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

[Hallo girl]

IMO he had Hobsons Choice, in other words, announce it himself or have the Palace announce it.
It was happening anyway, at least there is a tiny piece of dignity where he can claim to be falling on his sword in the interest of King and Country, nobody thinks for one minute that Charles or anybody else has urged him NOT to do it.

As for the technicality that he does not use them rather than removed, it is all the same in the end, just the choice of words, removing titles requires an Act of Parliament and nobody wanted that, As has been previously stated he has never been found guilty of anything in a court of law.

He will not appear at any royal event , his daughters are already married, any funerals it will be side doors, if he even attends that is. That was the only public event left, attending a family funeral. For Andrew that will really be a punishment, not standing there side by side with the monarch.

He will never be used as Counsellor of State, the King has already taken steps for that.

Sometimes you need work arounds to solve a problem rather than straight to the guillotine,

If photographers wanted to wander about Windsor Great park to watch him horse riding well they must be bored or have drawn the short straw.

Just a thought, after the claims that there were all these famous people involved, the list of names, the e mails. etc etc. I find it interesting that Andrew is the only one being vilified , It makes you wonder if he is the patsy in all this, taking the heat away from others. Paying out the millions of dollars had to be an admission of something, maybe not what he is accused of but he wanted the heat taken off, but if anything it boosted the fire.

I have always been of the opinion that he is so arrogant that it would never have crossed his mind that any young woman who was in his company was being paid to be there, instead they were there because of him.

 

[ACO]

I don't think William will hold back anything if he had to deal with his uncle and his ex-wife. I[.....]

I think people are going to be sorely disappointed when William does the same as everyone before him. PR nothing.

 

[Hallo girl]

I think people are going to be sorely disappointed when William does the same as everyone before him. PR nothing.

Let us hope there is nothing major to deal with.

 

[TLLK]

Let us hope there is nothing major to deal with.

I agree. IMO it was appropriate that KCIII deal with any concerns related to his sibling rather his heir.
Hopefully, the future King William V will not have to contend with a similar situation involving any family members.

 

[duke of poliganc]

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!

But all the major royal events you mentioned are actually family events!

 

[CyrilVladisla]

And the only time I have ever seen them referred to as "of York" is in the media.

In the future the media may still refer to Princess Beatrice and Princess Eugenie as "of York". When the press referred to Diana as Princess Diana, she was actually The Princess of Wales.

 

[HenRach Dominion]

Genuine question: If nothing has changed about Andrew’s situation (he still retains his titles, there’s nothing really stopping him or anyone else from using them as it is dependent on Andrew and the people around him, there’s no real push to strip him of his titles by the entities who could do so, Andrew is no longer representing the crown so he has very little opportunity to even use those titles publicly, most of his time is spent privately at the Royal Lodge, he’s not going to be banned from family weddings or funerals regardless of how public they are, and there’s no legal conviction to really push for a more severe punishment), why make the statement at all?

 

[Alison H]

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!

You think that Andrew should have been shoved in the corner at his own mother's funeral and the memorial service for his own father?

I don't think anyone wants to see him on the balcony at Trooping the Colour, but isn't it going a bit far to say that someone "may be allowed to attend" the funerals of their own immediate relatives?

The statement was made because certain sections of the media keep complaining that the Royal Family haven't done anything about Andrew. What more are they supposed to do? Have him disembowelled with a red hot poker? I don't know what people expect.

 

[ACO]

Genuine question: If nothing has changed about Andrew’s situation (he still retains his titles, there’s nothing really stopping him or anyone else from using them as it is dependent on Andrew and the people around him, there’s no real push to strip him of his titles by the entities who could do so, Andrew is no longer representing the crown so he has very little opportunity to even use those titles publicly, most of his time is spent privately at the Royal Lodge, he’s not going to be banned from family weddings or funerals regardless of how public they are, and there’s no legal conviction to really push for a more severe punishment), why make the statement at all?

Because the dead woman who accused Andrew of sexual crimes has a book being released the week Charles has a major trip. They had to do something.

 

[royalwatcher96]

Well, I would not say this is insignificant at all. Andrew is a proud man and this must be humiliating for him. It's all fine and good to say that he still has the title, but if he can't use it any longer, what good is it? I understand why the King doesn't want to trouble parliament. It would be bad PR for the monarchy to take up valuable time in parliament.

