Allegations have emerged regarding Prince Andrew’s conduct during a taxpayer-funded trip to Thailand in 2001. According to royal biographer Andrew Lownie, the prince had as many as 40 sex workers brought to his five-star hotel during a four-day stay. This revelation, shared on the Daily Mail’s podcast, “Deep Dive: The Fall of the House of York,” adds to the mounting scrutiny surrounding the prince’s past behavior.
Lownie asserted that this incident occurred while Prince Andrew was serving as a Trade Envoy for the UK, a role that was funded by taxpayers. He described the trip as part of a pattern where the prince allegedly exploited his official position to engage in personal activities under the guise of official duties. “In 2001, Andrew is 41, he’s having his midlife crisis and he basically starts chasing lots and lots of women,” Lownie stated.
During the Thailand trip, which coincided with the birthday celebrations of the King, Prince Andrew reportedly opted for a luxurious hotel stay instead of using the embassy accommodations, a choice he often made. Lownie claimed that multiple sources, including a member of the Thai royal family, corroborated these allegations.
The implications of these claims are significant, particularly given the recent events surrounding Prince Andrew. On January 19, 2022, he was officially stripped of his royal titles and evicted from his residence, marking a dramatic decline in his public standing. These actions followed years of controversy, including his connection to convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein.
Lownie emphasized the troubling nature of Prince Andrew’s actions, suggesting that his trips often included a combination of official business and personal indulgences. “He always puts in two weeks of ‘private time.’ So, we pay for his holiday and then he goes off and does things,” he noted.
This new information raises questions about accountability and the use of public funds for personal gain. As the fallout continues, the royal family faces renewed scrutiny over Andrew’s past conduct and the implications it has for the monarchy’s image. The situation remains fluid, with many awaiting further responses from official sources.
