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.
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/shareDiscord Server – direct updates, discussion and campaigns
https://discord.gg/SMCRE39XGmTelegram 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:
Post Office launches new restorative justice programme for sub-postmasters
Share this post:
The UK government, Post Office Ltd, and Fujitsu Services Limited have today (October 31, 2025) launched a “restorative justice programme” for sub-postmasters affected by the Horizon IT scandal.
The announcement is a response to recommendations from the Post Office Horizon IT Inquiry, which called for a structured approach to acknowledging and repairing the harm caused.
The initiative offers postmasters the chance to participate in “Listening and Learning Circles”, facilitated by the Restorative Justice Council, where they can share experiences and contribute to the design of the programme.
A first phase has already begun in Belfast, Glasgow, Cardiff, and London, with up to six confidential supportive sessions available for participants.
Officials described the scheme as a “first step” toward recognising the suffering of those wrongfully prosecuted or otherwise harmed by Horizon system errors and Post Office failings.
While the programme focuses on dialogue and emotional redress, financial compensation for affected postmasters continues through the established Horizon Convictions Redress Scheme and Horizon Shortfall Scheme, which offer fixed and assessed payments depending on eligibility.
The Department for Business and Trade said today that the restorative justice initiative represents the government’s commitment to acknowledge past wrongs and provide meaningful support to victims of the scandal.
It joins a series of previously-announced packages.
Note to readers
Vox Political is evolving!
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
Here are the details of everything that is now available to victims of the scandal:
Through the Horizon Convictions Redress Scheme (HCRS) for those whose convictions were quashed, eligible individuals can choose a fixed and final offer of £600,000 instead of a detailed assessment or a detailed assessment of their losses (which could exceed £600,000) via the assessment route.
Through the Horizon Shortfall Scheme (HSS): for those who were not part of the earlier group litigation or convictions route, but suffered losses, a fixed sum payment of £75,000 is available for many of those eligible.
Through the restorative justice initiative by the Restorative Justice Council, “Listening and Learning Circles” are to take place across the UK so that those harmed can share their experiences and help shape the programme. For some participants, the scheme will offer up to six confidential supportive listening sessions (via secure online/video or telephone) as part of a pilot.
The precise scope and schedule of the restorative justice programme has not been fully specified; although many sessions are being announced and a pilot is underway, it is not yet fully clear what the full offer will look like (whether this includes formal apologies, how compensation for emotional/psychological harm will be handled, and so on).
For many affected, “full and fair” redress is still being defined in practice. Some of the offers depend on eligibility criteria, choice (fixed offer v assessment), and the timing of applications.
It appears that while large amounts are available (like the £600,000 fixed offer), many claimants may opt for the detailed assessment route, which brings complexity and uncertainty.
And the restorative justice offer is more of a process right now – listening, pilot sessions – rather than a concrete, uniform benefit package for all.
Today’s announcement is a stopgap.
The restorative justice programme is primarily about acknowledgement, listening, and providing a structured space for victims to share their experiences.
It’s largely non-financial, with support sessions and dialogue rather than new direct payments.
The launch is symbolically significant and a practical start, but it’s not the final word on compensation, apology, or wider systemic reform.
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/shareDiscord Server – direct updates, discussion and campaigns
https://discord.gg/SMCRE39XGmTelegram 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:
Reeves rental licence scandal: agency takes blame but responsibility is still hers
Share this post:
Rachel Reeves has tried to draw a line under her rental licence scandal by blaming her letting agent – but even that agency admits it was her responsibility to make sure the law was followed.
Harvey & Wheeler, the Dulwich firm Reeves used to rent out her four-bedroom Southwark house, said a staff member had “offered to apply for a licence” but failed to do so before leaving the company.
The firm apologised for the “oversight” and said Reeves “would have been under the impression that a licence had been applied for.”
But that does not absolve her – and her story doesn’t ring true.
Note to readers
Vox Political is evolving!
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
The law is clear: the owner of a rented property is responsible for ensuring it is properly licensed. And Reeves – as Chancellor and a senior member of a party that claims to stand for integrity – should have known better than to assume somebody else would handle it.
That was Boris Johnson’s excuse for failing to ensure there was a plan to see school pupils safely through the Covid-19 crisis, when he gave evidence to an inquiry two weeks ago – and we didn’t accept it from him. The buck stopped with him; he should have ensured that plans were ready.
So in this case the buck stops with Reeves, and we should expect her to have ensured that she was covered.
Furthermore: In her first letter to Keir Starmer, Reeves said she had been unaware that a licence was needed to rent out her Southwark home.
But the paper trail says otherwise. Her husband, Nicholas Joicey – a senior civil servant, no less – was told by the letting agent that a licence was required and that the agency would “sort it”. The agency later admitted that this never happened, blaming the departure of a staff member.
Are we really supposed to believe that Reeves and her husband – both highly experienced in public life – never discussed something as basic as whether they were legally allowed to rent out their home?
