Re: Digest for peerage-news@googlegroups.com - 25 updates in 5 topics

88 views
Skip to first unread message

Noel Cox

unread,
Oct 31, 2025, 3:51:08 PM (7 days ago) Oct 31
to peerag...@googlegroups.com
It seems the Andrew has been sacrificed to the demons of social media. Historically the only close analogy would be a Bill of Attainder. Since Magna Carta there has been a right to trial by one's peers - literally by the House of Lords until 1948 for peers. There has been no due process. Doubtless the soon to be former Duke could go to the European Court of Human Rights. It doesn't matter how insidious the actions of Epstein were, or whether we feel sorry for people like Guiffre. The point is making another victim to appease the masses is plainly wrong and sets a dangerous precedent. One wonders. What happens when someone needs comes up with evidence to prove the Duke of York is innocent of anything except keeping bad company and not brong entirely honest about that?

On Sat, 1 Nov 2025, 7:55 am , <peerag...@googlegroups.com> wrote:
marquess <marqui...@gmail.com>: Oct 30 12:07PM -0700

Is this possible under the 1917 letters patent? GB news headlines.
Henry W <henryworm...@gmail.com>: Oct 30 12:29PM -0700

From the BBC <https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/cnveqgj957dt>, 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,
<https://groups.google.com/g/peerage-news/c/ZCm4yzGzMy0/m/IjwFTHOmCAAJ> 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.
 
On Thursday, 30 October 2025 at 19:07:42 UTC marquess wrote:
 
marquess <marqui...@gmail.com>: Oct 30 12:50PM -0700

This sets a dangerous precedent, the Duke of York has not been convicted of
any crime, nor charged with a crime.
 
On Friday, October 31, 2025 at 2:29:26 AM UTC+7 Henry W wrote:
 
cb <cbat...@gmail.com>: Oct 30 04:03PM -0400

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.
 
Jonathan <jra...@gmail.com>: Oct 30 01:23PM -0700

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.
 
On Thursday, 30 October 2025 at 20:04:39 UTC cb wrote:
 
Patricia Light <plig...@gmail.com>: Oct 30 08:38PM

I believe it was stated on GB News that his title will be struck of the
Official Rolls, whatever that means
 
Timothy M <ttm4...@gmail.com>: Oct 30 02:16PM -0700

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.
 
 
 
On Thursday, October 30, 2025 at 3:50:52 PM UTC-4 marquess wrote:
 
marquess <marqui...@gmail.com>: Oct 30 02:18PM -0700

What now is the style and rank of his daughters?
On Friday, October 31, 2025 at 4:16:23 AM UTC+7 Timothy M wrote:
 
malcolm davies <mda...@blackstonewaterhouse.com.au>: Oct 30 03:12PM -0700

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.
 
 
On Friday, October 31, 2025 at 8:18:42 AM UTC+11 marquess wrote:
 
malcolm davies <mda...@blackstonewaterhouse.com.au>: Oct 30 03:17PM -0700

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.
 
On Friday, October 31, 2025 at 9:12:34 AM UTC+11 malcolm davies wrote:
 
LoopyCrown3 <muffin...@hotmail.co.uk>: Oct 30 03:41PM -0700

Sheikh Mohamed bin Zayed Al Nahyan, the ruler of Abu Dhabi has apparently
offered Andrew free use of one of his Royal palaces.
 
On Thursday, 30 October 2025 at 22:17:51 UTC malcolm davies wrote:
 
Henry W <henryworm...@gmail.com>: Oct 30 04:33PM -0700

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 <mda...@blackstonewaterhouse.com.au>: Oct 30 04:53PM -0700

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
 
On Friday, October 31, 2025 at 10:33:05 AM UTC+11 Henry W wrote:
 
LoopyCrown3 <muffin...@hotmail.co.uk>: Oct 30 06:42PM -0700

Apparently Republic the anti monarchy group are trying to crowdfund money
for a private prosecution.
 
On Thursday, 30 October 2025 at 23:53:04 UTC malcolm davies wrote:
 
Guru <simona...@gmail.com>: Oct 30 07:52PM -0700

Why isn't he know as Lord Andrew Mountbatten Windsor as he is still the
younger son of a duke?
 
On Friday, October 31, 2025 at 12:42:31 PM UTC+11 LoopyCrown3 wrote:
 
S. S. <muhammads...@gmail.com>: Oct 30 09:20PM -0700

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.
 
On Friday, October 31, 2025 at 7:52:16 AM UTC+5 Guru wrote:
 
Guru <simona...@gmail.com>: Oct 30 10:25PM -0700

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?
 
On Friday, October 31, 2025 at 3:20:01 PM UTC+11 S. S. wrote:
 
S. S. <muhammads...@gmail.com>: Oct 30 10:36PM -0700

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.
 
