Is Prince Andrew a step nearer to losing his Dukedom

[jowly]

Fair play to York doing what they can to remove their association with him. I understand removing his Dukedom is a different matter, but surely (hopefully) it's a step nearer?

Revoking a dukedom requires an Act of Parliament, and has to be instigated by the Sovereign. It's only happened in recent times to revoke the peerages of German aristocrats who held British titles in 1917. So basically traitors at a time of war.

So I don't see it happening, even in Charles' reign. More likely Andrew will be completely retired from public life, and as he has no sons to pass the dukedom onto, it will go into abeyance.

Not even a baby step closer. He'll be DoY until he dies. Can't see the title being used again either.

I suppose that this is a big a statement as York could make considering they can't do much else. Atleast it's something.

Well done, York.

The scumbag will never face real justice, though. Especially whilst Mummy is still alive. They’re a godawful lot.

I guess I am a royalist in many ways, and I can accept HM thinks differently at her age than I might. But I am dismayed they don't seem to realise axing him might actually gain them respect and support.

Hopefully C and W do

Who cares? We can just change the D of duke to a P, in everyday parlance.

I'm wondering if they could change it to a peerage without a clear association with a place - we're overdue a Duke of Clarence I reckon.

It was worth the protest but the title won't be removed. But its still an insult to him.

I disagree. It's an ancient title, traditionally often held by the monarch's second son. If the monarchy survives for William, my guess is that Louis will be the next Duke of York.

The dukedom was named for York, the place, so I can see why they might want to back away. By the way, New York was named for the dukedom (or rather the holder of it at the time)

The title can’t be removed by the Queen, only by parliament. And I can think of any number of reasons why a group of public figures who are themselves sometimes wildly unpopular and not above being involved in unpleasant activities would not want a precedent on the books of someone being stripped of a title. Not least because here it would be because the title in question is held by someone who is unpopular, but has not been convicted of a crime or even had a court finding against them. Loads of them (and judges too, I hear) regard eventually getting a title as their due recompense for their public service and so they are highly unlikely to have much interest in demonstrating to the public that they can be taken away….

Also @SenecaFallsRedux I agree they are extremely unlikely to permanently retire such an ancient and significant title. It dates back to one of the sons of Edward II, and one of the Princes in the Tower was the Duke of York. As was Henry VIII before he became King. Elizabeth’s own father George VI was the Duke of York before he succeeded his brother.

The royals aren't going to push for his title to be removed - they will not want it to be common knowledge that it can be done relatively easily.

They all know they're potentially the next one that people don't like - look at Charles after the death of Diana - and that means they can't afford for it to be seen as a thing that's done. Even if they agree that, in that case, it would be right. Especially when he doesn't have a son to pass it on to. He'll carry it, but be discouraged from using it, and then it'll revert to the crown on his death to be reused in future.