Prince Andrew will be stripped of his royal titles, meaning he will no longer be called “prince” or “His Royal Highness”.
A statement from Buckingham Palace said:
His Majesty has today initiated a formal process to remove the style, titles and honours of Prince Andrew.
Prince Andrew will now be known as Andrew Mountbatten Windsor […] These censures are deemed necessary, notwithstanding the fact that he continues to deny the allegations against him.
Their Majesties wish to make clear that their thoughts and utmost sympathies have been, and will remain with, the victims and survivors of any and all forms of abuse.
The statement also noted Andrew will have to leave his current home, Royal Lodge, and move to alternative private accommodation.
These moves follow allegations, which Andrew continues to “vigorously deny”, surrounding his relationship with convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein.
The decision comes in the wake of Virginia Giuffre’s posthumous memoir Nobody’s Girl, published this fortnight. The memoir includes an inside account of the two years Giuffre spent as a “sex slave” working for Jeffrey Epstein and co-conspirator Ghislaine Maxwell. Giuffre died by suicide in April this year, aged 41, on her farm in Western Australia.
Three weeks before she died, she emailed her co-author, journalist Amy Wallace, and longtime publicist Dini von Mueffling: “In the event of my passing, I would like to ensure that Nobody’s Girl is still released.”
“Today,” Giuffre’s family said, “she declares a victory. She has brought down a British prince with her truth and extraordinary courage”.
British historian and author Andrew Lownie (author of a book about Andrew and his ex-wife Sarah Ferguson, called Entitled), told Sky News earlier this month, “the only way the story will go away is if [Andrew] leaves Royal Lodge, goes into exile abroad with his ex-wife, and is basically stripped of all his honours, including Prince Andrew”. Sarah Ferguson will also move out of Royal Lodge.
As a trauma memoir, Nobody’s Girl forces us to bear witness to an uncomfortable truth: Giuffre’s abuse was hidden in plain sight.
“Don’t be fooled by those in Epstein’s circle who say they didn’t know what Epstein was doing,” she writes. “Anyone who spent any significant amount of time with Epstein saw him touching girls.” She continues: “They can say they didn’t know he was raping children. But they were not blind.”
Four days before the memoir was published, Prince Andrew announced he would no longer use the titles conferred upon him, including Duke of York. Three days later, leaked emails from 2011 suggested he gave Giuffre’s date of birth and social security number to one of his protection officers, hours before the infamous photograph of him with her was published.
Maxwell’s brother, Ian Maxwell, published an article in the Spectator today, headlined “Don’t take Virginia Giuffre’s memoir at face value”. The memoir keeps his sister, who was convicted of charges including sex trafficking of a minor, in world headlines – at a time Donald Trump has said he will “take a look” at pardoning her.
Earlier this year, Maxwell was moved to a lower security prison to continue her 20-year sentence.
Giuffre’s memoir is a courageous and clear-eyed account of what trauma takes – and what recovery demands.
Told in four chronological parts – “Daughter”, “Prisoner”, “Survivor” and “Warrior” – the memoir meticulously records the “sexual assaulting, battering, exploiting, and abusing” Giuffre endured throughout her life, most notably at the hands of Epstein and Maxwell.
The result is a devastating exposé of the fetishisation and abuse of girls – “the younger, the better”, Epstein said – and society’s failure to protect the most vulnerable.
It is also a damning indictment of everyone who knew and looked away.
But how can a prince – who is, after all, the son of a queen – be stripped of the title “prince”?
Here’s how it works – and what it might mean for succession.
How do you actually strip a prince of his titles?
This is within the remit of the monarch, Charles III. The monarch issues an official document called a letters patent.
They are typically used to grant a title or a right, but this is doing the opposite: withdrawing it from Andrew.
There are precedents for monarchs removing titles in this way. When Diana and Charles divorced, she lost the use of “Her Royal Highness”, as did Sarah Ferguson, the former wife of Andrew. So a royal losing their title doesn’t always have to be scandalous or unusual.
But what’s not happened yet – because it’s not within the remit of the king – is the removal of Andrew’s position as eighth in line to the throne.
That requires parliamentary legislation to do – and not just the Westminster parliament, either.
To do that, the Westminster parliament would have to introduce a bill and pass it. However, the move would also require virtually identical legislation in all of the Commonwealth parliaments (such as Australia, New Zealand, Canada and so on).
That’s not beyond the realm of possibility.
A bit over a decade ago, with what came to be known as the Perth agreements, the Commonwealth parliaments agreed to change the rules around succession and gender. No longer would older princesses be leapfrogged by younger brothers to get a spot on the throne.
It happened very smoothly, so it is certainly possible for all Commonwealth parliaments to agree to coordinate on something. However, the Westminster parliament cannot instruct other parliaments to pass such legislation.
So, could all the Commonwealth parliaments coordinate to remove Andrew from the line of succession? I have not seen any mention of this in media reports so far, but I would be highly surprised if this didn’t happen in future.
It seems incompatible that Andrew would lose his title and still be in line for succession.
But is the son of the queen not always a prince?
By custom, yes, the son of a queen is known as a prince. But as we have seen, that title can be removed.
The best example is in 1936, when King Edward VIII abdicated so as to marry divorcee Wallis Simpson, and he lost the title of king.
He was thereafter no longer entitled to the title “His Royal Highness” and he got a new title: Duke of Windsor. He had some prestige, but was no longer entitled to use his royal title.
Edward VIII (who was also Andrew’s great uncle) did not have any children. But if he had, they wouldn’t have been entitled to inherit the throne.
And that was an actual reigning king, not just a prince.
Acting in a moment of crisis
Andrew has reportedly accepted the latest decision but it was made by his brother, the king.
This is a signal from Charles not just to the public but also to his heir, William, that he’s doing everything he can to smooth the path for William’s succession and to respond to public anger over the allegations against Andrew.
As an historian, this is a moment to reflect on how this is another example of the British monarch taking decisive action in a moment of crisis, to save the reputation of and public support for the monarchy.
Another example would be King George V, who acted decisively in the first world war not only to strip titles from family members who had supported Germany in the war, but to also change the name of his family.
They were known as Saxe-Coburg Gotha (a German name), but they became the house of Windsor. (The Conversation)
