Prince Andrew Stripped of All Titles

[marquess]

Is this possible under the 1917 letters patent? GB news headlines. 

[Henry W]

From the BBC, the full statement of Buckingham Palace

His Majesty has today initiated a formal process to remove the Style, Titles and Honours of Prince Andrew.

His lease on Royal Lodge has, to date, provided him with legal protection to continue in residence. Formal notice has now been served to surrender the lease and he will move to alternative private accommodation. These censures are deemed necessary, notwithstanding the fact that he continues to deny the allegations against him.

Their Majesties wish to make clear that their thoughts and utmost sympathies have been, and will remain with, the victims and survivors of any and all forms of abuse.

As I argued in this thread, I think the power to remove the HRH and Princely styles is within the power available to the Crown already.  I believe that remove his GCVO and KG honours may need a more formal recommendation from the Honours Forfeiture Committee, though I think the Crown can do it unilaterally.

In order to remove the Dukedom and other peerages, an Act of Parliament will be required.  Similarly if it is desired to remove him from the Line of Succession and/or as a Counsellor of State, an Act of Parliament will be required.

[marquess]

This sets a dangerous precedent, the Duke of York has not been convicted of any crime,  nor charged with a crime.

[cb]

I am horrified to read that a mere allegation can have this effect.  The Royal Family's statement concerning sympathy for the victims of crime simply makes their entire brand lose credibility in my eyes, as does the implied partisanship and clear lack of loyalty to their close relative.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Peerage News" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to peerage-news...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/peerage-news/e26a8896-7268-48da-99d8-0e0fa33c5d15n%40googlegroups.com.

[Jonathan]

The one person who knows whether the mere allegations are true is Mr Mountbatten-Windsor himself, and if they are, he will be lucky if he only faces losing his titles.

Returning to more the remit of this group, I understood the "formal process" to refer to removing the tiitle of Prince, which the King can presumably do by issuing new letters patent to that effect. Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor will legally remain a duke, so could in theory style himself His Grace the Duke of York.

[Patricia Light]

I believe it was stated on GB News that his title will be struck of the Official Rolls, whatever that means

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/peerage-news/8884b90a-48ce-434d-ac66-47e642cb83cfn%40googlegroups.com.

[Timothy M]

No, it doesn’t.  He’s been credibly accused and in the real world, and likely among the vast majority of members of the Royal Family and actual peers, this is universally seen as the right decision to preserve a modicum of respectability for  the monarchy. 

[marquess]

What now is the style and rank of his daughters? 

[malcolm davies]

Patricia,

               Thanks for your comment.

  The  recital to the Royal Warrant creating the Roll of the Peerage contains the following paragraphs:

  "(4) Following the enactment of the House of Lords Act 1999, Our Clerk of the
Parliaments no longer maintains the Roll of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal;
and
(5) Our Secretary of State has represented to Us that it is desirable for a full
record to be kept of all of Our subjects who are Peers."

  The warrant then proceeds to say:

  WE do accordingly declare and ordain that:
1. Roll of the Peerage
(1) There is to be a roll called the Roll of the Peerage (referred to in this Our
Warrant as “the Roll”).
(2) The Roll is to be prepared and kept by Our Secretary of State.
(3) Our Secretary of State shall prepare the Roll in consultation with Our Garter
Principal King of Arms and Our Lord Lyon King of Arms, according to their
respective heraldic jurisdictions.
(4) Our Secretary of State may take such steps and do such acts as he considers
expedient to preparing and keeping the Roll, or incidental thereto, including in
particular:
(a) causing any person who was a Peer on the date on which this Our
Warrant was given to be entered on the Roll;
(b) making such use of the Roll of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal formerly
kept by Our Clerk of the Parliaments as he thinks fit.

....

3. Peers not entered on the Roll not entitled to precedence of Peerage, etc.
Any Peer who is not entered on the Roll shall not:
(a) be entitled to any precedence attaching to his Peerage;
(b) be addressed or referred to by any title attaching to his Peerage in any
civil or military Commission, Letters Patent, or other official document.

6. Applications to be removed from the Roll
(1) Any person who is entered on the Roll may apply to Our Secretary of State to
be removed from the Roll.
(2) The application shall be made in such form as Our Secretary of State may
from time to time direct.
(3) On such an application being made, Our Secretary of State shall cause the
applicant to be removed from the Roll.