When ordinary people let a property, they don’t just assume everything’s fine; they check. Are we being asked to believe that Reeves and her husband did not talk about the practicalities of this, and what needed to be done?
When I was with the former Mrs Mike, we talked about everything that was likely to affect us both; let’s be honest – we talked about everything.
So the idea that two people at the very top of government wouldn’t talk about it simply doesn’t ring true.
This was not just a clerical slip — it was a failure of diligence, of responsibility, and of credibility.
Reeves can’t hide behind her letting agent.
She was the owner.
The law, and the accountability, stop with her.
Sir Keir Starmer has called the situation “regrettable” but says there will be no further action. That makes his earlier promise that “lawbreakers cannot be lawmakers” sound emptier than ever.
As I stated in the previous article, Reeves’s behaviour has been no different from that of Angela Rayner, who had to resign as Housing Secretary, Deputy PM and Deputy Leader of the Labour Party.
There’s a double-standard here.
The Guardian‘s coverage states that Starmer would have wanted to avoid losing his Chancellor weeks ahead of only this Labour government’s second full Budget, but it makes him look inconsistent, weak, hypocritical, and willing to bend the rules to protect his allies.
And what about the allegedly “independent” Parliamentary ethics advisor, Sir Laurie Magnus. Despite their stories being essentially the same, he said Rayner should go but has declined to suggest the same about Reeves. How can he justify that? And can Starmer really justify keeping him on if his advice is going to be inconsistent in such a blatant way?
Finally, there’s the question of whether other MPs are going to need to check their own housing arrangements.
Two senior Labour government figures have fallen into difficulties because of such matters; some might say that Reeves, being the second of them, should have reviewed her own circumstances after Rayner ran into trouble.
Some might say other MPs should take the hint and do the same now – before their own irregularities are brought to light.
Will they?
It seems the corridors of power are dripping with sleaze.
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/shareDiscord Server – direct updates, discussion and campaigns
https://discord.gg/SMCRE39XGmTelegram 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:
Starmer’s ‘sticking-plaster’ politics: putting some energy debts on other people’s bills
Share this post:
Watch the video clip:
Around 200,000 people on benefits could have their energy bill debt cancelled under a proposed Ofgem scheme – and I can’t say I’m happy about it.
Here‘s the BBC:
Nearly 200,000 people on benefits could have their debts to their energy supplier cancelled, if they make some effort to pay what is owed.
Unpaid bills and fees have soared in recent years with energy prices so high, leaving a record £4.4bn owed to suppliers.
Up to £500m could be knocked off the total under plans that regulator Ofgem wants to take effect early next year.
But that will also require the cost to be covered through an extra £5 added to everyone’s gas and electricity bill.
By recovering or cancelling up to £500m, the first phase may only reduce the rate of increase in customer debt, rather than reverse it.
I’m on Universal Credit and I’ve managed to pay my bills – sometimes by switching the heating off when I really needed to have it (the classic choice between “heating or eating”).
I don’t want to vilify other people for keeping their heating on and racking up debt instead, only to have it written off; for me, the answer is to reduce energy bills.
Why can’t the government and energy companies manage that?
Note to readers
Vox Political is evolving!
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
Let’s go into the details:
Debt relief doesn’t reduce energy bills directly – the Ofgem scheme would forgive some historic debts for people on benefits, but it adds around £5 a year to everyone else’s bill to cover the cost.
That’s shifting the cost to the wider population rather than tackling the root cause: high energy prices.
The choice between heating or eating is still confronting many people – even with debt relief, bills remain high. So people who managed to pay despite hardship end up carrying more financial discipline while others’ past debts are wiped.
It doesn’t feel fair, because the structural issue—energy pricing—isn’t fixed.
Energy bills are so high because the system is complicated – part of it is wholesale energy costs, which surged after global price spikes; part is about profit margins and the regulatory framework for network companies.
While MPs want to use windfall profits to fund relief, Ofgem says renegotiating price caps could end up costing consumers more, which shows how hard it is to shift money around without unintended consequences.
Ofgem does want to bring in longer-term fixes – The BBC article mentions requiring tenants and homeowners to actively sign up to energy accounts and switching smart meters to pre-payment mode to prevent historic debt from accumulating.
These measures may prevent future debt from spiralling, but they don’t address high ongoing bills – and actively deny heat to homes in some cases.
Debt cancellation is a sticking-plaster to hide the wound; it relieves symptoms but not the disease. The intention here seems to be to:
-
Deal with past debt rather than future bills – forgiving historic arrears doesn’t reduce the astronomical £1,755 annual bills people face; and
-
Avoid tackling corporate profits or energy prices directly – MPs have called for using network companies’ windfall profits, but the regulator and government are reluctant.
Real relief comes from:
-
Energy efficiency improvements (insulation, better heating systems, smart meters)
-
Regulatory reforms that limit the cost burden on vulnerable households
-
Genuine reductions in wholesale or retail energy costs
but none of those measures are forthcoming.
