Prince Andrew Faces Police Inquiry Over Alias Use in Company Registration Amidst Financial Turmoil
Prince Andrew, Duke of York, finds himself embroiled in another controversy, as anti-monarchy group Republic has filed a police report against him for allegedly using a false name to register a company. The complaint alleges that the prince used the pseudonym "Andrew Inverness" in 2002 when establishing Naples Gold Limited with business partner Johan Eliasch. Republic CEO Graham Smith argues that this action, though seemingly minor, raises concerns about potential fraud and holds the royals accountable to the same legal standards as everyone else. The Metropolitan Police are currently assessing the complaint to determine if further action is warranted. This latest incident adds to the mounting pressures facing the Duke, who has been increasingly scrutinized for his financial dealings and past associations.
The pseudonym "Andrew Inverness" appears to derive from the Prince’s lesser-known title, Earl of Inverness, bestowed upon him by Queen Elizabeth II upon his marriage to Sarah Ferguson in 1986. While the use of an alias might seem innocuous, Smith contends that it sets a dangerous precedent, particularly in the context of rising corporate fraud. He emphasizes the need for transparency and accountability, especially from prominent figures like Prince Andrew. The Duke’s representatives have not yet commented on the police report or the allegations surrounding the use of the pseudonym. This incident reignites the debate about the privileges and responsibilities of the royal family and whether they are truly subject to the same rules as ordinary citizens.
Simultaneously, Prince Andrew’s financial affairs have come under intense scrutiny following the closure of Urramoor Limited, an investment firm under his significant control. The company, which has consistently operated at a loss, applied for dissolution just a year after receiving a mysterious £210,000 bailout in the form of non-redeemable shares. The source of this funding remains unknown, raising further questions about the Duke’s financial practices. Established in 2013 under the name HRH Andrew Inverness, Urramoor’s closure marks the end of a decade-long venture that failed to generate any profit.
Adding to the Duke’s troubles, his flagship entrepreneurial initiative, Pitch@Palace, has also experienced significant financial withdrawals. Over £230,000 was withdrawn from the organization’s accounts, authorized by director Arthur Lancaster, who also oversaw Urramoor Limited. The purpose of this substantial withdrawal remains unclear, fueling speculation and concern about the future of Pitch@Palace. This development further complicates Prince Andrew’s financial landscape, raising questions about the viability and transparency of his various business endeavors.
Further complicating matters is the revelation of a former Pitch@Palace executive’s alleged ties to Chinese intelligence. Yang Tengbo, the founder of the program’s Chinese branch and a close confidante of Prince Andrew, has been suspected of association with the United Front Work Department (UFWD), a Chinese government agency accused of influencing foreign entities. Mr. Yang’s UK residency rights were revoked due to security concerns, raising questions about his involvement with Pitch@Palace and its potential vulnerability to foreign influence. Mr. Yang denies the allegations, claiming he is a victim of changing political climates.
The convergence of these events paints a troubling picture for Prince Andrew. He faces a police investigation, escalating financial woes, and scrutiny over his associations. The Duke’s reputation, already tarnished by past controversies, faces further damage. The ongoing investigations and financial uncertainties surrounding his ventures pose significant challenges, potentially impacting his future endeavors and further diminishing his public standing. These developments raise broader questions about the oversight and accountability of individuals in positions of power and privilege.