Prince Andrew Relinquishes Use of Titles & Honours, 17 Oct 2025


If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
See posts with no answers
This whole situation brought to my mind a quote by non other than Imelda Marcos the former First Lady of the Philippines in the great documentary about her The kingmaker

"Perception is real and the truth is not."

yukari said:
I'm tempted to bet on how long it will be until a revelation of letter sent to "friends" signed as "HRH The Duke of York" or "Sarah, Duchess of York".
Click to expand...
And there would be nothing wrong in them doing so they are still legally "HRH The Duke of York" and "Sarah, Duchess of York".
 
I predict Andrew and Sarah possibly remarrying. She loves being Sarah, Duchess of York and if she can't use that she will want to be The Princess Andrew.

Question: Will his precedence be affected in any way?
 
Removing Prince Andrew's peerage needs an act of parliament, which I cannot see the King rallying for or even parliament considering. In the case of the latter, it would be political hot-potato as there are more pressing issues for parliament to discuss/debate than this. Also there is one fact most people overlook is that Prince Andrew has not been formally charged or found guilty; he is (unfortunately) innocent until proven guilty (for the record, I think he is a vile disgusting human). Removing his titles without as much as being charged sets a dangerous precedence imho.

What makes me upset is that the King can strip him of his orders and honours, and he hasn't. That for me continues the view that his own family is still protecting him, even though the evidence against him is clear.
 
CrownPrincessJava said:
Removing Prince Andrew's peerage needs an act of parliament, which I cannot see the King rallying for or even parliament considering. In the case of the latter, it would be political hot-potato as there are more pressing issues for parliament to discuss/debate than this. Also there is one fact most people overlook is that Prince Andrew has not been formally charged or found guilty; he is (unfortunately) innocent until proven guilty (for the record, I think he is a vile disgusting human). Removing his titles without as much as being charged sets a dangerous precedence imho.

What makes me upset is that the King can strip him of his orders and honours, and he hasn't. That for me continues the view that his own family is still protecting him, even though the evidence against him is clear.
Click to expand...
The current Duke of Manchester was charged with fraud and burglary and spent 5 years in prison but legally he is still the Duke of Manchester, the last law to deprive someone from their legal titles was during the First World War when the Hanover and Saxe Coburg and Gotha British dukes were charged with treason!

So even if Virginia won the lawsuit against him and he was charged and sentenced it will still not be enough reason for the parliament to remove his peerage
 
Last edited:
duke of poliganc said:
And there would be nothing wrong in them doing so they are still legally "HRH The Duke of York" and "Sarah, Duchess of York".
Click to expand...
In my understanding if I have a bracelet then I state that I "will no longer use" it, it means I will put that bracelet in a box somewhere. Thus the bracelet is still in my possession, but nobody will see me wearing it again, instead of occasionally still wearing it when I go to my friend's party.

But maybe this is just my misinterpretation as non-English native speaker (considering I remember reading similar statement about some other royal, yet the aforementioned scenario happened later on).
 
I recall that when Gerald Grosvenor, the Duke of Westminster passed away, his widow returned his Garter insignia to The Crown. The article I read stated that this was the custom. I'm curious to know if Prince Andrew will be returning his Garter regalia.
 
yukari said:
In my understanding if I have a bracelet then I state that I "will no longer use" it, it means I will put that bracelet in a box somewhere. Thus the bracelet is still in my possession, but nobody will see me wearing it again, instead of occasionally still wearing it when I go to my friend's party.

But maybe this is just my misinterpretation as non-English native speaker (considering I remember reading similar statement about some other royal, yet the aforementioned scenario happened later on).
Click to expand...
It is exactly right your example is similar to the situation the title in this case the bracelet is fully yours, if you stated that you would never wear it in public but do so in private there is nothing wrong even if you did use it in public after you stated you won’t do so you still have the right to do so as it is your own personal position!
 
duke of poliganc said:
The current Duke of Manchester was charged with fraud and burglary and spent 5 years in prison but legally he is still the Duke of Manchester, the last law to deprive someone from their legal titles was during the First World War when the Hanover and Saxe Coburg and Gotha British dukes were charged with treason!

