Copyright abc
King Charles III's move to strip Andrew Mountbatten Windsor of all his titles and boot him out of his sprawling Windsor Park palace was a defining moment. There are no precedents in modern memory for the sort of exile Andrew will experience at the hands of his own brother. He is no longer a prince, nor is he Duke of York, Earl of Inverness or Baron Killyleagh. Andrew has lost his honours and will soon lose his remaining military titles. He will be forced to vacate the Royal Lodge by the end of 2025. The former duke has now been punished with every tool Buckingham Palace has at its disposal. But even after these historic moves, there are still calls for more to be done. Some Australian MPs want him removed from the line of succession (because Andrew still remains eighth in line to the throne). Others want the police to get involved to further investigate the claims made by the late Virginia Giuffre, who alleged she was trafficked by convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein to Andrew when she was 17 years old. United States Democrats are also calling on Andrew to voluntarily appear before them to answer questions about his links to Epstein. And there is the ongoing matter of how the royal has maintained his luxury lifestyle despite being cut off financially. So what else could be done about the King's brother — and will it be enough? The damage done by Andrew's friendship with Epstein While the King owes a duty of care to the former prince, who strenuously denies the allegations against him, Andrew's banishment reflects the threat he posed to the monarchy. Not since Diana's death, when the queen's subjects unleashed a howl of agonised grief unlike anything she had ever seen, had the reputation of Buckingham Palace been at risk of being so at odds with public sentiment. Irritation over the King's brother, whether it be over his links to a paedophile, his tenancy in Royal Lodge, or the frequency with which his name has been uttered over the last month, is difficult to gauge. But the clearest measure we have for it, opinion polls, indicates Andrew's connections to Epstein have, at the very least, been damaging. An October 30 YouGov poll opinion found 91 per cent of Britons surveyed had a negative opinion of Andrew. The controversy around Andrew has also broken an unspoken pact between parliament and the royal family. For many years, the broad convention was that those who wanted to do well politically were publicly quiet about senior royals, outside of blandly supportive statements. Buckingham Palace extended the same courtesy, steering clear of offering political opinions that interfered with the government of the day. But, as scandal-ridden Andrew continued to dominate public attention, politicians defied the custom and started speaking out. "The truth is we are very supportive of the Royal Family and the King," one opposition source told the BBC. "But lots of people we spoke to knocking on doors were so unhappy, so we felt it needed to get sorted." There was much debate in recent weeks about who had the power to strip Andrew of his titles and force him out of his sprawling mansion. With the palace silent, SNP Westminster leader Stephen Flynn tabled a motion asking the government to take legislative steps to remove Andrew's dukedom. Such a move would have been symbolically significant, given discussion of royal matters by MPs is constrained by Commons procedures. Other MPs explored the possibility of the former duke being brought in for questioning over his Royal Lodge living arrangements, a call backed by British Prime Minister Keir Starmer. The unusual degree of political murmuring over the royal family gave rise to an awkward conundrum. If Buckingham Palace didn't act, and soon, the Andrew problem was at risk of snowballing into a space it had no control over. A royal workaround with a caveat The King, in consultation with legal and constitutional experts, used so-called royal warrants to de-prince Andrew. The legal documents, which were sent to the justice minister and lord chancellor, David Lammy, requested the removal of Andrew's titles from the Peerage Roll. This is an authoritative list of royal and aristocratic titles that can be used as evidence in cases of dispute. The manoeuvre bypassed the need for parliament to act against the King's brother, avoiding an extraordinary discussion on the floor of the house and the possibility of MPs tabling amendments to extend the legislation to others, including Prince Harry, Duke of Sussex. "The palace or indeed the government is unlikely to want to open up such a debate," wrote Craig Prescott, an author and constitutional law and monarchy expert at the Royal Holloway University, before the announcement last week. The government was consulted before Buckingham Palace's announcement