Andrew to lose Duke of York title (part 2)

[elprup]

I thought I’d start a new thread as the previous one is full!

Here’s the first thread: https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/the_royal_family/5429027-andrew-to-lose-duke-of-york-title?page=1

Great minds think alike 😜

The shoot is pheasant not deer.

Ah, fair enough Abra1t - I honestly though deer/stags came into it somewhere, but on reflection I think that might be on the Scottish shoots rather than Norfolk

I think William has had a real shift in his world view in past year or so.

I also don't think that he is virtue signaling. When he stood around and seemed to toe the party line with Andrew, he was criticized. Now he's being honest and still criticized. It's right that he is going with his conscience. Plus Andrew and Fergie seem annoying.

Warning: this is a harrowing read

www.telegraph.co.uk/us/news/2025/10/19/virginia-giuffre-claim-book-sexual-abuse-father/

Wrong, the Monarch can absolutely strip the title of Prince and Princess
https://middletemplar.org.uk/to-strip-or-not-to-strip-prince-harrys-titles/

There is no reason why the Sovereign cannot remove these titles, a decision which again could not be challenged in the courts since the royal prerogative in relation to honours and titles is said to be unreviewable or ‘non-justiciable’*The exercise of prerogative powers is in principle subject to supervision by the courts in the same way that statutory powers are – as Boris Johnson discovered in 2019 when his attempt to prorogue Parliament was annulled by the Supreme Court – but powers exercised by the Monarch personally otherwise than on ministerial advice or in relation to honours fall into the non-justiciable category.

Not in the UK but abroad. Our media is reporting that KC does not want to do anything that would impact B and E and their status. So this is why he has not gone harder. No idea if this is legally correct or not.

That is incorrect @SpiritAdder

The monarch can remove the title of Prince by Letters Patent. Formal removal of a Royal Dukedom requires a government process, hence the fudge seen this week.

I hope that Daily Beast article is correct - removing HRHs, Dukedoms and Princely titles from all non working royals would be a neat way to manage it without appearing to single anyone out in particular.

If, as the article states, he also intends to apply that to his own children depending on their decision around being working royals or not, then he can’t be accused of having a vendetta.

It would sort out this ridiculous situation where we have private citizens using their titles for commercial gain, and embarrassing the monarchy by their behaviour.

The world was a very different place in the Late 60's - early 90's.
It is quite possible that something which was seen as ok back then would be viewed very differently now.
I would not be surprised if a lots of skeletons were currently violently rattling cupboards.

I imagine there are many people employed battling fires right now.

I was a Royalist, if much more comes out about what has been hidden I will be a vocal Republican.

*Edited to add clarification - I am not excusing any behaviour, rather expecting that there are plenty more secrets and the desire to keep them so is preventing decisive action.

I’ve said before I think going forward it should only be the heir and his/her heir that have Prince/Princess titles.

Then when become monarch for rest of dcs to become hrh.

No princess Charlotte or prince Louis till William is king. IMO this should be retrospective.

So only Harry, Anne and Edward are hrh.

Not B+E, or Edinburgh dcs (moot anyway as they don’t use them).

No hrh for Sussex dcs either.

If you leave the uk no hrh - the Sussexes. If you bring the monarchy into disrepute you lose it - Andrew. If you work for it like the Gloucesters and Kent’s you keep it.

The Gloucesters and Kents need to be pensioned off.

They buried one of them recently, if you recall.

No, he can't. Has to be Act of Parliament.

I agree. You should only have a royal title if you're a working royal. Not just someone who was lucky enough to get it, and now just merches it.

Why?

Is anyone intending the read the book? The BBC has obtained an advanced copy and has an article on it this morning. From the article it would appear Virginia only names Andrew. That strikes me as extremely convenient for all the other men she would have seen with Epstein. I'd like to know if she names anyone else but can't bear to read it.

I presume if the BBC has a copy they would have said if there were other prominent people named in the book? The fact they haven’t suggests to me there aren’t any.

I think the shift is that he is far more likely to do what he thinks is right, even in the face of palace or press criticism. I'm not saying all his decisions are going to be correct or even popular but they will be his.

I'm always intrigued by this. Obviously many, many people were involved in this sordid business.

Isn't that a bit strange? I'll wait to see what happens when the book is published but if it continues to only name Andrew, why? I simply don't believe he is the only prominent man in this country, let alone the US, who was around whilst she was with Epstein. If he is the only one named i hope a journalist starts to question why, it suggests that pressure was applied to the poor woman.

In the US names are being redacted from the documents released as well. If Andrew had any brains he'd stop letting people hide in his shadow and name some names.

That's for removing the Dukedom. King Charles can issue letters patent to remove or grant 'Prince'. King George V did it in 1917.

Absolutely. Trump is named in the Guardian’s extract of the book - she says she was briefly introduced to him whilst working at his Mar-a-Lago resort and he couldn’t have been nicer.

From the Telegraph: It was the start of a two-year ordeal that she says included being trafficked to a string of wealthy or influential men, including prominent scientists, a former prime minister, a politician who was about to be elected governor, and the Duke of York.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/us/news/2025/10/17/epstein-spoke-about-blackmailing-powerful-friends-giuffre/