So even if virginity won the lawsuit against him and he was charged and sentenced it will still not be enough reason for the parliament to remove his peerage
Click to expand...
The current Duke of Manchester is Australian born and has been residing in the US since 1986. Prince Andrew is a royal Duke, brother to the current King, resides and lives in the UK. If Prince Andrew ever was charged and is convicted, the severity of his crimes are a high class than that of the Duke of Manchester and warrants have his Dukedom stripped in parliament. He would be a convicted rapist, paedophile and could be registered as a sex offender
 
Leopoldine said:
I recall that when Gerald Grosvenor, the Duke of Westminster passed away, his widow returned his Garter insignia to The Crown. The article I read stated that this was the custom. I'm curious to know if Prince Andrew will be returning his Garter regalia.
Click to expand...
The statement is that he won’t use the titles and honors he got in public but legally they are still his personal titles and honors so no reason to return the insignia as he still legally a knight of the Garter so if he want to wear the insignia in the kitchen of his home everyday he currently has the right to do so!

CrownPrincessJava said:
The current Duke of Manchester is Australian born and has been residing in the US since 1986. Prince Andrew is a royal Duke, brother to the current King, resides and lives in the UK. If Prince Andrew ever was charged and is convicted, the severity of his crimes are a high class than that of the Duke of Manchester and warrants have his Dukedom stripped in parliament. He would be a convicted rapist, paedophile and could be registered as a sex offender
Click to expand...
He is alleged with having sex with a 16 years old girl which is a legal age of consent in the UK if I do remember, so pedophilia is out of question here, when Virginia was alive she never mentioned that Andrew forced himself on her and that gisaline and epestine groomed and trafficked her not Andrew himself, so I don’t know if the law consider having sex without knowledge that the woman was groomed and trafficked would still be counted as rape and even though all of this were proven and he is guilty, those are criminal and civil cases and in my opinion there is no rule in the LP ensuring that he is a prince as a child of a monarch or even the LP awarding him the dukedom or orders that stipulate that any conviction or losing a lawsuit case would be grounds of stripping the holder of his titles!
 
duke of poliganc said:
It is exactly right your example is similar to the situation the title in this case the bracelet is fully yours, if you stated that you would never wear it in public but do so in private there is nothing wrong even if you did use it in public after you stated you won’t do so you still have the right to do so as it is your own personal position!
Click to expand...
I think I miss the wording of "in public" in his statement.

This is his statement I'm refering as shown in The Times:
"In discussion with The King, and my immediate and wider family, we have concluded the continued accusations about me distract from the work of His Majesty and the Royal Family. I have decided, as I always have, to put my duty to my family and country first. I stand by my decision five years ago to stand back from public life.

"With His Majesty's agreement, we feel I must now go a step further. I will therefore no longer use my title or the honours which have been conferred upon me. As I have said previously, I vigorously deny the accusations against me."
Click to expand...
Since it isn't specified when the title will not be used, in my interpretation it would means it won't be used at any time. Or is this a case of "reading between the lines"?
 
duke of poliganc said:
He is alleged with having sex with a 16 years old girl which is a legal age of consent in the UK if I do remember, so pedophilia is out of question here, when Virginia was alive she never mentioned that Andrew forced himself on her and that gisaline and epestine groomed and trafficked her not Andrew himself, so I don’t know if the law consider having sex without knowledge that the woman was groomed and trafficked would still be counted as rape and even though all of this were proven and he is guilty, those are criminal and civil cases and in my opinion there is no rule in the LP ensuring that he is a prince as a child of a monarch or even the LP awarding him the dukedom or orders that stipulate that any conviction or losing a lawsuit case would be grounds of stripping the holder of his titles!
Click to expand...
I don't know UK law, in Australia legal age of consent can be thrown out as defence if there is a significant age difference between the two parties as the older person has significant power over the younger (and minor) person. In this case, it could be deemed as paedophilia. The late Virginia Euiffre alleged she was coerced by Epstein and Maxwell and had that been proven, it would be deemed sexual assault.

LPs cannot strip a peerage, only Parliament can. If Andrew or any other royal is ever convicted of such heinous crimes, then that should gain traction into looking at how one loses their peerage. I cannot imagine the British public accepting it, nor can the BRF protect or hide a royal if they are convicted of such a crime.

duke of poliganc said:
The statement is that he won’t use the titles and honors he got in public but legally they are still his personal titles and honors so no reason to return the insignia as he still legally a knight of the Garter so if he want to wear the insignia in the kitchen of his home everyday he currently has the right to do so!
Click to expand...
This is what irks me about how it was handled by Andrew, the King and Prince William and makes the statement full of hot air and zero substance. "Andrew", I.e. the King, should have relinquished his orders and honours. Instead, they released a statement in the hope the public believed the BRF were doing something about him. Instead, it's a token effort and most people have seen right through it. The emails Sarah Fergurson sent and lies he said no having contact with Epstein are damning!
 
