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

[Moonmaiden23]

I don't want to offend, but losing HRH status does not, to me, seem comparable to execution/the French Reign of Terror.

I have not seen any mainstream media or press call for only Beatrice and Eugenia to lose their titles and status solely because of the revelations about their parents' actions.

What I have seen a bit of is a much wider discussion as to whether the King should follow the example of the Swedish and Danish monarchies in limiting titles and statuses to working royals. This discussion is somewhat expected, as those in favor of limiting titles and status believe it will prevent problems like Andrew and Sarah in the future.

It is obviously not equal to losing ones head on a guillotine. But the stress and humiliation of first seeing your birth family essentially destroyed, then having your own personal integrity questioned along with the suggestion of having your birth titles stripped away without even a trial or conviction in a court of law would be pretty devastating.

At least for me it would be.

 

[An Ard Ri]

I feel so very sorry for Beatrice and Eugenie and especially now as we head towards Christmas and both of their parents in disgrace.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

A minor issue I noticed: Many press reports now refer to Andrew as "Andrew Mountbatten Windsor" even when describing events that occurred long in the past, while he was still officially HRH The Duke of York. It does not seem correct to me to write lines such as "In 2011, Andrew Mountbatten Windsor emailed Jeffrey Epstein...".

FYI— they just removed Andrew from the official Royal family website. His page deleted.

True.

The Role of The Royal Family

www.royal.uk

However, he remains listed as The Duke of York in the line of succession listing and the Members of the Royal Family listing.

Use of Royal Arms, Names and Images

The Lord Chamberlain's Office produces definitive guidelines on the use of the Royal Arms, Royal Devices, Emblems and Titles and of photographs, portraits...

www.royal.uk

Succession

The succession to the throne is regulated not only through descent, but also by Parliamentary statute. The order of succession is the sequence of members of the...

www.royal.uk

The Members of the Royal Family list has been updated. Note the “2025-11” in the URL.

https://www.royal.uk/sites/default/files/documents/2025-11/ANNEX%20D%20-%20Royal%20Family%202025%201.pdf

“The Duke of York” has been renamed “Prince Andrew” – not “Andrew Mountbatten Windsor”, and not “The Prince Andrew”.

“Sarah, Duchess of York” has been deleted from the list.

“The Lady Louise Mountbatten-Windsor” is still hyphenated.

The Duchess of Kent has been deleted from the list.

The previous version for comparison: https://www.royal.uk/sites/default/files/documents/2025-02/ANNEX D - Royal Family.pdf

 

[Katymcwaity]

I'm sharing this article only because I am surprised that the Los Angeles Times would be sharing information regarding the Sandringham estate with its readers. Honestly, I am surprised that the paper thought its readers would be interested.

What to know about the British king's remote private estate that will be Andrew's new home

Andrew Mountbatten Windsor, King Charles III's younger brother, is facing banishment from royal premises.

www.latimes.com

really not remote, its 10 miles from Kings Lynn, 50 miles from Norwich. Terrible roads though as they are A roads so single carriageways.Awful in summer if you get stuck behind a caravan.

 

[hereditarytitles]

In a facetious, sarcastic manner I predicted earlier that this would happen Toledo.

I never imagined that it actually would become reality.

Very good anology with the French Revolution's Reign of Terror, with elements of the British press taking on the role of Robespierre.

Many in the public already dislike B and E because they have Andrew and Sarah as parents. They need little incentive to believe the worst about them.

That's true, but both of them aren't entirely blameless, apart from the fact that they obviously can't help having such parents.
Once they were adults, they theoretically should have questioned what both parents did, who their friends were, and what business ideas they were pursuing. It's not entirely new to them that their parents were publicly questioned and criticized for certain activities. But they didn't question it (or at least we don't know what conversations they had within their family).

You could see it as solidarity with their parents; that's how they always presented it on social media. They could have distanced themselves without making everything public.