and has backed the move. Formal notice was also given to Andrew to surrender the lease at the Royal Lodge, a 30-room palace in Windsor Park that has long been a favourite among the Royal Family's collection of homes. However, these royal workarounds come with a caveat: Andrew Mountbatten Windsor still remains eighth in line to the throne. The former duke currently sits just below Prince Harry and his two children, Prince Archie of Sussex and Princess Lilibet of Sussex. This is because his position is hereditary and remains even though he is no longer a prince. Under the Regency Acts 1937-1953, Andrew also remains a counsellor of state, which theoretically means he can deputise for the King, although he is unlikely to ever act in that position. It would take an act of parliament to formally remove Andrew from the line of succession and such a move would also need the agreement of all the Commonwealth realms, including Australia. The UK government has said it has no plans to do so. 'Tell us what you know' Even as the palace seeks to draw a line in the sand on the Prince Andrew problem, the King's brother remains under pressure on multiple fronts. West Australian teal MP Kate Chaney said Andrew should be removed from the line of succession. "Given Virginia Giuffre's personal connections to Australia, Anthony Albanese should be encouraging his mate Keir Starmer to start the natural next step — removing Andrew from the line of succession," she told the Sydney Morning Herald. "No Australian wants any possibility of Andrew being our head of state." Over in the United States, at least four Democratic members of the House Oversight Committee investigating the government's handling of the Epstein case have renewed calls for Andrew to testify. Democratic congressman Raja Krishnamoorthi told the BBC that he would be willing to formally summon Andrew with a subpoena, although such an action would be difficult to enforce while the former prince was not on US soil. "Come and testify and tell us what you know," Mr Krishnamoorthi said. The committee is controlled by Republicans, who have not yet indicated whether they would support such a move. In the meantime, it is understood that Andrew's new accommodation will be funded by the King, who will also reportedly help his brother financially. The "punishment" is "too minor", according to Republic, an anti-monarchy campaign group. It has instructed lawyers to consider a private prosecution against Andrew, arguing that removing his title of prince "isn't enough". "He should be questioned and investigated by the police. This is about justice, not titles," Republic spokesperson Graham Smith said. Nazir Afzal, the former chief prosecutor for North West England, has also called for the Metropolitan Police to reopen a probe into allegations Andrew sexually abused Ms Giuffre. The alleged victim, who died by suicide in April, claimed she had sex with Andrew on three separate occasions and wrote in her memoir that she believed the prince was "entitled, as if he believed having sex with me was his birthright". Scotland Yard has previously probed allegations relating to Andrew and Epstein's activities three times and opted not to investigate. But Mr Afzal told BBC Radio 4's Today programme "this matter hasn't been investigated, never mind taken any further". "Public confidence has been shaken by this. People do feel that there is some two-tier justice here — that if you are powerful, you don't get the same level of attention as you would do if you were, say, homeless," he said. The Metropolitan Police is investigating claims that Andrew asked an officer to dig up dirt for a smear campaign against Ms Giuffre. There is also the mystery of Andrew's income. Since leaving public life, the former prince has cultivated his own independent sources of funding, which have drawn scrutiny. A recent BBC investigation revealed Andrew arranged a private tour of Buckingham Palace while the late queen was in residence, for businessmen from a cryptocurrency mining firm which agreed to pay his ex-wife up to £1.4 million for the privilege. Will it be enough? In the statement released last week, the Royal Family said it considers there have been "serious lapses of judgement" in Andrew's behaviour. "These censures are deemed necessary, notwithstanding the fact that he continues to deny the allegations against him," it said. As well as stripping Andrew of his titles and home, the King's brother is not expected to attend any future public events. In many ways "the Firm" has finally moved to banish Andrew from royal life. But, for now at least, some do not see it as enough. A timeline of Prince Andrew's demise Tap the boxes below to see the key dates in the series of events that ended with Andrew being stripped of his royal titles and told to leave home.
