Blood without Honour: the stripping of Prince Andrew’s Titles
- Stephen Goss
- Nov 2
- 4 min read
Updated: Nov 3
When historians look back on the reign of Charles III, one date may stand apart for its significance: 30th October 2025. On that day, his brother, Prince Andrew, to all intents and purposes ceased to be royal. For years, Andrew’s name has been mired in scandal: his connexion with Jeffrey Epstein, the civil court settlement with Virginia Giuffre, and his consequent retreat from public life. Yet, for all the disgrace, his titles remained intact. That has now changed. In a decisive and exceptional act, the King is formally removing Andrew’s styles, titles and honours. This extraordinary decision is almost unprecedented. Can the King strip princes and peers of their titles? How does he do it? When was the last time it happened?
In January 2022 the late Queen took back Andrew’s military affiliations and royal patronage. This meant, among numerous other honorary positions he held, he would no longer serve as Colonel of the Grenadier Guards, Air Commodore RAF Lossiemouth, and Colonel-in-Chief of the Royal Irish Regiment. Yet, his princely titles and styles still remained.
Earlier in October, Andrew announced that he would ‘no longer use’ his remaining royal titles and honours (such as his Dukedom of York and the style His Royal Highness). But that step was essentially a voluntary renunciation of usage – in reality it changed nothing. Choosing not to use them did not affect their legal existence – he remained HRH Prince Andrew, Duke of York and a Knight of the Garter even if he opted not to call himself so. Occasionally, members of the Royal Family have surrendered or declined titles voluntarily rather than by decree. In 1919, Princess Patricia of Connaught, grand-daughter of Queen Victoria, was permitted by Royal Licence to relinquish the style Royal Highness and the title Princess of the United Kingdom upon her marriage to a commoner, becoming simply Lady Patricia Ramsay. Likewise, Princess Maud, a grand-daughter of Edward VII, chose to be known as Lady Maud Carnegie following her 1923 marriage to Lord Carnegie. Even in modern times, the voluntary setting aside of titles continues. On her marriage to the then Prince of Wales in 2005, Camilla Parker Bowles became Princess of Wales, but chose instead to use her subsidiary title Duchess of Cornwall – a decision guided by sensitivity to public sentiment rather than legal necessity.[1]
This distinction is crucial. Buckingham Palace has now issued a statement that the King has initiated a formal process to remove the style, titles and honours of Prince Andrew in full. As a result, the former Duke of York becomes Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor, stripped of ‘His Royal Highness’, ‘Prince’, the Dukedom of York, the Earldom of Inverness, Barony of Killyleagh, and his various knighthoods. The legal entitlement – not only the usage – was withdrawn.
Such a step is not only unusual, it is almost without modern precedent. The last time a monarch stripped members of the Royal Family of their titles and honours was the First World War. The Titles Deprivation Act 1917 gave George V the power to remove peerages and royal titles from individuals who ‘during the present war, borne arms against His Majesty or His Allies’.[2] Among those deprived under that Act were Prince Ernest Augustus, Duke of Cumberland and Teviotdale; and Charles Edward, Duke of Albany. Both German-born British princes who had sided with Germany during the First World War. However, the 1917 Act did not establish a general power to remove peerages or other titles. Statutory peerages (such as the Life Peerages of members of the House of Lords) can only be revoked by Parliament. Indeed, one of the sparks of the English Civil was the first King Charles trying to remove Members of Parliament without parliamentary consent.
In Andrew’s case, there has been no new statute, nor is there likely to be. Most titles are awarded under the royal prerogative, by letters patent or royal warrant issued by the Monarch. The removal of his titles appears to proceed via the royal prerogative under which they were awarded. Under the Letters Patent of 1917, issued by George V, the style of Royal Highness and the title of Prince or Princess would be confined to the children of the monarch, the children of the monarch’s sons, and the eldest living son of the eldest son of the Prince of Wales. As a result, some Royal Family members lost their princely rank overnight, among them the three year old Prince Alastair of Connaught, a great-grandson of Queen Victoria. The restrictions were modestly broadened almost a century later. In 2012, Elizabeth II issued new Letters Patent to extend princely status to all the children of the eldest son of the Prince of Wales, ensuring that Prince George, Princess Charlotte, and Prince Louis all bore their royal titles from birth. Therefore, titles of Prince or Princess can, in theory, be withdrawn either by statute or by the royal prerogative.
The constitutional convention is important, but what matters perhaps more is the message. When George V removed titles in 1917, it was about monarchy and war-time allegiance. When Charles III removed his brother’s titles nearly a century later, it was about monarchy and moral legitimacy. It is worth noting that the statement from Buckingham closed with: ‘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’.
For the monarchy, this step draws a firm line between the private failings of an individual and the privileges of the institution. Vice Admiral Mountbatten-Windsor becomes, for all practical purposes, a private citizen in everything but blood and heritage.
Comments