Note that there is no provision for a peer to be removed from the Roll except on the application of that peer.No doubt this is the course the former Prince Andrew will adopt.

The Roll does not prevent a person from using a peerage title and only prevents official recognition of that title(see para 3(b) of the warrant.So and undoubted peer(such as the Duke of Argyll who is not on the Roll cannot be prosecuted for any offence relating to use of his title.That would require specific legislation effecting that no person is entitled to style himself a peer unless he is on the Roll

Given the reference to the Roll,I wonder whether there will in fact be legislation to strip the former Prince Andrew of his title as Duke of York.To do so without cause would set a bad precedent-and it would inflame the situation by being debated in both chambers of Parliament when the less is said about the conduct of the former prince the better.

[malcolm davies]

I can hardly see how,if the former Prince Andrew is to be removed from Royal Lodge,finding him acommodation at Sandringham improves the position for the Royal Family-it would be better if he lived abroad.

[LoopyCrown3]

Sheikh Mohamed bin Zayed Al Nahyan, the ruler of Abu Dhabi has apparently offered Andrew free use of one of his Royal palaces.

[Henry W]

I understand that the Andrew formerly known as Prince rarely leaves the country.  In fact after the 2019 Newsnight interview he did not do so for a few years, and possibly only did so for the first time in the last 12 months.  Doubtless covid encouraged this anyway, but I understand he is worried about a US indictment and that his best bet is to be in the country he is a citizen of should the indictment ever drop.  Living as quietly as he can manage in a cottage on the Sandringham estate is better than a Palace of a Middle Eastern Royal who is more prone to the swings of international opinion.

On Thursday, 30 October 2025 at 22:17:51 UTC malcolm davies wrote:

[malcolm davies]

If he is worried about a US indictment,he shouldn't be living in the UK or any European country as they all have extradition agreements with the US(if an application were brought in the UK by the US one immediate problem would be whether the crime alleged in the US is an offence under UK law).

Morocco or the Middle East would be suitable

[LoopyCrown3]

Apparently Republic the anti monarchy group are trying to crowdfund money for a private prosecution.   

[Guru]

Why isn't he know as Lord Andrew Mountbatten Windsor as he is still the younger son of a duke?

[S. S.]

I think the palace announcement made it clear what he will be known as and without any appenage relating to a title or honor.

S.S.

[Guru]

But can the palace just unilaterally strip someone or a title that is attached a dukedom?

Can they strip the honorific Lord or Lady from any other relative of a peer?

[S. S.]

The Crown cannot deprive someone of their peerage. That can only be done currenty under an Act of Parliament in the case of the Dukedom of York for Andrew. As to the stripping of a courtesy title (Lord and Lady being that of the children of a duke or marquess as you pointed out above), I think you could by a Royal Warrant. Indeed, the Crown can grant someone the titular style and dignity of a courtesy title, i.e. that of a child of a peer, as has routinely been done for centuries. The same I think would apply for removing or assigning a new titular style and dignity. Perhaps someone else can weigh in. 

S.S.

[Nick MacGregor-Sadolin]

Is it me or is there a spelling mistake in Andrew’s “new” surname? 

In H.M. King Charles III’s statement it says: 

Mountbatten Windsor

- without a dash:

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c0qp75z3dw4o 

However, as far as I know the correct spelled would be:

Mountbatten-Windsor

- with a dash:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mountbatten-Windsor 

Anyone here knows what is the correct spelling?:

Andrew Albert Christian Edward Mountbatten Windsor

or

Andrew Albert Christian Edward Mountbatten-Windsor

Nick MacGregor Sadolin

https://gw.geneanet.org/sadolinsnet_w 

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Peerage News" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to peerage-news...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/peerage-news/03f5dfa8-59b4-4505-add1-22147271e26en%40googlegroups.com.

[https:/www.LeighRayment.com.au]

Out of interest to Sarah Ferguson, since she is a divorcee of the (Duke of York). Once divorced and received, can't she retain that ? It would be like, a payout of a divorce then changes 20 plus years later !!.

She clearly can continue to be known as Sarah, Duchess of York, not resume her maiden surname or Mountbatten Windsor.

[John Horton (staff)]

As things stand, presumably the same as they have always been. These attributes arise from their being the children of a son of a monarch.