This is a chance for Starmer to say he’s doing something.
But it doesn’t mean he’s doing the right thing.
The right thing is to cut fossil fuels out of UK energy consumption – starting with gas. We have no expected date for this to happen.
The right thing is to cut private profit out of energy provision by taking the greedy private energy companies back into public ownership. The government has no intention of doing that.
The right thing is to put the best interests of the people of the UK ahead of the profits of private shareholders. Keir Starmer is deaf to such pleas.
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/shareDiscord Server – direct updates, discussion and campaigns
https://discord.gg/SMCRE39XGmTelegram 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:
Free pass for Rachel Reeves over housing corruption
Share this post:
Rachel Reeves is getting a free pass after breaking housing rules because she is Keir Starmer’s buddy.
Angela Rayner had to go after she broke housing rules – because she isn’t?
And this isn’t Reeves’s first rule breach – she took gifts in breach of Parliamentary rules. Oh, but that’s okay because Starmer did it too. Right?
Here‘s the BBC:
Sir Keir Starmer has dismissed calls for an investigation into Chancellor Rachel Reeves after she apologised for breaking housing rules when renting out her family home.
The chancellor [said she] became aware of the problem on Wednesday when the Daily Mail, who first reported the story, approached her for a comment.
In a letter to the prime minister, Reeves admitted she did not obtain a “selective” rental licence required to rent out her London home and “sincerely” apologised for her “inadvertent error”.
In reply, the prime minister said he was happy the “matter can be drawn to a close” after consulting his independent ethics adviser, who has decided not to launch an investigation.
Reeves wrote: “This was an inadvertent mistake. As soon as it was brought to my attention, we took immediate action and have applied for the licence.”
But wasn’t Rayner’s mistake inadvertent as well?
Note to readers
Vox Political is evolving – in TWO days!
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
She bought a flat in Hove, East Sussex, valued at about £800,000 in May this year, paying the standard rate of stamp duty (roughly £30,000) as if it were her only residence.
But due to a prior arrangement—her home in Ashton-under-Lyne had been placed into a trust for her disabled son—she was treated under tax law as still owning another dwelling, meaning the Hove flat should have been treated as a “second home” and a higher stamp duty surcharge rate should have applied.
Rayner’s breach was also classed as “inadvertent” by the independent ethics adviser, Sir Laurie Magnus, whose investigation found that she acted in good faith, and did not intend to avoid tax or conceal anything,
But Sir Laurie concluded that she had breached the ministerial code by failing to seek specialist tax advice for her complex situation. He said she “acted with integrity” but did not meet the “highest possible standards of proper conduct”.
So she had to resign.
On the face of it, the two situations are strikingly similar – failure to follow housing rules, that was not intentional.
But while Rayner was found to have breached the ministerial code, it seems there has been no formal finding of the same against Reeves. Why not?
Here we have the Chancellor of the Exchequer admitting to breaking housing laws by renting out a property without the required selective licence — this is a breach that carries the risk of prosecution and an unlimited fine.
Yet, instead of facing investigation, Starmer waves it away with a “matter closed” letter after consulting his “independent” ethics adviser.
And this isn’t the first time Reeves has broken rules.
Earlier this year she was found to have failed to declare gifts, including luxury hospitality and tickets worth thousands of pounds — but again, that was quietly brushed aside.
Ah, but Starmer has also faced questions over similar undeclared gifts, and again, nothing happened – apart from a rule change to penalise anybody found taking such gifts in the future.
Contrast that with Rayner, who faced sustained pressure, public smearing, and ultimately resignation over her own property situation, which still hasn’t led to any formal finding of wrongdoing.
The difference seems obvious: Rayner wasn’t one of Starmer’s inner circle, while Reeves very much is.
It looks like one rule for Starmer’s favourites and another for everyone else. Reeves’ own words make the hypocrisy sharper still: she has previously praised selective licensing schemes that penalise landlords for exactly the kind of failure she committed.
She cannot say she did not know about such schemes.
It is also revealing that the breach was uncovered by the Daily Mail — not the government or regulators.
It was only after this happened that Reeves decided to “take immediate action”. That suggests her apology was damage control, not integrity.
This is a story of double standards, cronyism, and quiet impunity.
The same Labour leadership that hounded out Rayner for a supposed housing scandal has now closed ranks to protect one of its own for a proven one.
The cleaners at Downing Street must be struggling to cope with extra work of clearing up the mess and the stink of all the sleaze that Starmer and Reeves leave wherever they go.
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/shareDiscord Server – direct updates, discussion and campaigns
https://discord.gg/SMCRE39XGmTelegram 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:
- ☕ Support Vox Political on Ko-fi or donate via PayPal
- 📘 Buy our books — political analysis and satire you won’t find elsewhere
- 📨 Join the mailing list for real headlines, direct to your inbox
- 🔗 Follow us on Facebook and Twitter/X
