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

[Toledo]

The saga continues.

Democratic members of the House Oversight Committee in the United States have apparently sent a letter to Andrew asking him to appear before Congress to explain his links to Jeffrey Epstein, saying 'they believe he possesses important information about people with links to the late financier's crimes'.

The letter has been signed by sixteen members of Congress, and asks Andrew to respond by November 20th.

Andrew ordered to appear at Congress to explain links to Epstein

Democratics in the House Oversight Committee sent the disgraced royal a letter on Thursday saying they believe he possesses important information about people with links to Epstein's crimes.

www.dailymail.co.uk

It's interesting that this is being done now. Is he now perceived as an easier target because he is a plain Mister instead of a Prince? Did his demotion remove some legal and diplomatic protections in a way that opens him to this kind of action?

These members of Congress don't care about Andrew or his involvement with Epstein. They just want to drag him to Washington DC to run a show and tie it with the local back and forth political fights happening at the nation's capital. It's all for a local USA political show from one specific party to use against another one. Had they cared, this would have been done the year Andrew was interviewed on TV.

And seems this thread is now turning from royalty related to the USA TV show Face the Nation?


Back to royal news involving an ex-royal:
Ex-Prince Andrew "Probably Will" Need to Make Major Protocol Shift With Eugenie and Beatrice

The ex-duke "is unlikely to bow 'happily' and is likely dreading the moment that he will be publicly addressed as simply Andrew, rather than Prince Andrew."​

 

[eejm]

'Under his princely title' is a really weird criterion because in that case, they should remove EVERYTHING he ever did in life, for example, they should also remove his high school diploma - as he also earned that while being a prince... A lot of honors he received based on him being the queen's son but any official recognition for an achievement that he earned (primarily) based on his own merit should remain.

As I said previously, I’m not advocating for or against the removal of his medal. But given everything that has been removed connected to it, I could still see it happening.

 

[Leopoldine]

I think he should stay home.

I'm not his biggest supporter, but those Washington clowns are just creating a big flutter to show how virtuous they are.

The thing is, even if he gave testimony, do you think Epstein would have told Andrew about the other men's sexual involvement with the stream of young girls passing through his houses? Epstein already knew that Andrew was not ... er ... a member of Mensa, so why tell him anything given his unpredictability?

 

[Camm2]

Looka all them chickens coming home to roost.

 

[Hallo girl]

'Under his princely title' is a really weird criterion because in that case, they should remove EVERYTHING he ever did in life, for example, they should also remove his high school diploma - as he also earned that while being a prince... A lot of honors he received based on him being the queen's son but any official recognition for an achievement that he earned (primarily) based on his own merit should remain.

There is a difference between earning something by your own effort regardless of your name/ title and earning something because you were a prince.

Andrew was in the Falklands War, he flew helicopter missions, and by all accounts he did some dangerous stuff to support the men on the ground/ at sea.

He was not given that job to do because he was a prince, he was given that because he was trained to do it, and had nothing to do with his title.
He earned the Falklands war medals, by putting his life on the line, he could have stayed home, as he was still second in line to the throne then, I do not think William was born or he was just about to be born.

There were newspaper reports at the time that he refused to stay home, he insisted on going and threatened to resign if they would not let him serve with the men.

It would ,in my eyes, be petty to remove them.

 

[An Ard Ri]

Andrew Mountbatten Windsor has now been asked by Democrats in US Congress to answer questions as part of its investigation into Jeffrey Epstein.
(The committee is controlled by Republicans)
Democrats in US Congress ask Andrew to appear for questioning over Epstein links

 

[Queen Claude]

Has any others who have been summoned by Congress been disclosed?

 

[EssexRoyal]

He has not been "summoned" but invited. Congress has no power to summon a foreigner to attend its hearings. Equally, no foreigner is obliged to accept such an invitation. Interesting they feel the need to talk to Mr Mountbatten Windsor but ignore many of the named Americans.

 

[Hallo girl]

He has not been "summoned" but invited. Congress has no power to summon a foreigner to attend its hearings. Equally, no foreigner is obliged to accept such an invitation. Interesting they feel the need to talk to Mr Mountbatten Windsor but ignore many of the named Americans.

