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


If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
The Royal Arms (the arms of the United Kingdom and of its monarch) are subject only to the will of the Sovereign (source). In practice, the royal family follows many of the same heraldic regulations which commoners are forced to obey – but ultimately, it is for the King or Queen to decide.

Traditionally, British monarchs’ legitimate children and legitimate male-line descendants are given the right to use the Royal Arms, but with small differences to distinguish them.

As @Curryong’s Wikipedia link explained, in Andrew’s case, the difference is “a label of three points Argent the central point charged with an Anchor Azure” (meaning a white strip with three dangling points and a blue anchor on the center one) hung across the shield.

Will King Charles decide that Andrew needs to be stripped of the right to use the (differenced) Royal Arms? We do not know, but my guess is “only if the media presses the issue”.

Traditionally, the mark of difference is not changed when a prince is granted a dukedom. However, they have been adjusted when a prince’s father became king or when a prince inherited his father’s dukedom.


:lol:

I can't believe Heraldica is still available online to find this data for Andrew's situation. Per main page the last year was 2003 and list its website from 1995-2003 by François R. Velde. I remember reading it before I joined TRF's old website.
 
Last edited:
We're shocked, right?🙄

I am more disturbed about the reason the photo was taken rather than its existence.

According to VG's memoirs, she asked for a photo with Andrew because she wanted to impress her mother.😲
 
On the plus side for Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor, the newly released 2011 emails also reveal that when Virginia Giuffre first told the Mail her account of an orgy with Andrew on Epstein’s private island, Jeffrey Epstein called her allegations “complete and utter fantasy” and the Duke of York said “I don’t know anything about this!” during their private email conversations.

Quoting the BBC story posted by An Ard Ri above:

‘On 6 March 2011 the Mail on Sunday published a story including the now infamous photograph of Andrew and Giuffre.

The [right-of-reply] email [sent by the Mail] goes on to say that the masseuse and another girl were directed to sit on Andrew's knee in Epstein's New York flat, and that he groped both girls.

The email says that one of the girls was directed by Maxwell to have sex with Andrew. It also states she was directed to participate in an orgy with Andrew at Little St James - Epstein's private Caribbean island. It requests a reply by noon the next day.

It appears that the email is sent to Maxwell by her representative, forwarded on to Epstein and then to a redacted email address marked "The Duke".

On 6 March 2011, the day the Mail on Sunday published its Giuffre story, Epstein emails "The Duke", asking: "You ok?". He add: "These stories are complete and utter fantasy".’”​

Andrew’s reply to that email:

‘Andrew's reply reads: "What's all this? I don't know anything about this! You must SAY so please. This has NOTHING to do with me. I can't take any more of this."’​

I am not sure, but I think Virginia Giuffre’s account of the orgy ultimately did not make it into the Mail story published on March 6, 2011. I cannot find that story on the internet (if anyone else can, a link would be appreciated), but there is no mention of an orgy in other articles published around March 6, 2011: Duke of York still focus of many Sunday papers


More email quotes from the BBC and Sky articles:

‘In a different email exchange in March 2011 about an inquiry from a news reporter, Epstein messages someone listed as "The Duke", which is thought to be Andrew.

Epstein told him: "Im not sure how to respond, the only person she didn't have sex with was Elvis."

It prompted the following response: "Please make sure that every statement or legal letter states clearly that I am NOT involved and that I knew and know NOTHING about any of these allegations.

"I can't take any more of this my end."’

[…]

‘In an email to his publicist in July that year [2011], Epstein writes: "The girl who accused Prince Andrew can also easily be proven to be a liar.

"I think Buckingham Palace would love it. You should task someone to investigate the girl Virginia Roberts, that has caused the Queen's son all this agro (sic).

"I promise you she is a fraud. You and I will be able to go to ascot (sic) for the rest of our lives."’​


This new publication means Andrew can no longer claim that the photo is fake and that he never met V. Giuffre.

