Former Buckingham Palace Security Officer Speaks Out on Prince Andrew’s Alleged Abusive Behavior

In the hallowed halls of Buckingham Palace, where tradition and decorum are the currency of the realm, the public image of the British Royal Family is meticulously curated. We see the polite waves, the formal ceremonies, and the stoic dedication to duty. However, a shattering new testimony from a former insider has pulled back the heavy velvet curtains to reveal a starkly different reality involving one of the monarchy’s most controversial figures: Prince Andrew.

Paul Page, a former Royal Protection Officer who served in the Royal Protection Command from 1998 to 2004, has come forward with a blistering account of his time guarding the Queen’s second son. In a candid and explosive interview, Page paints a portrait of a man consumed by entitlement, prone to volcanic outbursts of abuse, and surrounded by a bizarre world of childish obsessions and dangerous associations.

The “Cushy” Job That Turned Toxic

For many in the police force, a posting to Buckingham Palace was seen as the “golden ticket”—a prestigious, relatively safe, and “cushy” assignment away from the grit and danger of street policing. Paul Page describes his role as providing armed protection to the Queen, Prince Philip, and Prince Andrew, a job that required overseeing the safety of the most famous family in the world .

According to Page, the contrast between the royals was night and day. He remembers Her Majesty the Queen as “wonderful, very polite, respectful,” a figure who commanded loyalty through her grace. Even the notoriously gruff Prince Philip, while occasionally “tetchy” and prone to throwing a few expletives, was manageable. But Prince Andrew was a different beast entirely.

“Prince Andrew was totally different,” Page reveals. “He could fly off the handle at the smallest thing. He would be abusive, he would shout, he would swear” . This was not the occasional bad day of a stressed public figure; Page describes a consistent pattern of behavior that terrorized the staff. The atmosphere around the Duke of York was one of walking on eggshells, where a minor delay in opening a gate could trigger a torrent of verbal abuse.

“You Effing Buffoons”: The Rage of a Prince

One of the most striking aspects of Page’s testimony is the sheer pettiness of the Prince’s alleged outbursts. He recalls incidents where officers at the gate, busy vetting guests or dealing with security procedures, might not open the gates the instant Andrew’s car arrived. Instead of understanding the necessary security checks, Andrew would reportedly roll down his window and scream, “You effing buffoons,” at the armed officers pledged to take a bullet for him .

“There was no leeway,” Page notes. “If it wasn’t done right for him, then he would fly off the handle” .

This abuse wasn’t limited to the police. Page highlights that the maids, servants, and footmen—often young staff members living away from home for the first time—bore the brunt of Andrew’s temper. The hierarchy of the palace, described by Page as an “archaic system,” meant that there was no HR department to complain to, no recourse for the bullied. Andrew was the Queen’s favorite, and that status allegedly gave him carte blanche to treat his subordinates with disdain.

The “Fat Lard Ass” Incident

Perhaps the most visceral example of this abusive behavior occurred during a security standoff at the North Centre Gate. Page recounts a specific evening when a woman arrived claiming to have an appointment with the Prince. The officers, following strict protocol, could not find her name in the appointment book. They politely refused her entry and attempted to verify her claim.

The woman, frustrated, called Prince Andrew on her mobile phone. Moments later, the officers, who were standing outside, heard the Prince’s voice booming through the phone which had been handed to a large male colleague of Page.

“Listen to me, you fat lard ass cunt, let my guest in,” Andrew reportedly screamed .

The slur was so loud that Page and his colleagues heard it clearly, as did the female guest, who turned bright red with embarrassment. It was a humiliating undressing of a professional officer doing their duty. “Prince Andrew doesn’t understand that… as far as he was concerned, we’ve caused him a problem,” Page explains [06:00]. The slur—misogynistic and cruel—became emblematic of the “constant” abuse the team faced.

A Bizarre Obsession: The 72 Teddy Bears

If the abuse paints a picture of a tyrant, the revelations about Prince Andrew’s bedroom habits paint a picture of a man-child with a disturbing need for control. Page describes the “teddy bear story,” which he insists is not shared for gossip or laughs, but as a clear example of “bullying and coercive behavior” .

During routine security sweeps of the Prince’s private apartments, Page and his colleagues discovered an astonishing collection of 50 to 60 teddy bears on the bed of the then 40-year-old Prince.. But it wasn’t just the collection that was strange; it was the regime surrounding it.

Page was shown a laminated card kept in a drawer, which featured a photograph of the bears in their precise, required arrangement. “If the teddy bears aren’t put back in this certain order, Prince Andrew would start shouting and swearing at the maids,” Page explains .

Imagine the scene: young maids, some teenagers, trembling as they consult a laminated map to ensure a middle-aged man’s stuffed toys are perfectly aligned, knowing that a mistake would result in a screaming match. “Why would anyone be that controlling?” Page asks. “That’s just odd behavior in anyone’s eyes” .

Ghislaine Maxwell and the Security Blackout

The interview takes a darker turn as Page discusses the frequent visits of Ghislaine Maxwell. Page recalls first becoming aware of Maxwell around 2001 or 2002. He describes a chilling instruction from a colleague in the Privy Purse department regarding her visits: “There’s a guest coming at lunchtime… for Prince Andrew, but don’t put her name in the book” .