Last edited:
CrownPrincessJava said:
Removing Prince Andrew's peerage needs an act of parliament, which I cannot see the King rallying for or even parliament considering. In the case of the latter, it would be political hot-potato as there are more pressing issues for parliament to discuss/debate than this. Also there is one fact most people overlook is that Prince Andrew has not been formally charged or found guilty; he is (unfortunately) innocent until proven guilty (for the record, I think he is a vile disgusting human). Removing his titles without as much as being charged sets a dangerous precedence imho.

What makes me upset is that the King can strip him of his orders and honours, and he hasn't. That for me continues the view that his own family is still protecting him, even though the evidence against him is clear.
Click to expand...

There has to be more to this story that relates to the couple's scandalous association with Epstein. Why now, what just happened?

Re king Charles taking an action against his brother, I doubt it will ever happen. The king is in a condition that the last thing he needs if this stress caused by his brother to pile on, too. As a brother that always shown care and concern for Andrew, and a lot of silence, he is not going to turn around and do the opposite. And it will establish a precedent for William to use, too, when he becomes king.

Let Andrew go away from public life and take that stress out of king Charles' shoulders, he has major worries to deal with than Andrew and his wife's PR problems
 
CrownPrincessJava said:
Removing Prince Andrew's peerage needs an act of parliament, which I cannot see the King rallying for or even parliament considering. In the case of the latter, it would be political hot-potato as there are more pressing issues for parliament to discuss/debate than this. Also there is one fact most people overlook is that Prince Andrew has not been formally charged or found guilty; he is (unfortunately) innocent until proven guilty (for the record, I think he is a vile disgusting human). Removing his titles without as much as being charged sets a dangerous precedence imho.

What makes me upset is that the King can strip him of his orders and honours, and he hasn't. That for me continues the view that his own family is still protecting him, even though the evidence against him is clear.
Click to expand...
I can't help thinking that Charles is being cautious for a good reason.

Andrew has been firmly loyal to the Crown his entire life. But assuming that he outlives Charles, there is no guarantee that his loyalty will do so as well.

There is no way on earth that Andrew is the only member of the BRF with skeletons rattling noisily around in the closet. Once he is no longer constrained by filial affection and loyalty, what is there to stop Andrew or his equally unscrupulous former wife from pulling the trigger with a tell all that will make Harry's- or Diana's "True Story" seem quaint in retrospect?

I think Charles is quite simply trying desperately to contain the prince-turned-Royal frog, and at the same time satisfy the public braying for blood for now.

What happens when Charles is no longer around depends on how careful William chooses to be.
 
Moonmaiden23 said:
I can't help thinking that Charles is being cautious for a good reason.

Andrew has been firmly loyal to the Crown his entire life. But assuming that he outlives Charles, there is no guarantee that his loyalty will do so as well.

There is no way on earth that Andrew is the only member of the BRF with skeletons rattling noisily around in the closet. Once he is no longer constrained by filial affection and loyalty, what is there to stop Andrew or his equally unscrupulous former wife from pulling the trigger with a tell all that will make Harry's- or Diana's "True Story" seem quaint in retrospect?

I think Charles is quite simply trying desperately to contain the prince-turned-Royal frog, and at the same time satisfy the public braying for blood for now.

What happens when Charles is no longer around depends on how careful William chooses to be.
Click to expand...
' loyal to the Crown' yes because he benefits from it.
 
Moonmaiden23 said:
I can't help thinking that Charles is being cautious for a good reason.

Andrew has been firmly loyal to the Crown his entire life. But assuming that he outlives Charles, there is no guarantee that his loyalty will do so as well.

There is no way on earth that Andrew is the only member of the BRF with skeletons rattling noisily around in the closet. Once he is no longer constrained by filial affection and loyalty, what is there to stop Andrew or his equally unscrupulous former wife from pulling the trigger with a tell all that will make Harry's- or Diana's "True Story" seem quaint in retrospect?

I think Charles is quite simply trying desperately to contain the prince-turned-Royal frog, and at the same time satisfy the public braying for blood for now.

What happens when Charles is no longer around depends on how careful William chooses to be.
Click to expand...

I don't think William will hold back anything if he had to deal with his uncle and his ex-wife. [.....]
 