Personally, and I think everyone has personal likes and dislikes, even if we don't know these people personally, I've always had a dislike for Eugenie. She was always too focused on emphasizing her status, on putting herself too much in the public eye. And what confirmed my opinion was her commitment to modern slavery, which includes the sexual exploitation of women, something I simply couldn't understand. To choose such a topic, given what her father did, and then to travel to Middle Eastern countries every year to enjoy themselves at the invitation of the government there—countries known for exploiting people, because modern slavery doesn't just mean the sexual exploitation of women, but also the exploitation of cheap labor.

No, for me, that's pure ignorance of reality and hypocrisy.
And then there was that immensely pompous extravagant wedding—was that really necessary?
As far as the children are concerned, Beatrice has made a clear decision: she doesn't show them in public. I can completely understand that. Eugenie, on the other hand, wants to show the world what beautiful, wonderful children she has, but doesn't want to reveal everything. The urge to show and share them is there, but why this ambivalence? It's either yes or no.
I have a different opinion of Beatrice. I find her much more authentic than her sister.

What about the other cousins? Anne's children, Edward's children—except for Harry and Meghan with their own story. They've all lived rather reserved and modest lives so far.

But, as always, everyone has their preferences for certain people
But I think, the way the press is now attacking the two young women is unfair.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

I am not sure if this is new or not, but this is a Metropolitan Police spokesperson's explanation of why Virginia Giuffre's allegations about Prince Andrew (published in January 2015) were not pursued by a decision of November 2016:

A spokesman for the Met said it had not previously undertaken a criminal investigation because “any investigation into human trafficking would be largely focused on activities and relationships outside the UK”.

“Officers therefore concluded that other jurisdictions and organisations were better placed to pursue the specific allegations and in November 2016, a decision was made that this matter would not proceed to a full criminal investigation,” they added. “That decision was subsequently reviewed.”

Met told to open new Andrew investigation

archived 1 Nov 2025 20:05:42 UTC

archive.ph

Access Restricted

 

[Alison H]

I'm sharing this article only because I am surprised that the Los Angeles Times would be sharing information regarding the Sandringham estate with its readers. Honestly, I am surprised that the paper thought its readers would be interested.

What to know about the British king's remote private estate that will be Andrew's new home

Andrew Mountbatten Windsor, King Charles III's younger brother, is facing banishment from royal premises.

www.latimes.com

They make it sound as if it's on a desert island, not 50 miles from either Norwich or Cambridge!

 

[Moonmaiden23]

That's true, but both of them aren't entirely blameless, apart from the fact that they obviously can't help having such parents.
Once they were adults, they theoretically should have questioned what both parents did, who their friends were, and what business ideas they were pursuing. It's not entirely new to them that their parents were publicly questioned and criticized for certain activities. But they didn't question it (or at least we don't know what conversations they had within their family).

You could see it as solidarity with their parents; that's how they always presented it on social media. They could have distanced themselves without making everything public.

Personally, and I think everyone has personal likes and dislikes, even if we don't know these people personally, I've always had a dislike for Eugenie. She was always too focused on emphasizing her status, on putting herself too much in the public eye. And what confirmed my opinion was her commitment to modern slavery, which includes the sexual exploitation of women, something I simply couldn't understand. To choose such a topic, given what her father did, and then to travel to Middle Eastern countries every year to enjoy themselves at the invitation of the government there—countries known for exploiting people, because modern slavery doesn't just mean the sexual exploitation of women, but also the exploitation of cheap labor.

No, for me, that's pure ignorance of reality and hypocrisy.
And then there was that immensely pompous extravagant wedding—was that really necessary?
As far as the children are concerned, Beatrice has made a clear decision: she doesn't show them in public. I can completely understand that. Eugenie, on the other hand, wants to show the world what beautiful, wonderful children she has, but doesn't want to reveal everything. The urge to show and share them is there, but why this ambivalence? It's either yes or no.
I have a different opinion of Beatrice. I find her much more authentic than her sister.

