing police investigation into Andrew, it would not be possible to give any comment on the whistleblower's email." The source added that "any relevant material in the possession of the MoS should be shared with the appropriate authorities."
That is a remarkable posture for an institution that received a direct, documented warning in 2019 about one of its own members allegedly selling access and blending royal duties with private financial schemes.
Gloria Allred, a lawyer who has represented 27 Epstein victims, urged the King and the Prince and Princess of Wales to give statements to police. Speaking to the BBC, she laid out the stakes plainly:
"King Charles and all the members really of the Royal Family have said that they support the victims. The best way is for them to also do interviews with the police if they are requested to do so. Or they could volunteer to do so. I would respectfully request that they speak out about what Andrew may have ever told them about his role with Jeffrey Epstein."
The Andrew saga is not just a story about one reckless royal. It is a case study in how institutions prioritize self-preservation over accountability. The warning signs were everywhere. A whistleblower put them in writing. Diplomats raised alarms. The financial entanglements were not subtle. A man paying off your £1.5 million loan while you carry the title of trade envoy is not a grey area.
For years, the British establishment treated Andrew's behavior as an embarrassment to be managed rather than a potential crime to be investigated. The same instinct that kept Epstein's network intact across multiple countries, the instinct to look away because the names involved are too important, operated in plain sight within the monarchy itself.
Now that an arrest has been made, every institution that received a warning and filed it away will face a reckoning. The emails exist. The timeline is clear. The question is no longer what Andrew did. It is who knew, when they knew it, and why they chose silence.
