A small group of MPs are calling on the government to formally strip Prince Andrew of his titles. SNP Westminster leader Stephen Flynn has tabled an early motion calling on the government to take legislative action to remove Andrew’s dukedom.
So far, only 14 MPs have signed the proposal and the government is not obliged to act. However, it gives MPs an opportunity to express their desire for action and highlights that there are legal avenues through which Andrew could be stripped of his titles.
Prince Andrew has already said he will no longer use his title, Duke of York, or honors such as his Knighthood of the Garter. The move marks another step in his removal from public life following his connection to convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein.
His announcement came a week before the publication of a posthumous memoir by Epstein victim Virginia Giuffre, who has long accused Andrew of sexually assaulting her as a teenager. He denies the accusation. Giuffre died this May by suicide.
After his infamous Newsnight interview in 2019, Andrew “stepped back” from his public royal duties. In 2022, it was confirmed that he would defend a lawsuit from Giuffre, which he later settled, and would not return to public duties.
His remaining military roles and royal patronages were returned to the Queen to be redistributed among other working royals. He also announced that he would no longer use his HRH status.
Prince Andrew.
Andrew has now voluntarily ceased to use his remaining titles, although he will continue to use his princely status. This is significant because Andrew held his titles in high esteem. However, this may not be enough for the public. While his titles are effectively suspended, they still exist legally.
Read also | Prince Andrew has been rent-free in Windsor since 2003, the lease runs until 2078
The king faces a difficult situation. The monarch must act within a law that is not designed to easily allow someone to become a former king.
“For every scandalous development in Andrew’s life, Buckingham Palace has done the minimum necessary to deflect each particular media storm, each time just a little further.”
Act of Parliament
Andrew’s honours, such as his Knighthood of the Garter, can be taken away by the King. However, an Act of Parliament is required to remove some of his other titles. The precedent is the Deprivation of Titles Act 1917. This 1917 Act was passed during the First World War to remove titles from British princes or peers who sided with the enemy.
However, the Deprivation of Titles Act of 1917 only applied in the context of the “present war” – the First World War. That means new legislation would be needed today to remove Andrew’s titles.
Read also | Memoirs of Prince Andrews and accuser Epstein reignite scandal that has long dogged British royals
The 1917 Act provided for a committee to consider whether a person should be stripped of a peerage or title, subject to Parliament’s consent to the King recommending when action should be taken.
Rachael Maskell, MP for York Central, proposed a model that would amend the 1917 law to apply more generally today. The SNP’s Stephen Flynn has also called for similar legislation covering the titles to be extended to others, including Lord Mandelson, who was sacked from his role as British ambassador in Washington over his links to Epstein.
Alternatively, bespoke legislation could be passed to remove Andrew’s peerages (in addition to being Duke of York, he is Earl of Inverness and Baron Killyleagh). This could be relatively simple, with a clause that would lapse these peerages and order the keeper of the list of peerages (for which the Lord Chancellor is responsible) to strike out Andrew’s name.
In principle, an Act of Parliament could remove Andrew’s princely and HRH status (again following the 1917 precedent).
Such legislation could also address his continued position as Counselor of State, which under the Regency Acts 1937-1953 derives from his position in the line of succession and means he can deputize for the King.
Assuming King Charles remains on the throne, Andrew will lose the position once Prince Louis turns 21.
However, such legislation brings risks. Once introduced to parliament, the palace loses control of the process. MPs could table any amendments and some may wish to extend the legislation to others, including Prince Harry, Duke of Sussex. It is unlikely that the palace, or indeed the government, would want to open such a debate.
Read also | Prince Harry could regain police security if he reconciles with King Charles
For this reason, the palace asks parliament to legislate for the monarchy only when absolutely necessary. One example is the Advisers of State Bill 2022, which added Princess Anne and Prince Edward to the group of Advisers of State, avoiding Andrew having to act again.
Options without parliament
Princely and HRH status is ultimately the gift of the monarch of the day. Who is entitled to such status is given by Letters Patent, an official document issued by George V in 1917.
The reason for its creation was again the First World War and the need to limit princely and HRH status to those connected to the direct line of succession. This is why Andrew was born a prince with HRH status as the son of a monarch.
But in principle, what the crown gives, the crown could take away. Again, there is precedent for this. In 1996, Elizabeth II issued patent to remove HRH status from former wives of princes – Sarah Ferguson (formerly known as the Duchess of York) and Diana, Princess of Wales.
In the end, Andrew remains eighth in line for the crown. This is hereditary and will remain even if he is no longer a prince. In theory, his position in the line of succession could be removed, but such a move would also require the consent of the other 14 countries (including Canada, Australia and Papua New Guinea) that share the British monarch as head of state.
On Monday, the King exemplified the best of the monarchy by visiting the site of the recent Manchester synagogue attack to show support for the Jewish community. Yet it was almost completely overshadowed by Prince Andrew’s coverage.
If Andrew became embroiled in further disputes, it would be in the crown’s interest to use the few options the king had left.
(With inputs from news agency PTI)