What about the other cousins? Anne's children, Edward's children—except for Harry and Meghan with their own story. They've all lived rather reserved and modest lives so far.

But, as always, everyone has their preferences for certain people
But I think, the way the press is now attacking the two young women is unfair.

How do we know the sisters are not "entirely blameless"? Based on what?

Perception? Unproven allegations? Andrew Lownie's book? Visits to Qatar?

Charles has personal friends in the Middle East!

The fact that perverts attended their teen birthday parties at the invitation of their parents?

How do we know for sure they never questioned their parents? Who is privy to every personal conversation that took place between them?

The inconvenient truth(among a few in this entire sordid drama) is that the only reason B and E are under a shadow now is because of the downfall of their parents.

People hostile to the monarchy in general and the Yorks in particular taste blood in the water.

 

[Kaye1850]

And then there was that immensely pompous extravagant wedding—was that really necessary?

Well yes, it was, as Andrew kindly explained:

“It’s not a public wedding. This is meant to be a family wedding. There’s more people [than Harry and Meghan had] because Eugenie and Jack have so many friends.”

He just can’t help himself.

 

[BriarRose]

Quotes like that are the reason I will forever wish I could have been "a fly on the wall" during the conversation between Andrew and the King wherein Andrew agreed to lose his titles.

I have no doubt we will get over 20 different accounts from "unnamed sources" that will all tell a different tale, with little in common.

 

[Moonmaiden23]

I am waiting for the other shoe to drop. There is no way that a sensitive family oriented man like the king took such draconian action against his brother based on just information from VRG's memoir -which everyone already knew anyway, or because Andrew and Sarah have been definitively exposed as grifting liars.

That was established long ago as well.

 

[hereditarytitles]

How do we know the sisters are not "entirely blameless"? Based on what?

Perception? Unproven allegations? Andrew Lownie's book? Visits to Qatar?

Charles has personal friends in the Middle East!

The fact that perverts attended their teen birthday parties at the invitation of their parents?

How do we know for sure they never questioned their parents? Who is privy to every personal conversation that took place between them?

The inconvenient truth(among a few in this entire sordid drama) is that the only reason B and E are under a shadow now is because of the downfall of their parents.

People hostile to the monarchy in general and the Yorks in particular taste blood in the water.

Dear moonmaiden, I'm truly sorry that we have such a fundamental difference of opinion on this topic,
especially since I value you very much and agree with you on most things.

I had a feeling we would have different opinions regarding Beatrice and Eugenie, but I felt I had to write it anyway.

I don't want to elaborate on this any further; it wouldn't do any good. I just hope we can remain friends, even though we disagree on this one issue.

 

[BriarRose]

I am waiting for the other shoe to drop. There is no way that a sensitive family oriented man like the king took such draconian action against his brother based on just information from VRG's memoir -which everyone already knew anyway, or because Andrew and Sarah have been definitively exposed as grifting liars.

That was established long ago as well.

I agree with this. The King is not a radical. Something new happened.

However, with one other thought: if it's not something new to us, it must have been new evidence that Andrew lied to his family about something important. And the betrayal was unforgivable.

 

[Mbruno]

A minor issue I noticed: Many press reports now refer to Andrew as "Andrew Mountbatten Windsor" even when describing events that occurred long in the past, while he was still officially HRH The Duke of York. It does not seem correct to me to write lines such as "In 2011, Andrew Mountbatten Windsor emailed Jeffrey Epstein...".






The Members of the Royal Family list has been updated. Note the “2025-11” in the URL.

https://www.royal.uk/sites/default/files/documents/2025-11/ANNEX%20D%20-%20Royal%20Family%202025%201.pdf

“The Duke of York” has been renamed “Prince Andrew” – not “Andrew Mountbatten Windsor”, and not “The Prince Andrew”.

“Sarah, Duchess of York” has been deleted from the list.

“The Lady Louise Mountbatten-Windsor” is still hyphenated.