There were a great deal of well known faces in the party photographs, innocent photographs I might add but they were there, they might have seen things, or had doubts about.

 

[Toledo]

In several Andrew Lownie interviews … before Andrew was made a commoner … the author mentioned his next book was to be about Prince Philip.

But a report today has one of the people interviewing Mr Lownie saying that he told them he will now be working on a follow-up book to “Entitled” … to be called “Untitled”.

Mr Lownie says people at the Palace and in the Government are no longer fearful of speaking up.

The new book will be dealing with some of these seedier things … including the regular visits of sex-workers to Buckingham Palace with the knowledge of the Queen.

We all know he wants to make book money and become a celebrity in the gossip TV circles, I doubt he'll donate anything to groups that fight s*x slavery. He's in for the money.

That said, the concept of having a prince Andrew book named Entitled and a follow up named Untitled is brilliant. An absolutely PR marketing genius move!

I think he should stay home.
I'm not his biggest supporter, but those Washington clowns are just creating a big flutter to show how virtuous they are.
The thing is, even if he gave testimony, do you think Epstein would have told Andrew about the other men's sexual involvement with the stream of young girls passing through his houses? Epstein already knew that Andrew was not ... er ... a member of Mensa, so why tell him anything given his unpredictability?

The people that want Andrew to come to Washington could care less about his statement, or the truth. It's only for show to use this process as self promotion on a party that is currently in chaos due to lack of clear leadership. The one heading the committee is someone whom no one heard about that is trying to get the attention of the press to move up the ranks of his party.

Sorry to disappoint everyone, but no politician in Washington DC cares about anything but themselves and how publicity can cut deals for them in influence and authoring books. Truth on Epstein, and using Andrew as a political tool for one party against members of the other party, has nothing to do with exposing more people or taking anyone to a court trial. If Andrew mentioned names involving Democrats, those records will be sealed.

It's all for show and it can backfire in Andrew, all of the sudden, is viewed as a victim on Washington DC politicians and public opinion shifts in his favor. To be the Devils Advocate as the expression goes, has Andrew been formally accused, taken to trial and convicted? And if so, what specifically led to the conviction?
Washington DC's opportunistic politicians should leave the UK handle Andrew and maybe subpoena USA citizens like Clinton, Gates, Spacey, Stephanopoulos...?

 

[Hallo girl]

In several Andrew Lownie interviews … before Andrew was made a commoner … the author mentioned his next book was to be about Prince Philip.

But a report today has one of the people interviewing Mr Lownie saying that he told them he will now be working on a follow-up book to “Entitled” … to be called “Untitled”.

Mr Lownie says people at the Palace and in the Government are no longer fearful of speaking up.

The new book will be dealing with some of these seedier things … including the regular visits of sex-workers to Buckingham Palace with the knowledge of the Queen.

Mr Lownie likes to dig up the dirt, his next book is due to be about Philip and his life and friends, the problem is most of the people mentioned will already be dead and basically Lownie will be able to say what he likes without providing proof, just sources said.
Even if he does mention names, it is unlikely they will be there to contradict it or sue.
Duke of Windsor, Mountbatton , Andrew and the next one is Philip.

He claims to be a Royalist and doing all this muck digging to save the monarchy, we might not all agree on that point.

 

[Toledo]

Mr Lownie likes to dig up the dirt, his next book is due to be about Philip and his life and friends, the problem is most of the people mentioned will already be dead and basically Lownie will be able to say what he likes without providing proof, just sources said.
Even if he does mention names, it is unlikely they will be there to contradict it or sue.
Duke of Windsor, Mountbatton , Andrew and the next one is Philip.

He claims to be a Royalist and doing all this muck digging to save the monarchy, we might not all agree on that point.

Mr. Lownie is UK's answer to Spain's Penafiel, a reporter that was part of king Juan Carlos circles and became a vocal hater of anyone that annoyed Juan Carlos, like queen Sofia and queen Letizia.

 

[carlota]

Thanks to the USA posters for shedding some light on the invitation to congress. It does seem like a political show, or otherwise it would have happened earlier. Also why not invite any of these Americans implicated by the case and just Andrew? How curious.

