A former royal protection officer has come forward with explosive claims that the Metropolitan Police instructed him to remain silent after he offered information related to former Prince Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor. Paul Page, who served in the Royalty and Specialist Protection unit from 1998 to 2004, alleges he was warned by the force following his decision to contact Thames Valley Police amid renewed scrutiny over Andrew’s past associations and conduct.

Page’s allegations resurfaced in February 2026, coinciding with heightened police activity surrounding Andrew. The former Duke of York was arrested by Thames Valley Police on suspicion of misconduct in public office, linked to documents suggesting he shared sensitive UK trade information with Jeffrey Epstein after Epstein’s 2008 conviction for sex offenses. The arrest marked a dramatic escalation in long-standing questions about Andrew’s ties to the disgraced financier, who died by suicide in 2019 while awaiting trial on federal sex trafficking charges.

Page, now 54, claims he approached Thames Valley Police to provide assistance in their investigation. He alleges that women were routinely brought into Buckingham Palace after hours during his service—sometimes “multiple times a week”—without proper security clearance or logging of names. He further asserts that protection officers were instructed not to question or record details about these visitors, even when Queen Elizabeth II was in residence. Page described Andrew as verbally abusive toward staff, reportedly calling officers “f*****g imbeciles” and demanding they turn a blind eye to his personal activities.

In December 2025, Page received a letter from Metropolitan Police Deputy Assistant Commissioner Jon Savell. The correspondence reminded him of his ongoing obligations regarding “confidentiality and respect for the privacy of those who are protected.” Page interpreted the letter as a veiled directive to stop speaking publicly. “It’s trying to say, in the nicest possible terms, ‘Can you shut up?’” he told media outlets. He maintains the warning came after he shared details in interviews and offered to help police.

The Metropolitan Police has not confirmed the letter’s intent but has emphasized that former protection officers are bound by strict confidentiality rules, including aspects of the Official Secrets Act. The force stated it is contacting current and former officers who worked closely with Andrew to determine if they possess relevant information following the latest release of Epstein-related court documents. In a public appeal, the Met urged anyone with knowledge of potential wrongdoing—including allegations of human trafficking facilitation through London airports or failure to report suspicious activity—to come forward.

Page’s claims add to a growing narrative of institutional silence surrounding Andrew’s conduct during his time as a working royal. He served as a trade envoy from 2001 to 2011, a role that brought him into contact with Epstein. Court documents unsealed in recent years detailed Epstein’s network and Andrew’s alleged involvement in sexual encounters with Virginia Giuffre, who settled a civil lawsuit against him in 2022 for an undisclosed sum. Andrew has consistently denied wrongdoing and settled without admitting liability.

Critics argue that royal protection officers operated under a culture where questioning the prince’s guests was discouraged. Page insists officers were “not allowed to record the names of Andrew’s female guests on official logs,” describing a system where footmen or staff would escort visitors after hours without formal checks. He claims this practice occurred repeatedly, raising questions about oversight and potential vulnerabilities.

The Metropolitan Police’s response has drawn scrutiny. While the force insists no new criminal allegations of sexual offenses have been made within its jurisdiction, it is assessing reports of possible human trafficking links and misconduct. Thames Valley Police, handling the misconduct probe, searched properties linked to Andrew, including Royal Lodge in Windsor. Officers are reviewing historical records and interviewing witnesses.

Page’s decision to speak out stems from a sense of duty. “I feel like I have information that could take the police probe forward, and I have a duty to share that,” he said. He defended his former colleagues, noting they were focused on physical protection rather than monitoring personal conduct, but argued the lack of transparency enabled questionable behavior.

The controversy highlights tensions between royal security protocols and public accountability. Protection officers sign strict non-disclosure agreements, and breaching them can carry severe consequences. Page himself faced legal troubles in 2008 over a separate fraud case, during which he made earlier allegations about Andrew—claims prosecutors attempted to suppress in court.

As investigations continue, the Metropolitan Police maintains it has not identified wrongdoing by protection officers but is conducting initial inquiries. The force reiterated its appeal: former officers should “consider carefully” if anything they witnessed is relevant.

For Page, the warning letter represents institutional pressure to remain silent. He insists his motivation is not personal vendetta but a commitment to truth. “They were not his friends, and he was not their friend,” he said of Andrew and the officers. “That’s the first thing.”

The saga underscores broader questions about privilege, accountability, and the limits of confidentiality in royal protection. With Andrew no longer a working royal—his titles and military affiliations stripped in 2022—the focus has shifted to historical conduct and whether past oversights allowed misconduct to go unchecked.

As the Metropolitan Police continues outreach to former officers, Page’s experience serves as a cautionary tale: speaking out about a former prince may come with consequences, even years later. Whether his information leads to new revelations remains to be seen, but the claim of being told to “keep quiet” has intensified calls for transparency in one of Britain’s most scrutinized institutions.