The Duchess of Kent has been deleted from the list.

The previous version for comparison: https://www.royal.uk/sites/default/files/documents/2025-02/ANNEX D - Royal Family.pdf

This list probably predates the decision to strip Andrew of the "titular dignity" of Prince. I suppose it will be edited later to replace "`Prince Andrew" with "Andrew Mountbatten Windsor".

It would be nonsensical in my opinion to remove Andrew from the list of members of the Family , but anything is possible, so I wouldn't be surprised if he were eventually removed from the Family list too.

PS: We have even seen here some hysterical comments calling for Andrew to be stripped of his family name (one poster said he should be renamed "Andrew Smith" or something like that), which is a punishment that is not applied even to the worst of criminals, and as if one could simply erase or ignore who his biological parents are.

 

[Toledo]

In a facetious, sarcastic manner I predicted earlier that this would happen Toledo.
I never imagined that it actually would become reality.
Very good analogy with the French Revolution's Reign of Terror, with elements of the British press taking on the role of Robespierre.
Many in the public already dislike B and E because they have Andrew and Sarah as parents. They need little incentive to believe the worst about them.

One person, Angela Mollard, interviewed on Sky News past 24 hrs wants the princesses to renounce their titles and speak up on their parents. She is a vile and disgusting reporter from the Telegraph.

To put my disgust for this 'keyboard self-righteous warrior' Mollard, just imagine if any of us had an Andrew-type in our families. Think how would you react if strangers from the press demanded you to be forced, by online press pressure, into a public statement against your parent or child so media outlets have material to extend the story and move it toward your own life.

There's nothing new to Andrew and Sarah past 24 hrs, it's time to go after their children to fill up content for TV and monetized podcasts. People like Mollard demanding the children's status to be removed? What would that even do? Make her write a book to brag how her articles forced the king's nieces to be humiliated on a slow news week?

Part of me now sees what Harry stated about the UK tabloid press, and it's quite ugly.

 

[Lori138]

What I have seen a bit of is a much wider discussion as to whether the King should follow the example of the Swedish and Danish monarchies in limiting titles and statuses to working royals. This discussion is somewhat expected, as those in favor of limiting titles and status believe it will prevent problems like Andrew and Sarah in the future.

Except that at one time both A & S were working royals. So, the titles would still have been stripped after being given.

I'm sharing this article only because I am surprised that the Los Angeles Times would be sharing information regarding the Sandringham estate with its readers. Honestly, I am surprised that the paper thought its readers would be interested.

What to know about the British king's remote private estate that will be Andrew's new home

Andrew Mountbatten Windsor, King Charles III's younger brother, is facing banishment from royal premises.

www.latimes.com

This exact story was in my local paper as well, taking up half a page.

 

[Sun Lion]

One person, Angela Mollard, interviewed on Sky News past 24 hrs wants the princesses to renounce their titles and speak up on their parents. She is a vile and disgusting reporter from the Telegraph.

To put my disgust for this 'keyboard self-righteous warrior' Mollard, just imagine if any of us had an Andrew-type in our families. Think how would you react if strangers from the press demanded you to be forced, by online press pressure, into a public statement against your parent or child so media outlets have material to extend the story and move it toward your own life.

There's nothing new to Andrew and Sarah past 24 hrs, it's time to go after their children to fill up content for TV and monetized podcasts. People like Mollard demanding the children's status to be removed? What would that even do? Make her write a book to brag how her articles forced the king's nieces to be humiliated on a slow news week?

Part of me now sees what Harry stated about the UK tabloid press, and it's quite ugly.

I know Angela Mollard Toledo, from our media here … she is Australian.

I wouldn’t bother with any of these lesser people and media outlets going on about anything … I don’t think they have connections or sources and are just jumping on the band-wagon.

Yesterday I watched Andrew Lownie speak at Cambridge University … he didn’t speak yesterday, I saw the address yesterday.