And even if he still uses his title at Frogmore, who cares? Titles carry social function and meaning and if he can only use his title in private, it only proves his complete social destruction. Titles become meaningless in such a case. I don't think we will hear or see much of him anymore.

 

[Toledo]

Genuine question: If nothing has changed about Andrew’s situation (he still retains his titles, there’s nothing really stopping him or anyone else from using them as it is dependent on Andrew and the people around him, there’s no real push to strip him of his titles by the entities who could do so, Andrew is no longer representing the crown so he has very little opportunity to even use those titles publicly, most of his time is spent privately at the Royal Lodge, he’s not going to be banned from family weddings or funerals regardless of how public they are, and there’s no legal conviction to really push for a more severe punishment), why make the statement at all?

The way I interpret all the messages here about it is he's now a private person that is not required to be present at official royal events. Maybe funerals because he will be there in the capacity of blood relative, but not seated with the royal family and the extended family that gets assigned specific areas over the general public seats.
Not much will change and if he wanted to make this easier he should also move out of the grand palace he has been camping on for years and into his own private housing.

 

[Hallo girl]

Well, I would not say this is insignificant at all. Andrew is a proud man and this must be humiliating for him. It's all fine and good to say that he still has the title, but if he can't use it any longer, what good is it? I understand why the King doesn't want to trouble parliament. It would be bad PR for the monarchy to take up valuable time in parliament.

And even if he still uses his title at Frogmore, who cares? Titles carry social function and meaning and if he can only use his title in private, it only proves his complete social destruction. Titles become meaningless in such a case. I don't think we will hear or see much of him anymore.

You have hit the nail on the head, he is a proud man. He relished his position within the Royal Family, probably resented moving down from spare to I think 8 .
True Royal watchers who have followed the family over the years will fully understand how this will affect him. For others it might seem like nothing but lip service . As has been noted repeatedly on here, he has never been charged with a crime.

 

[Lee-Z]

i mean, even without being actually charged with crimes, his behaviour and response to the situation has imo damaged the reputation of the RF.
I don't think he intended to do that, in fact i'm pretty sure he didn't intend to hurt the family, but it did end up that way.
Even the 'men in grey' haven't been able to prevent that; for me in particular that tv interview he did did a lot of damage, i imagine he thought he was right to do that and didn't listen to advice.

Because of this, this is the right action at this point in time imo.

 

[Elly C]

Genuine question: If nothing has changed about Andrew’s situation (he still retains his titles, there’s nothing really stopping him or anyone else from using them as it is dependent on Andrew and the people around him, there’s no real push to strip him of his titles by the entities who could do so, Andrew is no longer representing the crown so he has very little opportunity to even use those titles publicly, most of his time is spent privately at the Royal Lodge, he’s not going to be banned from family weddings or funerals regardless of how public they are, and there’s no legal conviction to really push for a more severe punishment), why make the statement at all?

Because up until now he has been styled in all official communications and the media as HRH the Duke of York . This will now cease . Although he hasn’t participated in the public procession of the Order of the Garter, since his initial displacement as a working royal, he was entitled to be part of the Garter ceremony. This will also cease along with other ceremonial titles and orders he has been given over the years. In effect these are now dormant during the rest of his lifetime, but could be reassigned to other royals upon his death. The fact he will no longer be referred to as HRH is a major dent to his pride and reputation.

 

[irish_royalist]

I think this horrible situation has been handled well, at last. I watched Andrew and Fergie running around at the funeral of The Duchess of Kent, laughing and joking and jostling for position like they had just been released from hibernation and were at a party! It was hideous. They really had no idea how to behave, with times and spiralling accusations as they are.
These latest developments will definitely hurt Andrew. We should see little more of them, unless seated quietly at the back of the family group, having entered via a side door. If there’s a worry that they could write a story such as Spare, they could be asked to sign a non-disclosure order on the condition that they’re allowed to remain in Royal Lodge at their own expense.
I do feel sorry for their daughters and their families who have done little wrong.