---

From: peerag...@googlegroups.com <peerag...@googlegroups.com> on behalf of marquess <marqui...@gmail.com>
Sent: 30 October 2025 9:18 PM
To: Peerage News <peerag...@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: Prince Andrew Stripped of All Titles

 

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Peerage News" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to peerage-news...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/peerage-news/2dea37ca-50fb-48f7-8e63-91906efa0b51n%40googlegroups.com.

This message and any attachment are intended solely for the addressee and may contain confidential information. If you have received this message in error, please contact the sender and delete the email and attachment. Any views or opinions expressed by the author of this email do not necessarily reflect the views of the University of Nottingham. Email communications with the University of Nottingham may be monitored where permitted by law.

[John Horton (staff)]

The divorced wife of a peer who has died, of a peer who has died and whose peerage has become extinct even and, I suspect, of a peer who has disclaimed his peerage title can retain her divorced title* (such as it is). It seems that "Sarah, Duchess of York" is the correct form in this instance. 

* Though I can't think of an example - the timings would be tight. The wife would have to be married to the peer at the time he succeeds (to be known as the peeress in the first place) but then be divorced from him at the time of the disclaimer (so as not to lose her claim to be known by the title) ... perhaps.

---

From: peerag...@googlegroups.com <peerag...@googlegroups.com> on behalf of https:/www.LeighRayment.com.au <tancar...@gmail.com>
Sent: 31 October 2025 8:32 AM

To: Peerage News <peerag...@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: Prince Andrew Stripped of All Titles

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Peerage News" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to peerage-news...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/peerage-news/ddad13eb-7ed4-4ddd-b071-cc59fcb1400fn%40googlegroups.com.

[Nick MacGregor-Sadolin]

According to Companies House UK, she is registered under and uses her maiden name:

Sarah Margaret Ferguson

She is still an active Director in some active companies under this name:

https://find-and-update.company-information.service.gov.uk/officers/3uJr7cogx7j8wmpi_XY5GraZq5g/appointments

It also shows, that she previously has been registered under the name of Sarah, Duchess of York.

Nick MacGregor Sadolin

https://gw.geneanet.org/sadolinsnet_w

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/peerage-news/AS8PR06MB7669EE18391F62FB34152047CEF8A%40AS8PR06MB7669.eurprd06.prod.outlook.com.

[bx...@yahoo.com]

Nick, per the Royal Family website, the last name is "Mountbatten-Windsor" (dash included).

https://www.royal.uk/royal-family-name

Brooke

[Henry W]

As Sarah Ferguson's previous style as Duchess of York (both when married and divorced) was a courtesy style, and not due to her holding an honour or title in her own right, it is straightforward for her to adopt a new style (indeed many divorced or widowed peeresses who remarry seem to break the traditional rules and retain their former style).  Sarah is unlikely to oppose this as she won't want to make the situation any worse for Andrew or her daughters, even if a reading of the rules as currently written mean she could try to retain it - ultimately the Crown could act to create a carve out that formally denies her this style (especially if the Dukedom is formally removed).  Her biggest problem would appear to be having a place to live.

[bx...@yahoo.com]

From what I've read (and you have to take everything you read these days with a grain of salt), this won't affect the titles of Princesses Beatrice and Eugenie.

Considering some of the working royals, particularly the Dukes of Kent and Gloucester, are getting up in age, do you think this will change any potential plans to have the 2 princesses as working royals in the future?

Thanks.

Brooke

[Henry W]

https://www.college-of-arms.gov.uk/resources/roll-of-the-peerage

The Dukedom of York has been struck from The Roll of the Peerage.

I doubt Princesses Beatrice and Eugenie were likely to be called upon in any significant way - it is widely reported that William wants a "smaller" Royal Family (we've hashed and re-hashed the arguments that this leads to fewer Royal patronages and Royal involvement in societal events, etc, but for good or ill, this seems to be the direction of travel).

[bx...@yahoo.com]

Henry, I'm not sure many of us would have seen this step actually being taken.  I guess it's just a matter of time before he is removed from the Royal Family website as well.

A quick question-- does this affect his place in the line of succession, or does he retain that , now as "Andrew Mountbatten-WIndsor."

Thanks.