This command was a direct breach of security protocol. The police were supposed to know exactly who was entering the palace. Yet, for Maxwell, the rules were suspended. Page describes her arriving in a chauffeur-driven Range Rover and being waved straight through to the Duke’s private entrance.

On one occasion, Page and a colleague were walking through the palace gardens when they spotted a picnic being laid out on the lawn outside the Queen’s private apartments. “We saw it was Prince Andrew and Ghislaine Maxwell sitting having a picnic,” Page recalls . The intimacy of the scene—a picnic on the monarch’s private lawn—suggested a relationship that went far beyond casual acquaintance. Page estimates seeing her enter the palace “about a dozen times,” often waved through without the standard ID checks .

The implications are staggering. “We got the impression that they were in some form of intimate relationship,” Page states . This directly contradicts Andrew’s later attempts to distance himself from Maxwell, a woman now convicted of sex trafficking.

The “Sweating” Defense Crumbles

Prince Andrew’s disastrous interview with BBC Newsnight famously featured his claim that he “could not sweat” due to a medical condition caused by an adrenaline overdose during the Falklands War. This defense was used to refute allegations by Virginia Giuffre, who described him sweating profusely at a nightclub.

Paul Page’s testimony drives a truck through this alibi. He vividly remembers a hot summer day in the palace gardens where he watched Andrew hitting golf balls. “He was sweating profusely,” Page asserts .

The incident stands out in Page’s mind not just for the sweat, but for the indignity of the situation. He watched as a fellow protection officer was forced to act as a ball boy, running 30 yards down the lawn to retrieve the Prince’s golf balls and throw them back. After the session, a footman appeared with a towel, and Andrew “wiped his brow” .

“If you’re wiping your brow, what are you wiping off your face?” Page asks pointedly. “As far as I’m concerned, he was sweating” .

A Revolving Door of “Young Ladies”

Page describes a constant flow of “young ladies” visiting the Prince’s apartments, often late into the evening. He estimates the women were “20s upwards,” but emphasizes that the security team was rarely privy to their names . This created a massive security blind spot. “We were letting people in we didn’t really know who they were,” he admits, noting that this contravened strict protocols.

The banter among the officers was that the Prince “should have a revolving door in his bedroom” . But beneath the “lad culture” jokes lay a serious misuse of resources. Page claims Andrew would often order his protection officers to drive these women home, effectively treating the Royal Protection Command as a private taxi service .

One specific incident stands out: two young women, described by Page as “scantily clad,” arrived late at night. They were giggling, drinking from Coke cans, and dressed in a way that shocked the officers. “I’m not sure that’s the right attire for young ladies coming in to visit a senior member of the royal family,” a colleague remarked . Later, Andrew personally escorted them to the main road and waited with them for a taxi—a rare gesture he never performed for others, leaving the officers baffled.

The Destruction of Evidence

Why has no one corroborated the specific dates of these visits? Why is there no paper trail for the night Andrew claims to have been at Pizza Express in Woking?

Page offers a sobering explanation: the records are gone. The police notebooks, which detail the movements of VIPs, are typically destroyed after six to eight years . Even the duty logs that might have placed Andrew at the palace or elsewhere on critical nights are likely long incinerated.

“A colleague of mine… believes he was on duty in the night in question and that Prince Andrew came back to Buckingham Palace that night,” Page reveals . However, when this colleague applied for his duty records to confirm the memory, he was told they had been destroyed. This systematic purging of records, while standard procedure for the police, has conveniently left a void of evidence that might otherwise have clarified the Prince’s whereabouts.

Motivations and Credibility

Paul Page is aware that his own character will be attacked. He candidly admits to his past crimes: “I spent six years in prison” for fraud involving a sham investment scheme that defrauded colleagues . He acknowledges that he “lost his way” due to greed and stress.

However, he insists his motivation now is not revenge, but truth. “I learned a very sort of valuable lesson [in prison]… always be honest to yourself and others,” he says . He points out that his stories about the teddy bears and the abusive behavior have been corroborated by other staff members who have since come forward. He is not hiding his past; he is standing on the veracity of his memories.

“He’s a very unpleasant person,” Page concludes about the Prince. “I suffered at the hands of Prince Andrew… but none of this has ever been looked into because people were too frightened” .

The Verdict of History

The picture Paul Page draws is of a man insulated by privilege, protected by a deferential system, and deluded by his own status. From the “Purple 41” call sign to the rude nickname whispered by officers , Andrew appears as a figure who demanded respect while offering none.

As the legal battles and public scrutiny around Prince Andrew continue, testimonies like Page’s serve as a crucial historical record. They challenge the narrative of the “honorable prince” and expose the potential dangers of a system that allows power to go unchecked. Whether it is the alleged abuse of staff, the bizarre demands for teddy bear placement, or the dangerous liaisons with convicted sex offenders, the legacy of Prince Andrew is being rewritten—not by official palace statements, but by the voices of those who stood guard at the gates and saw it all.

“He has questions to answer,” Page says firmly. And for the first time in decades, it seems the Prince might actually have to answer them.