 

[Toledo]

i mean, even without being actually charged with crimes, his behaviour and response to the situation has imo damaged the reputation of the RF.
I don't think he intended to do that, in fact i'm pretty sure he didn't intend to hurt the family, but it did end up that way.
Even the 'men in grey' haven't been able to prevent that; for me in particular that tv interview he did did a lot of damage, i imagine he thought he was right to do that and didn't listen to advice.

Because of this, this is the right action at this point in time imo.

What I notice with stories like his, alleged crime(s) that he has not been charged with, is often victims are afraid to become a public accuser out or fear how people will attack them and their families. These victims are now adults that have moved on with their lives and suddenly are expected to admit they were underage s*x workers that, for lack of common sense, got involved into the Epstein party crew.

The victims lives will be torn apart by the media while someone like Andrew lives in a bubble protected from it as long as he denies everything. Just because he was not charged doesn't mean it didn't happen to those victims and in the USA a case doesn't go to court unless the prosecutor team (also known as The State vs...) is absolutely sure the evidence is enough to point at a guilt verdict without reasonable doubt.

Andrew, like others in his position, is lucky fear keeps accusers cases from holding up in court in the USA, but I bet fear is also what holds him from visiting the USA since the scandal came up. I have the feeling there could be an arrest order if he lays step in the USA and all hell will break loose with the press for sure. It's like he's on a self imposed house arrest with the entire UK as his house to keep him safe.

 

[Mbruno]

You have hit the nail on the head, he is a proud man. He relished his position within the Royal Family, probably resented moving down from spare to I think 8 .
True Royal watchers who have followed the family over the years will fully understand how this will affect him. For others it might seem like nothing but lip service . As has been noted repeatedly on here, he has never been charged with a crime.

Because there was no crime under British law. Ghislaine Maxwell told Virginia Giuffre, who was 17 and above the age of consent, to have sex with Prince Andrew in London. Mrs Giuffre herself said that Andrew treated her well (he never forced himself on her or anything like that) and also admitted she was paid 15,000 dollars (I think) by Epstein (not Andrew) for her services. There could be a potential crime if Virginia Giuffre were found to have been trafficked into the UK with Andrew's involvement, but that possibility was dismissed by the Police investigation.

Prince Andrew obviously showed poor moral judgment by procuring paid sex outside marriage with a 17-year-old girl, but it was not criminal.

 

[Elly C]

I do feel sorry for their daughters and their families who have done little wrong.

I wholeheartedly agree. There is absolutely reason to subject them to any kind of punishment for the behaviour of their parents. They are suffering enough having to witness the reputation of two people they love dearly being pawed over and mired in the full glare of the media. Some empathy for the impossible position they find themselves in would do no harm.

 

[Mirabel]

And even if he still uses his title at Frogmore, who cares? Titles carry social function and meaning and if he can only use his title in private, it only proves his complete social destruction. Titles become meaningless in such a case. I don't think we will hear or see much of him anymore.

Well, we really haven't seen much of him for years now, ever since the Epstein scandal broke.
What does Andrew do with his time, now that he is a pariah?

 

[Hallo girl]

Because there was no crime under British law. Ghislaine Maxwell told Virginia Giuffre, who was 17 and above the age of consent, to have sex with Prince Andrew in London. Mrs Giuffre herself said that Andrew treated her well (he never forced himself on her or anything like that) and also admitted she was paid 15,000 dollars (I think) by Epstein (not Andrew) for her services. There could be a potential crime if Virginia Giuffre were found to have been trafficked into the UK with Andrew's involvement, but that possibility was dismissed by the Police investigation.

Prince Andrew obviously showed poor moral judgment by procuring paid sex outside marriage with a 17-year-old girl, but it was not criminal.

Could I just add , did he know money changed hands. I am not excusing him, I just think we need facts . He has poor judgement there is no doubt.

 

[Kristen]

First, I feel the greatest sympathy for all the victims of the horrible Epstein and Maxwell. I'm sorry that Virginia Giuffre felt so much pain that she felt she had to end her life. I hope that every other victim has been able to find the support and healing that they deserve. I also feel empathy for Beatrice and Eugenie.

In Andrew's case, I think this is the right thing to have happened. I believe he will suffer greatly in private over the loss of using his title and the public humiliation, as he has always been very proud conscious of his standing and titles. But he has not been found guilty of a crime under the law. There is, rightly, a high standard of evidence needed and that just hasn't been met. Unless some new and very solid evidence against him comes out, then let him live quietly on the Windsor estate. I would not begrudge him sitting with the family at a funeral, but otherwise, I think he should live a very private life and not appear with them.

But what I really want, and what should happen, is for all of those very wealthy and very powerful men who were part of the abuse, to be revealed. Their victims deserve some kind of justice, and the world deserves to know who they are. I don't feel much sympathy for Andrew, but the others deserve to have their names out there too. I don't care what country or royal family they are from, how much money they have, or what their political affiliation is. No covering up for traffickers and abusers. Unfortunately, I doubt the full, unredacted files will ever be released. At this point, if the files are released, I wouldn't trust them. They've been hidden too long with too many unethical people having a chance to make revisions.

It is just sickening to think how many people will get away with the abuse. I do hope they face justice some day, in some way.

 

[hereditarytitles]

Well, we really haven't seen much of him for years now, ever since the Epstein scandal broke.
What does Andrew do with his time, now that he is a pariah?

According to GB News Channel a source told the publication that Andrew has continued his business activities with recent trips to the Middle East and Switzerland. This has obviously going during the last years when he was already stripped of his official duties. As long as these transactions are not illegal, he can probably continue them. The exact details of those businesses are not known.

https://www.gbnews.com/royal/prince-andrew-abroad-lifestyle-royal-family-news

 

[Kaye1850]

I watched Andrew and Fergie running around at the funeral of The Duchess of Kent, laughing and joking and jostling for position like they had just been released from hibernation and were at a party! It was hideous.

What a wonderfully apt description!

 

[sophie25]

Andrew Lownie has implied that Beatrice and Eugenie's activities in the Middle East is the next big scandal to break
I would not be remotely surprised if that turns out to be true.

 

[Erin9]

You think that Andrew should have been shoved in the corner at his own mother's funeral and the memorial service for his own father?

I don't think anyone wants to see him on the balcony at Trooping the Colour, but isn't it going a bit far to say that someone "may be allowed to attend" the funerals of their own immediate relatives?

The statement was made because certain sections of the media keep complaining that the Royal Family haven't done anything about Andrew. What more are they supposed to do? Have him disembowelled with a red hot poker? I don't know what people expect.

I’m not sure what people expect either of the RF. The most important thing was already done years ago: Andrew already had to stop being a working member of the RF.

Yes- what was done yesterday was largely PR, BECAUSE Andrew was already no longer a working member of the RF, but it was something. It was a response to constant complaints. And I’m sure it matters to Andrew that this happened. I imagine it matters a lot to him.

Agreed in regard to Andrew’s attendance of family funerals. Personally- I don’t care if he uses the front door or the side door to attend family funerals. (And it’s absolutely none of my business regarding his attendance of family funerals.) Or family functions. He is still family. And nothing Charles or William does will ever change that. And no amount of complaining from the press or the public changes that.

Maybe it’s the American in me- I find it almost irrelevant whether he’s stripped of his titles or just agrees not to use them at all anymore. I’m sure it’s embarrassing/upsetting to Andrew and Sarah either way. I guess stripping is more humiliating, but to me it’s just semantics when the end result is the same. He won’t use them anymore- and he’s had little opportunity to anyway because RF had already done something about Andrew. But- it’s still a loss for him.

Andrew agreeing not to use them is good for everyone involved. It’s good PR for the family and even him. And it saves everyone a lot of time and stress- including Parliament’s time- if he just stops using them in any capacity. Plus I think stripping titles is a very slippery slope.

But then the only thing I’m clear Andrew is guilty of is being: arrogant, entitled, having exceedingly poor judgment, not coming across as terribly bright. He hasn’t been charged, much less convicted, of a crime. And I can believe that he may not have known about the sex trafficking. I can also believe he believed it was entirely consensual. That would fit Andrew’s character imo.

 

[tommy100]

I feel like some of those unhappy Andrew gave up using his titles rather than having then taken are just unhappy it was done quickly in a two paragraph statement rather than being dragged out in weeks of Parliamentary debate, further dragging Andrew through the mud. I’m not saying he doesn't deserve that, just that IMO some people are annoyed a work around was found that prevented Andrew being further humiliated.