Brooke

[Henry W]

Andrew retains his position in the line of succession, though this is largely academic as now the King has so many grandchildren, it was unlikely he could succeed.  Removal from the line of succession is by Act of Parliament only (unless he can be convinced to become Catholic!).  Similarly he remains available to act as a Counsellor of State (in practice, he will never be called on to serve) as this is dependent on his position in the line of succession.

Malcolm's comment from yesterday evening where he explained the situation regarding the Royal Warrant creating the Roll of the Peerage is probably spot on.  I do wonder if Andrew will not actually forfeit the Dukedom (an Act of Parliament is required), but by being struck from the Roll of the Peerage, he cannot be formally addressed as a Duke, and this may be seen as enough in the court of public opinion.

[Sam Marroy]

I don't believe they can officially but as with the case of James Earl of Wessex and Lady Louise Windsor, who are by right entitled to the style Prince James and Princess Louise but were styled as the son/daughter of an earl (and now duke), the crown can express a preference for how they should be referred to. I suppose if Andrew wanted to make a fuss about it he could insist on being referred to as Lord Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor and it would be technically accurate, but what would be the point

[sven_me...@web.de]

So Parliament will decide now. If they are making an act of parliament is the government thinking about other problematic people with peerages as well? The most  drastic example
would be Lord Ahmed. 

[Henry W]

The government has indicated it has no plans to remove Andrew from the line of succession ( https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/cnveqgj957 ) - as I say its highly unlikely he would succeed.

It will be interesting to see if the striking from the Peerage Roll (and Royal Warrants removing the Princely / HRH styles, and formally removing the GCVO / KG) will be the limit of it.  Theoretically he could apply to return to the Roll in the future as he still meets the condition of the Letters Patent creating the title in 1986. In practice I accept that this won't happen

The Kershaw lists have always listed Peerages (and Baronetcies) not on the Roll.  The most recent version listed Atholl / Argyll / Manchester dukedoms with a clear indication they were not on the roll.  If no further action is taken on the Peerage, then I think it is legitimate to still list the title.  I will continue to list the title on my list of heirless titles (like Kershaw, I have always included titles not on the roll, e.g. Earl of Craven) as I view the 1986 creation as extant.

We're beyond the days of the Print Editions of Debrett's, Burke's, etc., and Debrett's Online had declined to list the Royal Peerages (they did add Gloucester / Kent after the death of QEII), so they don't have the tricky position of whether to list the title or not as extant.  

https://debretts.com/royal-family/prince-andrew/ - Debrett's website now lists him as Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor, with no mention of his Dukedom in the biography.  However, the page still has the word "prince" in the URL, and the title of the page is still set to "Duke of York" (this is the label given to the tab of the page).  

The Debrett's Online Brooksbank article refers to: Jack Christopher S., b 1986: m 2018, HRH Princess Eugenie Victoria Helena of York, yr da of The Prince Andrew Albert Christian Edward, Duke of York, KG, GCVO, CD, FRS, and has issue living,

They clearly had honoured the 2022 decision to remove HRH, and I guess in time will update the Brooksbank article.   Given their record, I wonder how long this will take!

[Sam Marroy]

I don't think there's any precedent being set here in terms of how they deal with other members of the peerage, this is strictly a family matter that is designed to keep the royal family in the good graces of the public. 

[malcolm davies]

We need to be careful in describing what has happened with Andrew.

He has not been deprived of his peerage nor has he been struck off the Roll of the Peerage.

Deprivation can only happen by act of Parliament-I will return to this in a moment.

As to the Roll,it does not provide in the Royal Warrant creating it,for striking off.

A peer can request their name be removed under clause 6(see my earlier post above).

This is presumably what happened.Not being on the Roll means the Crown does not recognise the peer in official documents or communications as a peer-it cannot effect deprivation.The position has been complicated to some extent by the Crown’s failure to follow its own rules,as happened with the Earl of Dalhousie.

Returning to deprivation,if Andrew is to be deprived then this opens up a whole can of worms.What are the grounds for deprivation?Are the to apply to other peers?

And a bill requires debate in each House of Parliament which presumably the Crown wishes to avoid.

[Sam Marroy]

What happened with the Earl of Dalhousie? 

[malcolm davies]

Sam,

         It’s simple.He is not on the Roll but when he retired from Royal service he was referred to by the Pace in his peerage style in breach of the terms of the Royal warrant.

[David Beamish]

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)

THE KING has been pleased by Letters Patent under the Great Seal of the Realm dated 3 November 2025 to declare that Andrew Mountbatten Windsor shall no longer be entitled to hold and enjoy the style, title or attribute of “Royal Highness” and the titular dignity of “Prince”. (https://www.thegazette.co.uk/notice/4992102)

The first notice is also in the Edinburgh and Belfast Gazettes.

[David Beamish]

Participants in this forum may be interested in this blog post by Robert Hazell on "Prince Andrew and the future of the monarchy": https://constitution-unit.com/2025/11/08/prince-andrew-and-the-future-of-the-monarchy/

[Richard R]

Very interesting read, thanks David.

[Robert Jewell]

If there is ever a mass extinction of the King's descendants (which God forbid), and He who must not be named is next in line, I betcha Parliament would up and legislate him into oblivion.

[Scott55]

Well, since Sophia of Hanover has over 4000 decendants, it'll be pretty hard to "extinct" them all.

[Robert Jewell]

You misread my post. I meant the descendants of King Charles III. And, I think, Parliament would combust and pass legislation to either skip over or abolish if the Throne even slid sideways to Harry, let alone Andrew.

[Henry W]

I think a situation that is within the realms of possibility, although a low chance, that would cause Parliament to step in is this:

- Prince George of Wales is due to turn 18 in July 2031.

- If King Charles III were to die before this point, then Prince William would accede to the Throne, with George as his heir but unable to actual "reign on his own" if he were to accede.

- George's prospective Regent would be Prince Harry, Duke of Sussex (but is his actually domiciled in the UK?) followed by Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor as the next adults in the line of succession.

- Either situation would be politically unpalatable, and so I would expect Parliament to legislate if the King dies in the next few years so that Catherine, Princess of Wales would be George's prospective Regent.  A similar thing happened when Elizabeth II acceded - her husband was made prospective Regent to their children, over Princess Margaret, by the Regency Act 1953.

- It might conceivably write in further backup that allowed Anne / Edward to serve as Regent in preference to Harry / Andrew.

[ThomasFoolery]

Let’s be honest though, if there’s a scenario where Prince George ascends the Throne in the next five years, all bets are off when it comes to the whole system of the monarchy….

[Henry W]

My scenario does not require George  to accede, just Charles to die in the next 5 years. He is 77 with a known health issue, so it could happen. The mere possibility of William also dying causes parliament to legislate just as it did in 1953, even though those provisions never became active as the Queen had a long reign.

[colinp]

According to this Telegraph article the surname of His Grace the Duke of York will be Mountbatten-Windsor with a hyphen

Buckingham Palace to change Andrew Mountbatten Windsor’s name again

Palace to change Andrew’s name again

Royal officials to reinstate hyphen in former prince’s surname despite his original preference

Buckingham Palace is to reinstate a hyphen in Andrew Mountbatten Windsor’s name, it is understood.

The former prince was officially renamed last month following allegations over his friendship with Jeffrey Epstein, the convicted paedophile.

It came after the King removed his younger brother’s titles in full and announced that he had surrendered the lease on his Windsor home, Royal Lodge, after initially forcing Andrew to relinquish his dukedom.

At the time, the Palace announced that he would henceforth be known simply as Andrew Mountbatten Windsor.

It is understood that this was the name agreed with Andrew and that his preferred version of the double-barrelled surname was for it to be unhyphenated.

However, subsequent reviews of official documents suggested that a hyphenated Mountbatten-Windsor was the version with “historic precedent” and the way Elizabeth II wished it to appear [….]

[Jonathan]

The same story is reported elsewhere, but without the detail that it was his preferred form of his name.

Surely now as a ordinary, non-Royal ciziten, he can simply change his name to whetever he pleases, including removing the hyphen?

[malcolm davies]

Jonathan,

                  The common law applies to changes of name and thus Andrew is entitled to change his name as he pleases.