He said that sixty thousand copies of his book were destroyed by the publisher when pressure was applied.

Those copies related how Melania Trump was in a personal/sexual relationship with Jeffrey Epstein … before Mr Epstein introduced her to Donald Trump.

So that information was removed and those books were destroyed, though Mr Lownie says he makes a point of getting it out there verbally anyway.

Here’s a few more examples of information vs empty talking.

… the Queen paid the bill for Andrew to house an Indian yogi at Royal Lodge. Charles put a stop to that when he became King.

… a woman, I can’t remember her name, lived with Andrew at Royal Lodge for five years, completely missed by the media.

…one of Sarah Ferguson’s business partners once attempted suicide, and Sarah asked him … if he tried to kill himself again … to contact the already deceased John Kennedy Jr. (This sounds less outlandish if you remember Sarah spending years of her life with her psychics, influencing both Diana, but also Andrew, in that area. And if you’ve read about Sarah’s obsessions with certain men, JFKJr, Tiger Woods etc.)

 

[Curryong]

They make it sound as if it (Sandringham) is on a desert island, not 50 miles from either Norwich or Cambridge!

Yes, it is only a short distance from those two cities. However, Norfolk is less populated than many other Counties.

I originally came from North Norfolk and know the County well. With the huge over-reaching sky and the flat fields it is possible to imagine yourself a thousand miles from civilisation there, and many observers have commented on it.

There are also cliffs and seashores there (I won’t call them actual beaches, lol,) where, away from tourist season, you can walk for miles and not see another soul. Perhaps Andrew could take some reflective walks there in the future, though I doubt it.

 

[tommy100]

I certainly don't think Beatrice and Eugenie knew more about Epstein, remember they were young when Andrew was hanging out with Epstein, even Andrew (sickeningly) noted Giuffre was "about the same age as my daughters".
I certainly think there are a number of people who are going after B&E simply because of the sins of their father, which is wholly unfair.

However, I can also see there may well be people asking about B&E's conduct in more recent times and about how much "help" they have had from Andrew and his contacts for their business, Beatrice in this more so than Eugenie given the nature of their careers. They have also, sadly, been potentially implicated in some of their parents poor conduct by the fact it is known "gifts" were given to them (or said to have been given to them) from their parents business associates
-£750,000 for Beatrice to help pay for her wedding
-£25,000 including a £15,000 birthday gift for Eugenie - given 5 months before her actual birthday

So their parents have sadly put their own daughters in the spotlight somewhat by accepting payments that were clearly said to be for their daughters. I can see why people might be suspicious, though I can also see that the girls themselves might not be involved in any way and likewise may not have benefitted in any way from their parents actions.

 

[Mbruno]

I certainly don't think Beatrice and Eugenie knew more about Epstein, remember they were young when Andrew was hanging out with Epstein, even Andrew (sickeningly) noted Giuffre was "about the same age as my daughters".
I certainly think there are a number of people who are going after B&E simply because of the sins of their father, which is wholly unfair.

However, I can also see there may well be people asking about B&E's conduct in more recent times and about how much "help" they have had from Andrew and his contacts for their business, Beatrice in this more so than Eugenie given the nature of their careers. They have also, sadly, been potentially implicated in some of their parents poor conduct by the fact it is known "gifts" were given to them (or said to have been given to them) from their parents business associates
-£750,000 for Beatrice to help pay for her wedding
-£25,000 including a £15,000 birthday gift for Eugenie - given 5 months before her actual birthday

So their parents have sadly put their own daughters in the spotlight somewhat by accepting payments that were clearly said to be for their daughters. I can see why people might be suspicious, though I can also see that the girls themselves might not be involved in any way and likewise may not have benefitted in any way from their parents actions.

King Juan Carlos also allegedly set up an account (or trust fund ?) with money he got from Arab rulers, did he not? And the beneficiaries were said to be his children. King Felipe VI tried to avoid this embarassment by giving up any claims to his father's inheritance as far as I understand. Presumably that also includes any accounts or trusts that King Juan Carlos may have set up for his son.

