Share this post:
Andrew has been formally stripped of his “Prince” title and will vacate his Windsor residence, Royal Lodge, due to his links with the late sex offender Jeffrey Epstein.
Buckingham Palace confirmed on Thursday (October 30) that he will now be known as Mr Andrew Mountbatten Windsor.
This follows his voluntary relinquishment earlier this month of other royal titles, including the Duke of York.
While the move represents a significant personal and symbolic blow, it also raises broader constitutional and political questions about the limits of royal authority and accountability.
Note to readers
Vox Political is evolving – in ONE day!
I’m opening a new home for my reporting — The Whip Line on Substack — where independent journalism will be supported directly by readers.
From November 1, you’ll still get one free article here every day, but most of my work will appear on The Whip Line, available to subscribers whose paid contribution will make this reporting possible.
Join The Whip Line today and help keep independent journalism alive:
https://thewhipline.substack.com
A symbolic but limited demotion
The removal of Andrew’s title is largely ceremonial.
Despite being known as Mr Andrew Mountbatten Windsor, he remains eighth in line to the throne.
His place in the line of succession cannot be altered without the formal consent of the 14 Commonwealth realms where the UK monarch is also head of state.
Any changes would require agreement from parliaments spanning countries from Canada to New Zealand – and this could be problematic in (for example) Caribbean states where the continued status of the Royal Family is being questioned.
Similarly, while he may be styled “Mr” and lose associated honours, his positions in the House of Lords or any other constitutional posts cannot be revoked by the Palace alone. Changes to such roles require an Act of Parliament.
The Palace’s announcement therefore reflects the limits of royal prerogative: symbolic censure can be swift, but formal constitutional authority remains firmly constrained by law.
The Crown and government
The Palace confirmed that the government was consulted on the decision to remove Andrew’s title.
Culture Secretary Lisa Nandy described the step as sending a “very powerful message to victims of grooming and sex offences.”
The move illustrates the interplay between royal protocol and elected government oversight in a modern constitutional monarchy: while the King can initiate steps to strip titles, any actions with legal effect beyond courtesy titles—such as altering succession or removing peers—fall squarely within parliamentary control.
Financial and residential consequences
Andrew will also surrender the lease on Royal Lodge and move to private accommodation on the Sandringham Estate, funded by the King.
This follows renewed attention on how Andrew funded his lifestyle despite no longer being a working royal, including the £8 million upfront payments he made under a 75-year lease agreement with the Crown Estate. Where did he get the cash?
Constitutional takeaways
We’re seeing the delicate balance between public accountability, royal privilege, and constitutional law.
The King can remove styles and personal honours to distance the monarchy from scandal, but the structural realities of succession and parliamentary oversight prevent unilateral alterations to Andrew’s formal legal and constitutional status.
Titles may be stripped and public reputations tarnished, but constitutional protections for succession and legal office remain firmly intact.
It will be up to Parliament to do something about that. Will it?
Never miss a Vox Political post!
Social media algorithms often hide what you want to read. If you’d like to get every article directly, here are your options:
RSS Feed – instant updates, no filters:
https://voxpoliticalonline.com/get-every-vox-political-post-no-algorithms-no-blocks/
Mailing List – updates delivered to your inbox:
https://voxpoliticalonline.com/join-the-vox-political-mailing-list/
Video Mailing List – updates go straight to your inbox:
https://dashboard.mailerlite.com/forms/1503041/155584006128141972/share
Discord Server – direct updates, discussion and campaigns
https://discord.gg/SMCRE39XGm
Telegram Channel – every post, direct to your phone:
https://t.co/be9EMGHXFV
Support Vox Political!
With social media algorithms acting as gatekeepers – allowing users to read only what their owners want them to, sites like Vox Political need the support of our readers like never before.
You can help by making a donation:
https://Ko-fi.com/voxpolitical
Share this post:
Like this:
Like Loading...
Andrew stripped of titles: constitutional implications of his fall from royal grace
Share this post:
Andrew has been formally stripped of his “Prince” title and will vacate his Windsor residence, Royal Lodge, due to his links with the late sex offender Jeffrey Epstein.
Buckingham Palace confirmed on Thursday (October 30) that he will now be known as Mr Andrew Mountbatten Windsor.
This follows his voluntary relinquishment earlier this month of other royal titles, including the Duke of York.
While the move represents a significant personal and symbolic blow, it also raises broader constitutional and political questions about the limits of royal authority and accountability.
A symbolic but limited demotion
The removal of Andrew’s title is largely ceremonial.
Despite being known as Mr Andrew Mountbatten Windsor, he remains eighth in line to the throne.
His place in the line of succession cannot be altered without the formal consent of the 14 Commonwealth realms where the UK monarch is also head of state.
Any changes would require agreement from parliaments spanning countries from Canada to New Zealand – and this could be problematic in (for example) Caribbean states where the continued status of the Royal Family is being questioned.
Similarly, while he may be styled “Mr” and lose associated honours, his positions in the House of Lords or any other constitutional posts cannot be revoked by the Palace alone. Changes to such roles require an Act of Parliament.
The Palace’s announcement therefore reflects the limits of royal prerogative: symbolic censure can be swift, but formal constitutional authority remains firmly constrained by law.
The Crown and government
The Palace confirmed that the government was consulted on the decision to remove Andrew’s title.
Culture Secretary Lisa Nandy described the step as sending a “very powerful message to victims of grooming and sex offences.”
The move illustrates the interplay between royal protocol and elected government oversight in a modern constitutional monarchy: while the King can initiate steps to strip titles, any actions with legal effect beyond courtesy titles—such as altering succession or removing peers—fall squarely within parliamentary control.
Financial and residential consequences
Andrew will also surrender the lease on Royal Lodge and move to private accommodation on the Sandringham Estate, funded by the King.
This follows renewed attention on how Andrew funded his lifestyle despite no longer being a working royal, including the £8 million upfront payments he made under a 75-year lease agreement with the Crown Estate. Where did he get the cash?
Constitutional takeaways
We’re seeing the delicate balance between public accountability, royal privilege, and constitutional law.
The King can remove styles and personal honours to distance the monarchy from scandal, but the structural realities of succession and parliamentary oversight prevent unilateral alterations to Andrew’s formal legal and constitutional status.
Titles may be stripped and public reputations tarnished, but constitutional protections for succession and legal office remain firmly intact.
It will be up to Parliament to do something about that. Will it?
Support Vox Political!
With social media algorithms acting as gatekeepers – allowing users to read only what their owners want them to, sites like Vox Political need the support of our readers like never before.
You can help by making a donation:
https://Ko-fi.com/voxpolitical
Share this post:
Like this:
you might also like
Why should you and I pay for Buckingham Palace renovation? We don’t live there
Like this:
The arrogance of Theresa May – a public servant who thinks she can sideline the Queen
Like this:
Tories sneak out continued benefit freeze behind announcement of royal engagement
Like this:
Like this: