The U.K. government released documents on Thursday related to the appointment of Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor as trade envoy, a role he held between 2001-2011.

The confidential documents were published in response to a “humble address” requested by a British lawmaker in February, after Andrew was arrested on suspicion of misconduct in public office.

The files unearthed years-old correspondence between Andrew and Epstein, and spawned allegations that Andrew, while serving as trade envoy, shared confidential government reports with Epstein, detailing trips to Singapore, China, Hong Kong, and Vietnam in 2010 and 2011.

One email originally sent to someone titled “The Duke,” which was then forwarded to Epstein, said: “Please find attached the visit reports for Vietnam, Singapore, Hong Kong and Shenzhen in relation to your recent visit to South East Asia.”

Another email from "The Duke" to Epstein appeared to detail an investment opportunity in Afghanistan. 

The younger brother of King Charles III, who was known as Prince Andrew and the Duke of York before being stripped of his titles, has previously vehemently denied any wrongdoing. 

TIME has approached his representatives for comment.

Andrew’s relationship with Epstein, something which he said he did not regret after the sex offender’s death, has long been scrutinized. He was famously interviewed on BBC’s Newsnight in 2019 about the nature of the friendship.

Andrew was accused of sexual abuse by one of Epstein’s victims, the late Virginia Giuffre. He has repeatedly denied the allegations. In 2022, Andrew settled a sexual abuse lawsuit with Giuffre for an undisclosed amount.

Mandelson was also arrested on suspicion of misconduct in public office earlier this year. 

Prior to the release of the files related to Andrew on Thursday, Trade Minister Chris Bryant, whose department oversaw the publication, addressed the redactions present on many of the pages.

“We have redacted documents to remove the bare minimum of personal information and information whose release would prejudice international relations,” he said. “We have consulted the police to ensure that the release of information does not prejudice their investigation.

Bryant added that careful consideration also went into “the redaction of information relating to royal communications” as to be “mindful of the longstanding convention of confidentiality."

Here are five key takeaways from the files relating to how Andrew came to serve as the U.K. trade envoy.

The late Queen was “very keen” for Andrew to take up trade envoy role

Andrew’s mother, the late Queen Elizabeth II who reigned for 70 years, demonstrated significant interest in her son taking up the role of Special Representative for International Trade and Investment in 2001, according to a memo dated February 2000. 

Addressing the Trade Secretary and Foreign Secretary, the author of the memo David Wright, then-chief executive of British Trade International, said he had spoken with the Queen’s private secretary regarding the withdrawal of the Duke of Kent [the Queen’s cousin, Prince Edward] as the trade envoy. 

“The Queen's wish is that the Duke of Kent should be succeeded in this role by the Duke of York,” said Wright, referring to Andrew by his royal title.

"The Queen is very keen that the Duke of York should take on a prominent role in the promotion of national interests,” Wright continued in the February 2000 memo. "No other member of the royal family would be available to succeed the Duke of Kent. The Duke of York's adoption of his role would seem a natural fit."

Considering the Queen’s wishes, Wright suggested that Andrew’s role could include “two or three specifically targeted trade promotion visits in overseas markets each year.” 

When contacted by TIME, Buckingham Palace declined to comment on the documents. 

Guidance suggested Andrew’s profile required “careful and sometimes strict media management”

An internal telegram sent to the staff of British Trade International—a government department set up to promote British trade and investment abroad—on Sept. 25, 2001, said that Andrew’s "high public profile" would likely require "careful and sometimes strict media management."

“Media coverage of events involving HRH [His Royal Highness] has significant potential benefits for the organisation and U.K. business interests as a whole,” read the telegram, insisting that any proposals for Andew’s media engagements “should contain the outline of a media strategy, which will need to be developed in co-ordination with BTI and the Palace.”

Allegation that Andrew asked for £100,000 in expenses is denied

A document belonging to BTI and titled “General Q&A on the Duke's role" showcases answers to questions related to Andrew and the role.

In response to a question “about the reputed 100k demand for office expenses,” the following answer was given: 

"There has never been a demand for any payment for office expenses. It was clear from the start that only expenses incurred on BTI business will be covered in HRH's role. This is by mutual agreement with Buckingham Palace."

The document was filed as “Media Q&A for Duke of York role announcement.”

TIME has contacted the Department for Business and Trade for comment. 

Andrew preferred visits to “sophisticated countries,” according to letter

In a letter penned by British diplomat Kathryn Colvin dated Jan. 25, 2000, it’s noted that Andrew would like to focus on projects related to “high-tech matters, trade, youth.” Regarding cultural events, his preference for ballet over theater was relayed.

Colvin told the undisclosed recipient that Andrew also “tended to prefer more sophisticated countries, particularly those in the lead on technology.” The rest of the sentence has been redacted.

According to Colvin’s letter, she gained an understanding of these preferences from Andrew’s then-private secretary, Neil Blair, referred to as “Captain Blair.”  

The secretary had “particularly asked that the Duke of York should not be offered golfing functions abroad. This was a private activity and if he took his clubs with him he would not play in any public sense.”

No evidence that Andrew was formally vetted for role, says minister

In a statement published alongside the release of documents, Trade Minister Bryant said his department had “found no evidence that a formal due diligence or vetting process was undertaken,” when Andrew was appointed as the special trade envoy.

“There is also no evidence that this was considered,” added Bryant, noting that it was “understandable" that no such vetting took place since Andrew’s appointment “was a continuation of the Royal Family's involvement in trade and investment promotion,” following the Duke of Kent’s tenure.

Lawmakers have raised issue with the lack of vetting, with some pushing for more information to be released.

Liberal Democrat Chief Whip Wendy Chamberlain said it was “shocking and deeply troubling” to learn that there was no vetting process. In a statement shared with TIME, she said: “This raises serious questions about why officials and ministers at the time thought that was acceptable.”

Conservative lawmaker Harriet Baldwin queried if the “absence of a formal record of due diligence or any vetting process” is evidence that the “government raised no questions” at the time about the appointment. 

“Where, if anywhere, are the documented concerns or challenge from officials or Ministers at the time?” she asked in the House of Commons.

In response, Bryant said: “I have published everything that relates to that period. There is nothing else, I think, to be found. The statements that say ministers were content is the sum total of the response.”

He went on to argue that the response was likely understandable, to some degree, “bearing in mind that the palace had made it very clear that her late Majesty was very keen that Andrew be given a job, that Andrew was keen to take on the job, and that the job had previously been done by another member of the royal family in broadly the same terms.”