Last edited by a moderator:
duke of poliganc said:
The statement is that he won’t use the titles and honors he got in public but legally they are still his personal titles and honors so no reason to return the insignia as he still legally a knight of the Garter so if he want to wear the insignia in the kitchen of his home everyday he currently has the right to do so!
Click to expand...
He doesn't say he will no longer use them in public. The statement states that he will 'no longer use my title or the honours which have been conferred upon me'. So, use in private would still constitute use imho.

No longer use 'my title' in itself is rather ambiguous as he has the style of royal highness (which sometimes as TM has pointed out is called a title by the British royals - but 3 years ago he already gave up using that 'in an official capacity - he continued to use it privately!), the title of 'prince of the United Kingdom' as well as a peerage, i.e., the Duke of York.

I assume the fact that all the media reports that he will no longer use his peerage means that they have been briefed about the interpretation of this sentence and that 'the title' he is referring to is 'The Duke of York'.

Furthermore, I agree with those that say that this is mostly about 'image' as in practice no real action seems to be taken. He remains a peer, i.e., The Duke of York, Earl of Inverness, Baron Killyleagh as well as a Royal Knight Companion of the Garter and a Knight Grand Cross of the Royal Victorian Order. It will just be less visible (if I'm not mistaken he already was banished from the yearly parade anyway).
 
Last edited:
Toledo said:
I don't think William will hold back anything if he had to deal with his uncle and his ex-wife. [.....]
Click to expand...
And Andrew might not hold back anything either, is the issue. They are all likely compromised, from a PR and public opinion standpoint on something they've done or associations if they were ever revealed. Or if it's a story with media legs without retribution. Hence how the King's scandal around his charity and paid-for-Honours saw only a days worth of any column inches.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Former Prime Minister Liz Truss was asked about Prince Andrew on GB News by Beth Turner (Starting from 2:28, ending at 4:13). She thinks The King took the right step in asking Prince Andrew to not use his titles and the late Queen would be appalled on the scandal. She also mentioned about the stability of the Monarchy especially in the instability in politics, whilst criticising the current Prime Minister Keir Starmer.
 
sophie25 said:
' loyal to the Crown' yes because he benefits from it.
Click to expand...

Toledo said:
I don't think William will hold back anything if he had to deal with his uncle and his ex-wife. [.....]
Click to expand...
I don't know. I'd tread very carefully in William's place.

He's going to have a lot in front of him when he comes to the throne.

Retribution should not be a priority.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I feel as if some people won't be happy unless Andrew's exiled to St Helena, thrown into a dungeon in the Tower of London, or possibly beheaded on Tower Hill in front of a baying mob.

Parliament is not going to strip Andrew of his peerages: it would be way too messy (and time-consuming). And Andrew isn't officially guilty of anything other than having very poor taste in friends, showing a lack of respect towards women, being money-grubbing and generally being an idiot. None of those things are illegal. If they were, quite a lot of people would be on their way to prison. So what more is supposed to be done?
 
He's relinquished his Garter - what about his Royal Victorian Order?
 
Titles and honours aside, I hope this finally means we won’t see Andrew in ANY royal events ever again.

Despite his banishment from public life since 2022, he has been prominently featured in a number of major royal events: memorial service for Philip, funeral of the Queen, Coronation (in Garter robes!!), Christmases at Sandringham, memorial service for King Constantine, funeral of Duchess of Kent…

He may be allowed to attend private parts of family funerals, but through the side door and seated in a quiet corner!
 
tommy100 said:
Andrew's statement:
Click to expand...
imo it is a good move at this point, i understand that it isn't enough for some, but the statement imo is correct in that the accusations (and in my head i add 'and Andrew's behaviour when being interviewed about them') distract from the work of the RF.
No doubt he was 'helped' in making this decision, but i commend him for actually taking this step and announcing it.
Gives me hope that somewhere in him, he indeed does value the RF and the work they do
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Marengo
  • Locked
Prince Andrew, Duke of York News and Events 9: Oct 2025 -
2
Replies
38
Views
4K
Marengo
Marengo
Ista
  • Locked
Sarah Ferguson Current Events 1: October 2025
Replies
0
Views
842
Ista
Ista
Marengo
Queen Mathilde Jewels 3, Oct 2025 -
Replies
12
Views
1K
iceflower
iceflower
Marengo
Anne, Princess Royal, Jewels 2, Oct 2025 -
Replies
25
Views
1K
Tilia C.
Tilia C.
Marengo
  • Sticky
Prince of Wales, Current Events 2: Oct 2025 -
2
Replies
46
Views
5K
iceflower
iceflower

Latest posts

Back
Top Bottom