On Friday, October 31, 2025 at 10:25:24 AM UTC+5 Guru wrote:
 
Nick MacGregor-Sadolin <macgrego...@gmail.com>: Oct 31 10:40AM +0300

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
 
https:/www.LeighRayment.com.au <tancar...@gmail.com>: Oct 31 01:32AM -0700

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.
 
 
On Friday, October 31, 2025 at 4:36:09 PM UTC+11 S. S. wrote:
 
Richard R <r_ru...@hotmail.com>: Oct 31 12:46AM -0700

Thanks for confirming the source.
Richard R <r_ru...@hotmail.com>: Oct 31 12:34AM -0700

From the Telegraph of 31 Oct 2025: LAWSON JOHNSTON Silvia Maria (née Roigt)
aged 85, died peacefully on 16th October. Beloved mother of Rachel, Jamie
and Sophie, proud grandmother of eight. Private cremation. Celebration of
her life on 24th November, details from Lodge Brothers New Malden, Funeral
Directors…
She was d of Don Honoria ROIGT (Argentina’s Ambassador to The Netherlands).
She m 1959 (div 1971) *Hon* Arthur Charles St John *LAWSON JOHNSTON*
1933-2015 (succ. 1996 as *3rd Baron LUKE*), and had a son (present 4th
Baron) and two daus.
Richard R <r_ru...@hotmail.com>: Oct 31 12:04AM -0700

From the Telegraph of 31 Oct 2025: GODDARD: Jane Helen, died peacefully at
home on 24th October 2025, aged 96. Her children Emma, Mark and Sophia were
beside her. She was much loved grandma to Finn, Will, Sam and Grace, and
great-grandmother to Dillon. The Funeral will be at 2 p.m. on 18th November
at St Mary the Virgin Church, Great Milton… No flowers please.
 
She was daughter of Air Marshal Sir (Robert) Victor GODDARD KCB CBE RAF
1897-1987 and Mildred Catherine Jane 1897-1979 d of Alfred Markham INGLIS
1856-1919 (gs of *1st Baron CHELMSFORD* 1794-1878) and Ernestine May PIGOU
1863-1941. She married 1953 (div 1972) as his 1st wife Sir Robert (Robin)
1928-2016 (his 2nd wife was a scion of the Bull Bts) s of Capt James
Lenox-Conyngham CHICHESTER-CLARK 1884-1933 (a scion of the *LENOX-CONYNGHAM
Irish gentry family*, and f of the *LP Baron MOYOLA* 1923-2002) and Marion
Caroline Dehra 1904-76 d of Lt-Col Robert Peel Dawson Spencer *CHICHESTER*
1873-1921 (gs of *4th Marquess of DONEGALL* 1799-1889) and Dehra Ker
1882-1963 d of James Ker FISHER of The Manor House, Kilrea, co Londonderry,
and had a son and two daus.
 
1. Mark Jason b 1957: m 2004 reg Q2 Somerset Joanna S P b 1965 reg Q2
London d of Hans NEWMAN of Wimbledon, London and _ CARROLL, and had issue
 
1.1 Sam Barley Shane b 2005
 
1.1 Grace Alice Rose b 2006
 
1. Emma Penelope b 1955: m 1985 reg Q4 London (Andrew) Lucas b 1950 reg Q1
London s of Louis VAN PRAAG 1921-93 by his 1947 m reg Q4 London to Angela
Beatrice McCORQUODALE 1922-, and had issue
 
1.1 Finn VAN PRAAG
 
1.2 Will VAN PRAAG
2. Sophia Melissa Jane b 1961, unm
malcolm davies <mda...@blackstonewaterhouse.com.au>: Oct 30 02:51PM -0700

SS,
It's more than a courtesy title-it is a legal style.
If I were preparing a legal document to which the Marquess of Lorne was to
be a party,the correct description of him would be "Archibald Frederick
Campbell,Master of Argyll commonly called Marquess of Lorne"
The legal style in each case is in the name of the most senior scottish
peerage held by his father,not the courtesy title.
Examples
Master of Aberdeen commonly called Earl of Haddo
Master of Cassilis commonly called Earl of Cassilis
Master of Hopetoun commonly called Earl of Hopetoun
Master of Huntly commonly called Earl of Aboyne
etc etc
 
On Thursday, October 30, 2025 at 8:51:05 PM UTC+11 S. S. wrote:
 
S. S. <muhammads...@gmail.com>: Oct 30 09:19PM -0700

Indeed malcolm, I figured that out some time ago when perusing older
peerage works which mentioned this anomaly of legal right for Scottish
peerages.
 
S.S.
 
On Friday, October 31, 2025 at 2:51:01 AM UTC+5 malcolm davies wrote:
 
You received this digest because you're subscribed to updates for this group. You can change your settings on the group membership page.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it send an email to peerage-news...@googlegroups.com.
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages