Research Briefing: “The removal of titles and honours” from House of Commons Library.

[Nick MacGregor-Sadolin]

Good morning,

Here is a very recent Research Brief from the House of Commons Library titled "The removal of titles and honours”, published Monday, 03 November, 2025.

It goes over many of the things which we discussed here about Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor.

It gives an in-deep (updated) view on the legal background and legal authorities for:

Award and use of titles,

Line of Succession,

Peerages,

Knighthoods and other honours, and

Military affiliations and royal patronages

There are a lot of explanations and references to the original documentation.

https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-10370/ 

You might find it useful. Enjoy!

Nick MacGregor Sadolin

https://gw.geneanet.org/sadolinsnet_w 

[Richard R]

Many thanks Nicks for this useful post. Is it your first?

[malcolm davies]

Nick,

         Thanks for posting this.

The only portion of the briefing paper that requires comment is this statement:

"Professor Graham Zellick, a legal academic, has argued that Prince Andrew’s dukedom could be “withdrawn in the same way it was conferred, by new letters patent”."

Unfortunately that opinion was in a letter to the Times which I am unable to access-if someone has access they might usefully post a summary of that opinion.

The opinion is,however,in contradiction of text writings on the Peerage by Palmer and Gadd.The critical reason why the opinion is likely to be unsustainable is that an hereditary peerage(which the Dukedom of York is) is a piece of property-an incorporeal heriditament.Under English law property can only be deprived through parliament.This explains why the descent of peerages follows land law of the 12th century,and in particular why there is a doctrine of abeyance when the peerage limitation is to heirs general.

There is no doubt that a peer deprived of his peerage by act of parliament can be created a new hereditary peer by letters patent,but letters patent cannot effect a deprivation.

[David Beamish]

Here is the text of the Letter in The Times (21 October):

Sir, Reports that Andrew has lost, relinquished, surrendered or been stripped of his titles and honours are hogwash, as are the assertions about how difficult it would be to remove them (news, Oct 20). His knighthoods — of the Garter and the Royal Victorian Order — can be removed by the King’s signature on a piece of paper. His HRH honorific and title of prince (described as governed by settled law) are just as easily removed by the promulgation of a formal instrument known as letters patent. Indeed, if the aim is to sever the link with the monarchy, it would make more sense to deprive him of the title of prince than that of duke. It is said that removal of his dukedom and subordinate peerages would require an act of parliament. I doubt that is correct as he is not a member of the House of Lords and especially in the case of a royal peerage of first creation with no heirs. It could, in my view, be withdrawn in the same way it was conferred, by new letters patent. The appropriate step would be for the duke to request the removal of the titles and for the King to oblige.
Professor Graham Zellick KC FAcSS
Emeritus professor of law and former vice-chancellor, University of London

I agree with Malcolm Davies that Professor Zellick's opinion on using letters patent to withdraw a hereditary peerage of first creation is, at best, controversial.

[Henry W]

I agree that withdrawing a hereditary peerage by letters patent in this case is at significant odds with historical practice.  Andrew Mountbatten Windsor, as Duke of York, sat in Parliament (see House of Lords, Prince Andrew introduced).  My (non expert) understanding is that once a peer has sat in Parliament, that's it so to speak, the peerage has been created.  A writ of supersedas was historically a route to withdraw a writ of summons issued in error, but only before someone took their seat in Parliament.

The Roll of the Peerage is different though.  Created in 2004 by Royal Warrant, it apparently can be amended implicitly by Royal Warrant.

As David reported here: https://groups.google.com/g/peerage-news/c/6ubNr5xQtUY/m/0wI94jl6BQAJ

 Today the London Gazette has two notices as follows:

THE KING has been pleased by Warrant under His Royal Sign Manual dated 30 October 2025 to direct His Secretary of State to cause the Duke of York to be removed from the Roll of the Peerage with immediate effect. (https://www.thegazette.co.uk/notice/4992105)

[...]

Even though the 2004 Warrant only provided for peers to request their name be removed as the only method of removal from the Roll, it turns out that, apparently, the Crown can direct a removal by Royal Warrant.   In theory I suppose Andrew could contest this, but won't obviously.

[malcolm davies]

David,

          Thank you for posting the letter.

  With respect the use of the word "hogwash" applies to Professor Zellick's claim.The fact that he is not a member of the House of Lords is irrelevant as is the fact that his peerage is ""royal". Letters patent simply create a peerage and do not distinguish the creation with a particular attribute.The creation confers property(ie an incorporeal heriditament) and that is why only Parliament can effect deprivation

  Henry, the new Warrant could affect the old Warrant if it expressly says so-otherwise it is probably invalid (although I expect Andrew was instructed to request his own removal).

  The question of whether the Warrants are valid as to whether that person holds a peerage is very doubtful. At best it is the Crown not recognising a peerage,not that its use by the peer is unlawful.