Given some of the claims he made in the past, I still wouldn’t put it past him…

The quote:

‘In an exchange with a journalist in July 2011, Epstein appeared to discuss Giuffre and her photograph with Andrew.

"Yes she was on my plane, and yes she had her picture taken with Andrew, as many of my employees have," he wrote.’​

ETA: For some reason, the BBC article seems to have been edited to remove some of the quotes I excerpted. Fortunately, someone saved the original:

 
Last edited:
This Telegraph article provides a good roundup of the Andrew-related content discovered so far in the latest tranche of Jeffrey Epstein emails:


Jeffrey Epstein also mentioned an "Andrew" to his friend Lord Mandelson on November 6, 2016:

'In an exchange on November 6 2016, Epstein told Lord Mandelson “in hindsight. you were right about staying away from Andrew.”'​

When Jeffrey Epstein thinks you are a liability to him...


The Line of Succession list on the royal family's website has at last been updated to reflect Andrew's change of titles.


Curiously, he is listed as "Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor" (hyphen included) without a "Mr.", whereas the other untitled persons on the list are styled Mr., Master, Mrs. or Miss. Not sure whether it is an oversight or a concession to Andrew to avoid labeling him with the "plain Mr."
 
‘In an email to his publicist in July that year [2011], Epstein writes: "The girl who accused Prince Andrew can also easily be proven to be a liar.
"I think Buckingham Palace would love it. You should task someone to investigate the girl Virginia Roberts, that has caused the Queen's son all this agro (sic).​
"I promise you she is a fraud. You and I will be able to go to ascot (sic) for the rest of our lives."’​

So, Lord Little Finger Epstein had a "publicist"? To sell a good image of Epstein to the public? And as we can see from the next quote, this publicist was lied to... What a character, this Epstein! And today was something in the press about President Trump's relationship to Epstein. Trump presided over the USA, when Epstein's life ended... What a story! Royalty, like Prince Randy Andy, billionaires, presidents... I feel a bit of "Schadenfreude" here...

The quote:

‘In an exchange with a journalist in July 2011, Epstein appeared to discuss Giuffre and her photograph with Andrew.​
"Yes she was on my plane, and yes she had her picture taken with Andrew, as many of my employees have," he wrote.’​
 
On the plus side for Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor, the newly released 2011 emails also reveal that when Virginia Giuffre first told the Mail her account of an orgy with Andrew on Epstein’s private island, Jeffrey Epstein called her allegations “complete and utter fantasy” and the Duke of York said “I don’t know anything about this!” during their private email conversations.

Quoting the BBC story posted by An Ard Ri above:

‘On 6 March 2011 the Mail on Sunday published a story including the now infamous photograph of Andrew and Giuffre.​
The [right-of-reply] email [sent by the Mail] goes on to say that the masseuse and another girl were directed to sit on Andrew's knee in Epstein's New York flat, and that he groped both girls.​
The email says that one of the girls was directed by Maxwell to have sex with Andrew. It also states she was directed to participate in an orgy with Andrew at Little St James - Epstein's private Caribbean island. It requests a reply by noon the next day.​
It appears that the email is sent to Maxwell by her representative, forwarded on to Epstein and then to a redacted email address marked "The Duke".​
On 6 March 2011, the day the Mail on Sunday published its Giuffre story, Epstein emails "The Duke", asking: "You ok?". He add: "These stories are complete and utter fantasy".’”​

Andrew’s reply to that email:

‘Andrew's reply reads: "What's all this? I don't know anything about this! You must SAY so please. This has NOTHING to do with me. I can't take any more of this."’​

I am not sure, but I think Virginia Giuffre’s account of the orgy ultimately did not make it into the Mail story published on March 6, 2011. I cannot find that story on the internet (if anyone else can, a link would be appreciated), but there is no mention of an orgy in other articles published around March 6, 2011: Duke of York still focus of many Sunday papers


More email quotes from the BBC and Sky articles:

‘In a different email exchange in March 2011 about an inquiry from a news reporter, Epstein messages someone listed as "The Duke", which is thought to be Andrew.​
Epstein told him: "Im not sure how to respond, the only person she didn't have sex with was Elvis."​
It prompted the following response: "Please make sure that every statement or legal letter states clearly that I am NOT involved and that I knew and know NOTHING about any of these allegations.​
"I can't take any more of this my end."’​
[…]​
‘In an email to his publicist in July that year [2011], Epstein writes: "The girl who accused Prince Andrew can also easily be proven to be a liar.​
"I think Buckingham Palace would love it. You should task someone to investigate the girl Virginia Roberts, that has caused the Queen's son all this agro (sic).​
"I promise you she is a fraud. You and I will be able to go to ascot (sic) for the rest of our lives."’​




Given some of the claims he made in the past, I still wouldn’t put it past him…

The quote:

‘In an exchange with a journalist in July 2011, Epstein appeared to discuss Giuffre and her photograph with Andrew.​
"Yes she was on my plane, and yes she had her picture taken with Andrew, as many of my employees have," he wrote.’​

ETA: For some reason, the BBC article seems to have been edited to remove some of the quotes I excerpted. Fortunately, someone saved the original:

Thank you, @Tatiana Maria, for your nuanced analysis of the published emails. One might think Andrew as well as Epstein are innocent because they claim that nothing V. Giuffre said is true. On the other hand, those who have a lot to lose if it becomes public have an interest in portraying V. Giuffre as a liar. I think this is a tried and tested strategy of the powerful: to portray the accuser as a liar and to unsettle the public. Whom do you believe and whom not?

Unfortunately, V. Giuffre can no longer defend herself, as she is no longer alive. And, unfortunately, there was no trial, and unfortunately, the main defendant, Epstein, also took his own life.

I fear the whole matter is so complex that it will probably never be fully resolved.
 
I'm very surprised. Wouldn't it have been better to give priority to Prince Edward and his children?

It's unlikely that Andrew will ever succeed the king, but I still find it strange.
 
I'm very surprised. Wouldn't it have been better to give priority to Prince Edward and his children?

It's unlikely that Andrew will ever succeed the king, but I still find it strange.
It doesn’t work like that, unlike the Duke of Windsor Andrew did not renounce his and his children’s right to succession.
 
I'm very surprised. Wouldn't it have been better to give priority to Prince Edward and his children?

It's unlikely that Andrew will ever succeed the king, but I still find it strange.
Andrew is and remains in the line of succession and as he is older than Edward he and his daughters and grandchildren come before Edward
 
They can't just remove or change Andrew's place in the succession, he has not renounced his succession rights nor should he (yet at least IMO)

If they were going to do anything I would approve of them applying the post 2013 succession rules to Anne (and only Anne retrospectively) so that she ranks above her brothers. That would also remove Andrew from his CoS eligibility and remove Andrew from the first 10 in the line of succession which I think would make everyone feel a little more comfortable (well those with any reasonable brains- not the media obviously who would still be screaming about it if he was 2,540th in the line of succession)
 
Thank you all for the explanation, I understand now. I'm also aware of how the hierarchy works. I just thought—and I was obviously wrong—that after everything that happened and Andrew was stripped of all his titles, his rank in the order would have changed as well.

Actually, it doesn't really matter; it probably won't happen. Although it would be very interesting to see what would happen if he suddenly became king due to some unforeseen circumstances.
I admit, that's pure fantasy.
 
Yes he would. That’s quite funny.
However, I don’t believe that Andrew MW has ever wholeheartedly embraced any religion or indeed any spiritual philosophy like Buddhism. So somehow the idea of a religious conversion in order to remove himself from the succession is not even a remote possibility imo.
 
Parliament determines the succession. Under the British constitution, Andrew can't unilaterally renounce his place in the line of succession even if he wanted to.
Somehow Edward VIII did. Even though as the ex-king he wasn’t really in line anymore. I suppose it was meant to leave no ambiguity.
 