Evidential requirements are set out in The Enrolment of Deeds (Change of Name) Regulations 1994 and the explantory note to those regulations says "At common law a surname is the name by which a person is generally known, and the effect of changing it by deed poll is only evidential and formal. However, enrolment provides unquestionable proof of the execution of the deed"

[David Beamish]

The London Gazette today (1 December) has two notices as follows "to be dated 30 October 2025":

THE KING has directed that the appointment of Andrew Albert Christian Edward MOUNTBATTEN-WINDSOR to be a Knight Companion of the Most Noble Order of the Garter, dated 23 April 2006, shall be cancelled and annulled and that his name shall be erased from the Register of the said Order.
THE KING has directed that the appointment of Andrew Albert Christian Edward MOUNTBATTEN-WINDSOR to be a Knight Grand Cross of the Royal Victorian Order, dated 19 February 2011, shall be cancelled and annulled and that his name shall be erased from the Register of the said Order.

[colinp]

Letters Patent removing style of HRH and titular dignity of Prince -  Letters Patent - Removing Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor's Entitlement to the Style of "Royal Highness" and Titular Dignity of "Prince" [2025-11-03] · Corpus of British Administrative Instruments

Royal Warrant requiring removal from the Peerage Roll -  Royal Warrant - Directing the Secretary of State to Remove Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor from the Roll of the Peerage [2025-10-30] · Corpus of British Administrative Instruments

[bx...@yahoo.com]

In Who's Who 2026, he is simply shown as: "Andrew Albert Christian Edward Mountbatten-Windsor", with all of his honorifics removed.

Brooke

[colinp]

Interesting article with some comments about the two Royal Warrants - see my post 2 Dec above

The Oddly Worded Instruments That Undid a Prince | A Venerable Puzzle

[Henry W]

Interesting to look at how different sources / listings have reflected deveopments a couple of months on.

Wikipedia - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duke_of_York

Continues to list Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor as 1st Duke of the 8th Creation with a note:

On 17 October 2025, Andrew announced he would no longer use the title "Duke of York" and its subsidiary titles.[27] On 30 October 2025, Buckingham Palace announced formal proceedings to remove the titles from Andrew had begun, along with the right to be titled "prince", and he would be known as Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor.[28] As of 30 October 2025, his name has been removed from the Roll of the Peerage.[29][30] However, while this strips him of the right to use the title, the title can actually be removed only by an act of Parliament.[31]

Footnote 31 points to House of Commons library research

Who's Who (as reported by Brooke above) simply lists him by name only.

Debrett's website (as reported by me above) simply lists him by name only.

Unterstein - http://www.unterstein.net/or/ThePeerage.html

Has removed the Dukedom of York from its listing with a note in the change log on 06/11 that the Duke has been removed from the Roll of the Peerage.  There are, however, several titles listed which are not on the Roll.

Kershaw - the Hereditary Peers Kershaw list posted by Colin continues to list the Dukedom of York, and specifically Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor as 1st Duke, but with a note he is not on the Rolof the Peerage.

My Heirless titles listing - I continue to list the Dukedom of York as lacking heirs as I consider the title is still extant.

[malcolm davies]

Henry W,

                We need to add the response to questions in Parliament-see my post under the thread Former Prince Andrew and the title Duke of York on 21 November 2025.

  Some additional comments:

  1. We do not know upon what basis he was removed from the Roll.Unless he himself applied,it is doubtful that his removal was legal if he did not make the application himself.

  2.The Roll only provides that the Crown will not recognise a person who is not on the Roll as a peer.Insofar as this relates to the person not having proved to the keeper of the Roll that he is entitled to the peerage title,this can be accepted.However,the question of whether a person is actually a peer is a question of fact which is beyond the power of the Crown to determine,now that the jurisdiction of the House of Lords is being abolished.

  So Andrew is entitled to use the name Duke of York if he wishes.If he does,he cannot be prosecuted for any fraud related offence, as his entitlement to the title is not in doubt.

[Henry W]

1. I think we do know the basis he was removed from the Roll - by Royal Warrant (see David's post on 5 Nov). There is no evidence that Andrew applied to remove himself.  I don't disagree that this method of removal is not in the 2004 Royal Warrant establishing the Roll of the Peerage, and that if Andrew were inclined he might have a basis to challenge his removal.  As a pragmatic matter, he isn't going to challenge it though.  If he did Parliament would legislate to remove the Dukedom formally. The current circumstances, although irregular, would allow him to submit a prayer to be returned to the Roll of the Peerage in the future if public opinion were to find this acceptable.  Unless there is a substantial revelation in the Epstein saga that provides strong evidence that Andrew has been falsely maligned, then I don't view this as likely.

2.  The House of Lords does currently maintain jurisdiction until passage of the Hereditary Peers bill.  I think it will then transfer to the Crown, as advised by the Privy Council in constested cases.  Again, I don't disagree that Andrew could use the Duke of York title if he wanted to.  I somewhat expect that amongst his close circle of friends, or indeed if we were ever to take up residence in a Middle East Palace, he will continue to use the title Duke of York and possibly even the HRH / Princely styles that have been formally removed.  But this will be maintained in private only;  attempting to do so in any public way will only invite a formal removal of the Dukedom and possibly other measures to close loopholes that allow him to informally use titles.  

[992234177]

If the point of the peerage roll is to prove your succession to a peerage or at least your right to it, what is the point of your removal.   You still have the peerage and you have already proven your right to it which was recognised.   The peerage hasn’t been transferred to another person, it’s still his.   I feel they’ve tried to do anything other than remove the peerages and this was the nearest fudge, which might cause problems in the future for other person by creating the precedent of retaining the title but pretending you can’t use it which you can.   The RF are still protecting him by not causing a fuss.   It’s working at the moment but only because the public doesn’t understand that nothing has actually changed re the peerages.

[S. S.]

The whole point of removing Andrew from the peerage roll was to make people think something was done, which has worked so far. Andrew is (now even more so) a pariah. I do not think anyone would want to associate with him with a 10 foot pole, regardless if he is innocent or guilty of whatever. I very much doubt he will face any legal complications for his "actions" (or lack thereof), so this is the next best thing to make him a pariah. 

You must understand that 99.9% of the public do not know the procedures behind peerages and frankly most would not care to learn it either. This is just a fact of the modern world we live in. The RF took the course of action they did to make it appear they did something at least. Beyond this group and a few interested people, no one else would bat an eye to the minutiae of the peerage, so not much point in the authorities taking another course. 

As to the roll itself, it has its own problems. Certain peers have been referenced in official documents, despite not being on the roll, though I would chalk that up to oversight and carelessness. Not much point of the roll either at this point once the final link between hereditary peerages and the House of Lords is severed.

It would be interesting to see if York is ever used again as a title upon his demise. Again, Andrew really won't kick up a fuss as Henry W pointed out, public opinion would turn against him in an instant. He can wallow with his title in private as much as he likes. 

S.S.

[bx...@yahoo.com]

S.S., I agree, it will be interesting to see if it ever gets used again. 

 It's the traditional title for second sons, but somehow, I don't envision William V creating the title (created for  his "disliked" uncle) for Prince Louis.  It may go the way of Clarence and Avondale.

Brooke

[sven_me...@web.de]

You are still using the 2 S.

[malcolm davies]

" As a pragmatic matter, he isn't going to challenge it though.  If he did Parliament would legislate to remove the Dukedom formally."

Sorry I don't agree Henry.The reason why is Lord Mandelson whose involvement with Epstein is no different.His peerage would have to be removed and he knows where the skeletons are.

" The whole point of removing Andrew from the peerage roll was to make people think something was done, which has worked so far. Andrew is (now even more so) a pariah".

I think it would have been much better if he had ceased residing in Britain and  I still do.We only hear about Prince Harry these days because of his court cases-otherwise we do not hear much about him.Whilst Andrew is in the UK that won't happen.

[malcolm davies]

"It would be interesting to see if York is ever used again as a title upon his demise."

I think it will be,but not for a generation,rather like Queen Victoria's adversion to using the title for her own sons.The likely title for Prince Louis is Cambridge which is likely to have merged with the Crown prior to the marriage of Prince George and Prince Louis. 

[bx...@yahoo.com]

Hi malcolm.

I don't think we will see York used again in any of our lifetimes, much like Clarence and Avondale hasn't been used since the 1892 death of  Prince Albert Victor.

Besides Cambridge, Edinburgh might be a potential good choice down the line, as the current Duke only holds it for life.

Brooke

[malcolm davies]

Brooke,

              The aversion to using Clarence is not because of the persons who held it,but rather its unluckiness-the dukes of the first second third and fifth dukes all died young.

[bx...@yahoo.com]

malcolm,

While it's true there have been several Dukes of Clarence, there has only been one Duke of Clarence and Avondale.

I referred to the dual title for a reason.  From what I remember, there were several rumors about him, and I guess the Royal Family has preferred to avoid stirring up any unpleasantness.

Brooke