I’m interested in the timing though. May the king have known this was coming and stripped Andrew of his princely title because of it? I understand that it is a political tactique now, and as a foreigner he can ignore it, but the wider public doesn’t know that

 

[Queen Claude]

He has not been "summoned" but invited. Congress has no power to summon a foreigner to attend its hearings. Equally, no foreigner is obliged to accept such an invitation. Interesting they feel the need to talk to Mr Mountbatten Windsor but ignore many of the named Americans.

Thank you for correcting that it is an invite and not summon. So to rephrase my question, has it been disclosed who else has been invited by Congress to, as the press release posted above states (link), "to submit to questioning by the Oversight Committee as part of the ongoing probe into Jeffrey Epstein, his accomplices, and enablers" (?), because like you, if I find it interesting that only Andrew Mountbatten Windsor has been invited and others have not.

 

[An Ard Ri]

Has any others who have been summoned by Congress been disclosed?

Here's an extract from the letter that was sent to King Charles regarding his brother

"Rich and powerful men have evaded justice for far too long. Now, former Prince Andrew has the opportunity to come clean and provide justice for the survivors. Oversight Democrats will not stop fighting for accountability and transparency for survivors of Epstein and his gang of co-conspirators," Rep. Garcia said in a statement, while Rep. Subramanyam said: "After hearing from Epstein’s victims and public reporting of leaked documents, it is vital that Andrew cooperates with the ongoing investigation. If he is innocent, then he can clear his name. And if not, our investigation will show that, and the victims will receive long overdue justice. The Royal Family's actions stripping Andrew of his titles show there is more to this story. Ranking Member Garcia and I will not stop pushing for answers and accountability."

Read U.S. lawmakers' full letter to Andrew Mountbatten Windsor: 'Stripping Andrew of his titles show there is more to this story'

 

[Toledo]

Here's an extract from the letter that was sent to King Charles regarding his brother

Read U.S. lawmakers' full letter to Andrew Mountbatten Windsor: 'Stripping Andrew of his titles show there is more to this story'

Let me get this straight: It will take two nobody politicians, Rep. Garcia and Rep. Subramanyam that no one heard or cared for in Washington DC, to reveal the truth for this world to be a better place? And then use it for their own political ambitions which is not expose the truth that will or could include celebrity names within their very own party but, to promote themselves within the chaos of a political party with no clear leaders.

Now, per statement from these two political USA clowns:

Rep. Subramanyam said: "After hearing from Epstein’s victims and public reporting of leaked documents, it is vital that Andrew cooperates with the ongoing investigation. If he is innocent, then he can clear his name. And if not, our investigation will show that, and the victims will receive long overdue justice. The Royal Family's actions stripping Andrew of his titles show there is more to this story. Ranking Member Garcia and I will not stop pushing for answers and accountability."​

If Representative Subramanyam's grandiose act to expose the truth to help Andrew come clean works, would the USA Democratic party petition the UK's king Charles to retract all his orders, return Andrew all his titles and let him live rent free in the royal grounds of his choosing alongside Sarah?

You see my point? Subramanyam and his pals are in this for their very own political goals, Epstein's case is just a tool for their self promotion. Can you possibly imagine the USA Representatives telling king Charles to reverse everything in the UK if Andrew cooperates with USA Democrats to attack USA Republicans? Which is what this is all about.
The delusion is real in Washington DC to pretend a higher goal and get involved in UK matters.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

Here's the official statement from the committee summoning Andrew. Ranking Member Robert Garcia, Rep. Suhas Subramanyam, Oversight Democrats, Demand Andrew Mountbatten Windsor Answer Questions on Jeffrey Epstein

Thank you for posting the original statement from the (Democratic Party) committee members, which also has a link to their full letter to Andrew Mountbatten Windsor.


Last week, a government minister urged Andrew Mountbatten Windsor to testify to the United States Senate if asked:

Andrew still in line to throne & entitled to £550k payout after Royal Lodge exit

DISGRACED Andrew will keep his place in the line of succession despite being stripped of all his royal titles. The former Duke of York has also been humiliatingly booted out of Royal Lodge – …

www.thesun.co.uk

[/indent]


Trade minister Chris Bryant, presumably speaking on behalf of the Government, urged Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor to testify about Jeffrey Epstein before a committee of the United States Senate if he is asked:

‘[Bryant said:] “I think that just as with any ordinary member of the public, if there were requests from another jurisdiction of this kind, I would expect any decently minded person to comply with that request. So I feel exactly the same in this situation.”

He added: “What I’m basically saying is that I think that if Andrew is asked to do something by a Senate committee then I would have thought that he would want to comply.”’

Ex-prince Andrew should answer US questions on Epstein if asked, UK minister says

Chris Bryant says government welcomes king’s decision on his brother, who is now ‘ordinary member of the public’

www.theguardian.com

However, the Prime Minister seems to be easing that statement back slightly:

'The invite was a matter for Andrew to consider "personally", Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer said.

"My view, and this is not about the individual case, more broadly, is that anybody who has relevant information should always be willing to give it to whatever inquiries need that information.

"But the individual decision is a matter for him."'

Democrats in US Congress ask Andrew to appear for questioning over Epstein links

The panel, which does not have the power to subpoena Andrew, made the request as part of its investigation into Jeffrey Epstein.

www.bbc.co.uk

 

[hereditarytitles]

It's shameless how these politicians are trying to exploit the Andrew story for their own gain. They should have looked into the Epstein files long ago and questioned some of the Americans, how they were involved or what they could have to tell. Or how about inviting the former Prime Minister of Israel, one of the worst sexual abusers (according to Giuffre's book) But they don't dare to do that.
IMO Andrew is primarily a matter for the British royal family. He has been punished sufficiently in every respect. He and his family should finally be left in peace instead of constantly adding fuel to the fire from all sides.

I also find it completely unacceptable that Lownie is announcing new books, including one about Prince Philip, a man who is deceased and cannot defend himself against false accusations. I am particularly sensitive about this because I always liked and respected Philip very much, despite his sometimes difficult character. (Who is without faults?) It would be awful, if by another book his reputation would be dragged through the mud.
As far as I know there are already other books about Prince Philip, one biography I have read and liked it.

 

[Lori138]

An interesting article on the subject of Andrew's loss of titles etc.

Prince Andrew and the future of the monarchy

Last month, the royal family announced that Prince Andrew was to have his title and honours removed. Robert Hazell explains what has changed, how it was done, what might still happen, and what this…

constitution-unit.com

 

[tommy100]

Going forward they might want to explore a way for Royal Dukedoms to remain under control of the Sovereign so they can be removed if that is needed again in the future. We have seen two examples where many would considered this appropriate action now and Andrew's has only been dealt with because he, tbf, has agreed for it to be removed.

 

[MissByrd]

Let me get this straight: It will take two nobody politicians, Rep. Garcia and Rep. Subramanyam that no one heard or cared for in Washington DC, to reveal the truth for this world to be a better place? And then use it for their own political ambitions which is not expose the truth that will or could include celebrity names within their very own party but, to promote themselves within the chaos of a political party with no clear leaders.

Now, per statement from these two political USA clowns:

Rep. Subramanyam said: "After hearing from Epstein’s victims and public reporting of leaked documents, it is vital that Andrew cooperates with the ongoing investigation. If he is innocent, then he can clear his name. And if not, our investigation will show that, and the victims will receive long overdue justice. The Royal Family's actions stripping Andrew of his titles show there is more to this story. Ranking Member Garcia and I will not stop pushing for answers and accountability."​

If Representative Subramanyam's grandiose act to expose the truth to help Andrew come clean works, would the USA Democratic party petition the UK's king Charles to retract all his orders, return Andrew all his titles and let him live rent free in the royal grounds of his choosing alongside Sarah?

You see my point? Subramanyam and his pals are in this for their very own political goals, Epstein's case is just a tool for their self promotion. Can you possibly imagine the USA Representatives telling king Charles to reverse everything in the UK if Andrew cooperates with USA Democrats to attack USA Republicans? Which is what this is all about.
The delusion is real in Washington DC to pretend a higher goal and get involved in UK matters.

You sum this up nicely, Toledo. If these politicians had any real evidence, they would gladly be all over the place”News” expounding. This is clearly a fishing expedition, as well as grandstanding. They do make me ill.

 

[Mbruno]

Going forward they might want to explore a way for Royal Dukedoms to remain under control of the Sovereign so they can be removed if that is needed again in the future. We have seen two examples where many would considered this appropriate action now and Andrew's has only been dealt with because he, tbf, has agreed for it to be removed.

That is what happens in Spain where the "titles of nobility belonging to the Royal Family" are non-hereditary and under the control of the King, who can rescind the authorization to use them (as King Felipe VI did in 2014 with Infanta Cristina's title of Duchess of Palma de Mallorca). The regular "titles of the Kingdom" and the Grandeeships of Spain, on the other hand, have a separate legal regulation and can only be revoked, I think, by law, as was the case for example with the Dukedom of Franco.

 

[HenRach Dominion]

Eh, if those American politicians wanted to know more about Epstein's crimes, there are plenty of Americans tied to him that are more easily accessible than a guy on a different continent.

Also, as much as I dislike Andrew and applaud all he's lost, even I feel uncomfortable with advocating the removal of medals he earned specifically for actual, life-threatening military service.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

The Government has so far refused to allocate any parliamentary time for discussion of Andrew Mountbatten Windsor or issues relating to him (e.g., royal property leases). However, news media report that the opposition Liberal Democrats intend to use the Opposition Day (a day allocated in the House of Commons for debates in which the opposition parties set the agenda) coming up this Wednesday to debate his conduct.


Meanwhile, the United States Congressman Suhas Subramanyam, one of the lead signatories of the letter to Andrew Mountbatten Windsor from 16 Democratic Party members of the congressional committee investigating Jeffrey Epstein, gave an interview to royal reporter Caroline Graham for the Mail on Sunday:

“Mr Subramanyam, who sits on Congress’s House Oversight Committee, which is conducting the probe, told The Mail on Sunday: ‘We have reason to believe that there are others who may have been trafficked to Andrew.

‘Many of the survivors came to Capitol Hill and we spoke to them. They’ve been so courageous and gave us very valuable information as far as where to look.’

[…] He said Congress now intends to invite Andrew’s former royal protection officers to testify about what they saw, and was keen to speak to his ex-wife, Sarah Ferguson, who could also be called to testify under oath.

[…]

Asked what he would say to Andrew, he said: ‘If he has nothing to hide and did nothing wrong, as he alleges, then he should have no problem coming before us and telling his side. Even if he doesn’t come and tell us what he knows we will find the documents. We will get to the bottom of this.’ But a source told the MoS that Andrew would not testify voluntarily under oath, adding: ‘If he does he opens himself up to possible criminal charges. There is not a hope in hell of him appearing before Congress.’”​

The Mail on Sunday also interviewed an unnamed royal protection officer:

“We spoke to another retired royal protection officer who accompanied Andrew on his infamous December 2010 trip to New York. He told us: ‘If Congress wants to speak to me then Congress can speak to me.’”​

Epstein may have trafficked more women to Andrew, says congressman

Congressman Suhas Subramanyam told The Mail on Sunday: 'We have reason to believe that there are others who may have been trafficked to Andrew.'

www.dailymail.co.uk

 

[maria-olivia]

there is no new thread about Sarah , yesterday I saw one hour film about her live as Duchess of York from 1986 until its separation in 1992. Andrew away for months , she was alone and no private advisors. Her Mother was not there ans her Father, Prince of Wales Polo manager due because a contreversy had to leave his post and his position at the Guards Polo Club in 1988 when she was Duches of York.
Her pregnency of Beatrce was difficult , she took 20 kg .
Andrew was said immature , shouting , never home and she did not have a royal behaviour . Having the Royal Family against her and the press , it was to heavy to her. Has she been a quite house wife , it should have been different but it was no Sarah . I don't Know of I may post this here. Sorry

 

