US lawmakers have intensified their demands for Andrew

US lawmakers have intensified their demands for Andrew to speak out about his relationship with Epstein.

Members of the US Congressional committee investigating the Jeffrey Epstein case have intensified their demands for Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor to answer questions about his relationship with the late financier and sex offender.

On Thursday, King Charles stripped Andrew of his title as Prince and evicted him from his residence in the courtyard of Windsor Castle. This move is a response to growing outrage against him due to years of negative headlines about his behavior.

Buckingham Palace stated that the condemnation was necessary, although Andrew has consistently denied the allegations against him.

In the US, the King's move has led to calls for Andrew to reveal all his knowledge of Epstein, especially after the Palace's statement on Thursday expressing sympathy for victims of abuse.

At least four Democratic members of the House Oversight Committee, which is investigating the US government's handling of the Epstein case, have reiterated their demand for Andrew to testify.

It quoted one of them, Democratic Congressman Raja Krishnamoorthi, as saying: "Speak clearly, come before the US Congress, testify voluntarily, don't wait for a subpoena, come and testify and tell us what you know."

"Not only to get justice for the victims, but also to prevent this from happening again."

Another Democratic Congressman, Suhas Subramanian, said Andrew could speak privately to the panel remotely with a lawyer.

On Friday, UK Trade Minister Chris Bryant told the BBC that Andrew should travel to the US to answer questions about Epstein.

Separately on Saturday, the Independent Office for Police Conduct, the police watchdog for England and Wales, said it had contacted the Metropolitan Police in light of media reports about Andrew to "understand whether there is a case that meets the criteria for referral to us."

In response, a Metropolitan Police spokesperson said that in 2016 officers had concluded that "other jurisdictions and organisations" were better placed to pursue the specific allegations and the decision was taken not to proceed with a full criminal investigation.