I don't know how feasible it would be for B&E to distangle themselves from any "gifts" that they may have received from or via their parents' business associates, including Epstein, but I would advise them to do so as much as possible. I don't think the girls were directly involved in any influence peddling, but it is not inconceivable that their parents might have used the fruits of whatever influence peddling they were involved in to benefit the girls.

 

[Moonmaiden23]

Well yes, it was, as Andrew kindly explained:

“It’s not a public wedding. This is meant to be a family wedding. There’s more people [than Harry and Meghan had] because Eugenie and Jack have so many friends.”

He just can’t help himself.

The big irony and rebuke to Andrew is that it wasn't Eugenie's lavish nuptials that impressed everyone.

It is Beatrice's sentimental, elegant, intimate and achingly romantic wedding that fans of Royal weddings still dream about.

The one where her parents were virtually hidden.

 

[tihkon2]

Royals have been getting expensive jewelry from foreign heads of state for a couple hundred years at least. I personally don't care.

 

[duchesschicana]

Royals have been getting expensive jewelry from foreign heads of state for a couple hundred years at least. I personally don't care.

I can see why some would view these things as tone deaf and lack of transparency, when the rest of the world is struggling,but to me it’smehhhhh things like that happens, when they are given jewelry and money, it’s something that is done for hundreds of years like you say, but perhaps think twice about who is giving the jewelry and money too. Else they might end up with a case like A.

 

[yukari]

I agree with this. The King is not a radical. Something new happened.

However, with one other thought: if it's not something new to us, it must have been new evidence that Andrew lied to his family about something important. And the betrayal was unforgivable.

I'm thinking maybe the spy scandal might be worse than what ir's been reported.

Another thing that might force Charles for this drastic measures could be because how the media (both mainstream and social media) start to push the narative of how it would be William who fix this Andrew problem. This narative makes Charles look weak and incapable as king. We didin't see this kind of narative for Charles as PoW to do something about Andrew when QEII still alive. So this I can see this partly as Charles' posturing his autorithy to the public that he's not an incompetent king who can't rein his own brother. Worse that even it led to the discussion of royal finance in the parliament.

On the other hand, in a way I think some of this is Charles' fault too, he brought this mess himself. I wonder, had Andrew and Sarah not made such blatant public appearance with the other BRF members and instead practiced more discretion during family events, would the public backlash not be this bad. Looking back, there's actually nothing significantly new about their association with Epstein, but with them strutting front and centre leading the family on Easter and how they behaved on Christmas walkabout seems to have rubbed people wrong. It was Charles who brought Andrew and Sarah back, I mean a photo of him kissing Sarah's hand at Ascot few weeks before email leak report surely not a good optic for him and might help to blow the news of the email leak bigger than if Sarah still laying low like during QEII's reign. Even for Andrew, had the photos of him riding is the only one circulating instead of him smugly waving to the camera next to the working royals, those new revelation might only raise few comments of "oh leave him alone, we already knew that he's a trash".

 

[MissByrd]

I think the newest revisions are under the Modern Slavery Act of 2015. If you could even possibly think that Great Britain freely allows sex with trafficked persons I really don't know what to say to you.


This is more to everyone in general - I feel like I am seeing a separation on this forum between women who have been in non-consensual situations and those that have not and may have a more difficult time understanding what is like. As someone who was in a non-consensual 'relationship' as an adult, I get it. I lived two doors from my mother and my abuser was not in my home at all times but I had no way out. And I received no help from the police. I knew things would not end until one of us died and he drank himself to death. I take a huge risk of judgement saying this but I know there are decent people who understand.

Can only express my sadness that you had to endure this.

 

[Royalist.in.NC]

I'm thinking maybe the spy scandal might be worse than what ir's been reported.