[Hallo girl]

there is no new thread about Sarah , yesterday I saw one hour film about her live as Duchess of York from 1986 until its separation in 1992. Andrew away for months , she was alone and no private advisors. Her Mother was not there ans her Father, Prince of Wales Polo manager due because a contreversy had to leave his post and his position at the Guards Polo Club in 1988 when she was Duches of York.
Her pregnency of Beatrce was difficult , she took 20 kg .
Andrew was said immature , shouting , never home and she did not have a royal behaviour . Having the Royal Family against her and the press , it was to heavy to her. Has she been a quite house wife , it should have been different but it was no Sarah . I don't Know of I may post this here. Sorry

Andrew was a naval officer when they met and married, she should have known he would have been away from home.
Her father was still around, I agree the press were cruel.
How can Andrew be shouting but never home, and there would have been advisors, but you need to listen to the advice.

 

[Maryrose]

Not sure why the US is interested in speaking with Andrew. Personally I think he would be the last person Epstein would share the inner workings of his "business" with. He was there to play.

 

[Lee-Z]

Not sure why the US is interested in speaking with Andrew. Personally I think he would be the last person Epstein would share the inner workings of his "business" with. He was there to play.

purely imo: to deflect from US officials/VIPs being involved in it.

 

[Toledo]

Going forward they might want to explore a way for Royal Dukedoms to remain under control of the Sovereign so they can be removed if that is needed again in the future. We have seen two examples where many would considered this appropriate action now and Andrew's has only been dealt with because he, tbf, has agreed for it to be removed.

I see this as an unusual crisis that Andrew caused on himself, and by association his ex-wife Sarah. Like an odd moment in royal history where we might never find out what King Charles was informed about of that made him take these drastic decision to remove all honors and titles. And for Andrew not to even protest speaks volumes there's more to the story.

For now I see this story on the news fading away slowly as Andrew accepts his fate and stays off sight. But not in the USA, where politicians of one party in chaos want to use him as a human sacrifice for their self promotions within their party. Andrew, I hope in the future you never step foot in USA or USA controlled territories. If there's a USA political summon in place it will show up on any travel terminal and you might end up escorted to Washington DC and causing an international conflict.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

Richard Palmer of the i Paper has more on how friends, courtiers, and supporters of King Charles III have been fighting the “soft Charles, tough William” narrative in regards to the Royal Family’s handling of Andrew.

(Relatedly, it was interesting to see the parallels between earlier criticisms that Queen Elizabeth II was too soft on Andrew compared to Prince Charles, and recent criticisms that King Charles III was too soft on Andrew compared to Prince William.)

How 'furious' William and workaholic Charles delivered final blow to Andrew's royal life

Palace officials have insisted publicly that the family, including William, all support the King’s leadership on the crisis

inews.co.uk

‘Friends of the monarch dispute the narrative this is all about William, insisting that if Charles had got his way Andrew would have been forced into relative exile years before. But his mother, they say, indulged Andrew and was often easily influenced by him.

One senior royal source said: “This has never sat easy with [Charles]… He has had to pick up the pieces. He would never want to disrespect his dear mama… but those are the facts.”

But behind the scenes some sources have given the impression that William was unhappy with his father’s initial decision to persuade Andrew to stop using his Duke of York title and honours.

“William was unhappy but so was Charles,” the source said, adding that there was shared recognition of the need to spend time these past weeks consulting legal and constitutional experts on the best way forward.’​

How William channelled Diana to refocus the monarchy after Andrew scandal

On a five-day trip to Brazil, for the Earthshot Prize and COP30, he was mobbed by people with stories of meeting his mother

inews.co.uk

‘Kensington Palace officials have insisted that William supported his father’s leadership but they have not denied that the heir was angry at the King’s initial decision on 17 October to allow Andrew to remain a prince while no longer using his royal titles and honours.

Some courtiers close to the King were frustrated by reports that William was the driving force behind the decision to strip Andrew of everything royal. Charles, they said, consulted with William and the wider family but had always wanted to go further.

He had tried to persuade his brother to see the need himself and then when that failed to happen, had to wait for advice from legal and constitutional experts. “He is one of the world’s great convenors of people,” one source said. “He hoped that Andrew would come to his own decision. Pressure was applied but it never happened.”’​