Somehow Edward VIII did. Even though as the ex-king he wasn’t really in line anymore. I suppose it was meant to leave no ambiguity.
I maybe wrong, but I think it was His Majesty's Declaration of Abdication Act 1936, that removed him from the line of succession.
 
Parliament determines the succession. Under the British constitution, Andrew can't unilaterally renounce his place in the line of succession even if he wanted to.
It is all he has left, he will not walk away, it is highly unlikely it will happen but it is still a cling on for him.
 
Thank you all for the explanation, I understand now. I'm also aware of how the hierarchy works. I just thought—and I was obviously wrong—that after everything that happened and Andrew was stripped of all his titles, his rank in the order would have changed as well.

Actually, it doesn't really matter; it probably won't happen. Although it would be very interesting to see what would happen if he suddenly became king due to some unforeseen circumstances.
I admit, that's pure fantasy.
It is fantasy, it will never happen, he will not be wanted . If he was the only choice , well forget it.
It is also unlikely that the royal family would go down the road of requesting parliament remove it, that would open pandoras box, the MP's might decide to remove others that they do not like the look of.
 
Link here:

The Line of Succession list on the royal family's website has at last been updated to reflect Andrew's change of titles.


Curiously, he is listed as "Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor" (hyphen included) without a "Mr.", whereas the other untitled persons on the list are styled Mr., Master, Mrs. or Miss. Not sure whether it is an oversight or a concession to Andrew to avoid labeling him with the "plain Mr."
 
He could convert to the catholic faith, then he would be out.

Any non-Protestant religious affiliation would suffice to block him from the throne. The Bill of Rights 1688 and Act of Settlement 1700 restrict the throne to Protestants ("And the said Crowne and Government shall from time to time descend to and be enjoyed by such person or persons being Protestants").

What is unique to Catholicism is that the exclusion is irreversible: A convert to Catholicism who reverted to Protestantism would continue to be banned. A convert to any other denomination or religion who reverted to Protestantism would regain their entitlement to the throne.

That said, I can't imagine the leaders or members of any church or religion would be pleased if Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor publicly converted to their faith to try to seek respite from his current issues. If he wanted to take that route, I would recommend declaring he is no longer Christian but not adopting any new religion.
 
Last edited:
Thank you all for the explanation, I understand now. I'm also aware of how the hierarchy works. I just thought—and I was obviously wrong—that after everything that happened and Andrew was stripped of all his titles, his rank in the order would have changed as well.

Actually, it doesn't really matter; it probably won't happen. Although it would be very interesting to see what would happen if he suddenly became king due to some unforeseen circumstances.
I admit, that's pure fantasy.
It is fantasy, it will never happen, he will not be wanted . If he was the only choice , well forget it.
It is also unlikely that the royal family would go down the road of requesting parliament remove it, that would open pandoras box, the MP's might decide to remove others that they do not like the look of.

Two weeks ago, the Palace briefed that in the unlikely event of the seven heirs ahead of Andrew dying, “action would be taken” to ensure Andrew did not become monarch.

“Palace sources have indicated that in the extremely unlikely event of seven untimely deaths, action would be taken to ensure Andrew would not become monarch.”​
 
If this is in the wrong spot please could moderator's move it or delete it as you think fit.

From the Times. Rita Oh, who alleges to be one of Epstein's victims was suing Virginia Guiffre when Ms Guiffre died. Ms Oh alleges that Ms Guiffre fabricated stories about her. In turn, Ms Guiffre was counter-suing Ms Oh. The matter is set to proceed when the Guiffre estate is substituted for Ms Guiffre herself.

I'm assuming the Times went through all sorts of rigorous background checking and taking legal opinions before they published this - at least I hope they did.


Rina Oh's friend Ann Fisher says that she (Ann Fisher), too, was abused by Jeffrey Epstein, who forcibly groped her.