It would, IMO, have set a risky precedence for Parliament to start stripping titles from royals who have shown poor moral judgement but never been found guilty of any crime. It reminds me of a line in the ITV show Victoria where the new young Queen is urging Lord Melbourne to allow Albert to be king:
“if the people get into the way of making Kings, they might get into the way of unmaking them”
The same applies here IMO, if Parliament stripped Andrew of his title it leads to a slippery slope of “now we aren’t happy with this royal or that royal so why don’t we do the same”. If Andrew had been convicted of a crime that would have been a clear marker of “this behaviour brings about this sanction”. Without it though its just based on popularity and public opinion.

 

[PrincessOfGeorgetown]

Andrew Lownie has implied that Beatrice and Eugenie's activities in the Middle East is the next big scandal to break
I would not be remotely surprised if that turns out to be true.

I'm not sure how exactly their activities in the Middle East could be inappropriate. They aren't working royals, highly doubt they are selling access to their working royal relatives. I'd say Peter Phillips and his dealings in the UK and China could be more scandalous.

 

[tommy100]

It was said Andrew received gifts of cash and jewels “for the girls” on his visits to The Middle East. If things like that have continued with the girls knowledge it would reflect badly on them.

 

[BriarRose]

I agree that Parliament will never remove Andrew's titles. There is a clear precedent that titles are only up for removal if actual treason against the country occurs. At least the King is doing something.

Andrew's public humiliation doesn't end today either. I sincerely doubt he will be allowed a military uniform at the King's future funeral, which we know is a big deal to him. He will have no role at this nephew's coronation, while his younger brother is almost guaranteed a large role. Andrew may not even be invited to William's coronation.

I know it's tedious work, but I do hope that when certain threads are reopened, they are renamed to reflect Andrew and Sarah's agreement not to use their titles anymore.

 

[Mbruno]

I’m not sure what people expect either of the RF. The most important thing was already done years ago: Andrew already had to stop being a working member of the RF.

Yes- what was done yesterday was largely PR, BECAUSE Andrew was already no longer a working member of the RF, but it was something. It was a response to constant complaints. And I’m sure it matters to Andrew that this happened. I imagine it matters a lot to him.

Agreed in regard to Andrew’s attendance of family funerals. Personally- I don’t care if he uses the front door or the side door to attend family funerals. (And it’s absolutely none of my business regarding his attendance of family funerals.) Or family functions. He is still family. And nothing Charles or William does will ever change that. And no amount of complaining from the press or the public changes that.

Maybe it’s the American in me- I find it almost irrelevant whether he’s stripped of his titles or just agrees not to use them at all anymore. I’m sure it’s embarrassing/upsetting to Andrew and Sarah either way. I guess stripping is more humiliating, but to me it’s just semantics when the end result is the same. He won’t use them anymore- and he’s had little opportunity to anyway because RF had already done something about Andrew. But- it’s still a loss for him.

Andrew agreeing not to use them is good for everyone involved. It’s good PR for the family and even him. And it saves everyone a lot of time and stress- including Parliament’s time- if he just stops using them in any capacity. Plus I think stripping titles is a very slippery slope.

But then the only thing I’m clear Andrew is guilty of is being: arrogant, entitled, having exceedingly poor judgment, not coming across as terribly bright. He hasn’t been charged, much less convicted, of a crime. And I can believe that he may not have known about the sex trafficking. I can also believe he believed it was entirely consensual. That would fit Andrew’s character imo.

I don't think stripping him of his peerages is legally possible short of an act of Parliament. The law does not allow for voluntary renunciation of peerages either (you may only disclaim a peerage within one year of inheriting it). Stripping him of his knighthoods such as the KG and the GCVO is possible, I think, but I don't know if it will be done.

In practical terms, however, after Andrew and other hereditary peers lost their automatic right to sit in the House of Lords in 1999, the only privilege that his titles confer on him is the right to use them and being cited by them in public or private events. The practical effect of "not using" his titles and honors (including, as I understand it, the post-nominal letters, insignia, and robes of his orders) , as I see it, is now the same as of being stripped of them. The King could go one step further and, for clarity, also remove him from the official order of precedence . I suppose that would be possible too.