Another thing that might force Charles for this drastic measures could be because how the media (both mainstream and social media) start to push the narative of how it would be William who fix this Andrew problem. This narative makes Charles look weak and incapable as king. We didin't see this kind of narative for Charles as PoW to do something about Andrew when QEII still alive. So this I can see this partly as Charles' posturing his autorithy to the public that he's not an incompetent king who can't rein his own brother. Worse that even it led to the discussion of royal finance in the parliament.

On the other hand, in a way I think some of this is Charles' fault too, he brought this mess himself. I wonder, had Andrew and Sarah not made such blatant public appearance with the other BRF members and instead practiced more discretion during family events, would the public backlash not be this bad. Looking back, there's actually nothing significantly new about their association with Epstein, but with them strutting front and centre leading the family on Easter and how they behaved on Christmas walkabout seems to have rubbed people wrong. It was Charles who brought Andrew and Sarah back, I mean a photo of him kissing Sarah's hand at Ascot few weeks before email leak report surely not a good optic for him and might help to blow the news of the email leak bigger than if Sarah still laying low like during QEII's reign. Even for Andrew, had the photos of him riding is the only one circulating instead of him smugly waving to the camera next to the working royals, those new revelation might only raise few comments of "oh leave him alone, we already knew that he's a trash".

I absolutely agree with you! I wouldn’t have expected A and S to be discreet, stand back, but Charles, William , and Anne could have given them their expectations. The final straw for me was the inappropriate grinning and posturing at the Duchess of Kent’s funeral. I find it hard to believe that Charles’ PR people didn’t make sure the Yorks were less visable.especially after Easter and Christmas !

 

[Hallo girl]

I can see why some would view these things as tone deaf and lack of transparency, when the rest of the world is struggling,but to me it’smehhhhh things like that happens, when they are given jewelry and money, it’s something that is done for hundreds of years like you say, but perhaps think twice about who is giving the jewelry and money too. Else they might end up with a case like A.

So what you are saying is that the royals should be selective in whom they accept gifts from, you cited some of the Gulf states earlier , so should the royals only accept gifts from countries whose politics we like and agree with regardless of whether the government of the day has requested a state visit.

 

[tihkon2]

So what you are saying is that the royals should be selective in whom they accept gifts from, you cited some of the Gulf states earlier , so should the royals only accept gifts from countries whose politics we like and agree with regardless of whether the government of the day has requested a state visit.

You made the point better than I did. They have no choice if the gift is from a country that the government wants to keep friendly. The Royal family are not allowed to offend foreign leaders.
Now if it's Mr. Private Billionaire giving a present, they certainly can turn that down I would imagine.

 

[Hallo girl]

You made the point better than I did. They have no choice if the gift is from a country that the government wants to keep friendly. The Royal family are not allowed to offend foreign leaders.
Now if it's Mr. Private Billionaire giving a present, they certainly can turn that down I would imagine.

Exactly, Mr private Billionaire quite often donates to royal charities, and as long as it is audited properly and clearly shown as charitable donations that are properly accounted for and what the money is used for, that in my eyes is ok. And yes quite often they receive honours for their charitable works, invitations to events, maybe even become personal friends of a royal.
These huge royal charities are not kept going by coffee mornings and knitted goods stalls. Fund raising events with huge ticket prices and you need Mr private billionaire to fund a table of ten etc.
There can be grey areas which I agree the royals do require to be careful of, our billionaire has a yacht who then offers his royal friend a free holiday can be a grey area, but if I had a friend with a yacht who offered me a holiday I would go.
Of course all charitable donations are offset by tax breaks, I am not in that position so cannot be precise on that.

Mr Private Billionaire also donates to political parties which I personally have more of an issue with.

 

[Blog Real]

Prince Andrew plaque is removed by NHS Trust.

Andrew plaque is removed by NHS Trust in fresh blow

Andrew took part in a ceremony at Chase Farm Hospital, part of London's Royal Free NHS Foundation Trust where a a plaque was unveiled by the then-Duke of York.

www.dailymail.co.uk