In Ms. Fisher's interview with ITV, she mentions that Mr. Epstein and his assistants pestered her to attend a dinner with a member of the British royal family (she believes he meant the Duke of York). She declined.

"Ann Fisher says she was sexually assaulted by Epstein in May 2001, when he groped her at his Upper East Side mansion in New York, having gone to what she thought was a business meeting.

After talking for some three hours, he invited her to an upcoming dinner with a member of the royal family, where he said she would fit in well as Fisher is half-English and, according to Epstein, resembled the late Princess Diana.

Epstein then attacked her.

He later offered her a cheque, which she refused.

In the subsequent days, one of Epstein’s assistants repeatedly called her, on her mobile phone, her work phone and her home phone, pestering her to attend the dinner."

https://www.itv.com/news/2025-11-14...-to-lure-her-to-a-dinner-with-a-british-royal



Meanwhile, news outlets continue to report on references to the then Duke of York in Jeffrey Epstein’s emails.

In 2011, Jeffrey Epstein’s PR firm emailed him that Prince Andrew and Sarah Ferguson were “disastrous” for Jeffrey Epstein’s reputation. Apparently, at the time, being linked to the Yorks was a greater reputational liability than having served 18 months of prison time for soliciting a minor for prostitution…

“The 2011 step-by-step plan titled 'Issues of Reputation' by PR firm Osborne & Partners […]

The most pressing matter, the memo states, which needs to be 'tackled with a matter of urgency', was Epstein's association with Andrew which was resulting in negative press in the UK.

[…]

Citing the Daily Mail and Mail on Sunday, the memo says '...it is disastrous for you to be seen in any way to facilitate his lifestyle, or to help with his well documented issues.

'Their sole interest in you and Ghislaine (Maxwell) is as a means to attack Prince Andrew and Sarah Ferguson. You need to studiously avoid any involvement whatsoever with the couple, which will lessen the interest and we can establish a constructive relationship on your behalf with them.'”

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...-PR-firm-told-Jeffrey-Epstein-freed-jail.html


Ghislaine Maxwell also mentioned Andrew during her court fight with Virginia Giuffre:

‘In the January 2015 email – sent just days after Andrew was named in US court documents – she [Ghislaine Maxwell] writes [to Jeffrey Epstein]: “I have to distance myself from you in a statement too.

“And they need me to say I was not aware of massage w/andrew in my house.”

Epstein replied: “I am on the phone with another attny (sic) getting you an answer.”’

https://www.thesun.co.uk/royals/37333985/epstein-andrew-massage-ghislaine-maxwell-home/
 
Last edited:
In 2011, Jeffrey Epstein’s PR firm emailed him that Prince Andrew and Sarah Ferguson were “disastrous” for Jeffrey Epstein’s reputation. Apparently, at the time, being linked to the Yorks was a greater reputational liability than having served 18 months of prison time for soliciting a minor for prostitution…

“The 2011 step-by-step plan titled 'Issues of Reputation' by PR firm Osborne & Partners […]​
The most pressing matter, the memo states, which needs to be 'tackled with a matter of urgency', was Epstein's association with Andrew which was resulting in negative press in the UK.​

Well, what? Prince Andrew and his wife were bad for Lord Little Finger Epstein?

Prince Andrew was very much the poster boy for his operation! His big entrance into the high society of New York!

And I wonder, whether many of the "fun oriented" gentlemen, the Presidents, the billionaires, you name it, whether they thought: If Prince Andrew, who is protected by the MI6 and whatever and the Royal Security Service, if he is going there, then it must be "safe ande secure"....

Obviously false! As all the gentlemen surely found out! It is a big scandal! Really big!
 
The fallout from Andrew's 'defrocking' continues.

In the Falkland Islands, several plaques unveiled by Andrew are being removed. Including a plaque to mark the opening of RAF Mount Pleasant in 1985, one to mark the opening of a school in Stanley in 2002, and one on New Island honouring the Falkland Islands Conservation Trust.

 
Back
Top Bottom