Time for renewed scrutiny of the removal of titles and honorifics

As Mr Andrew Mountbatten Windsor is finally stripped his princely status, now is the time for renewed scrutiny on the removal of titles and honorifics.

Yesterday’s statement from Buckingham Palace came on the back of further details of the associations of Andrew Mountbatten Windsor (formerly Prince Andrew) and convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein.  In her posthumous memoir, Virgina Giuffre, abuse and trafficking victim of Epstein, wrote that she was forced to have sex with Andrew on three separate occasions. He denies the allegations made against him.

 A few short days before the memoir’s publication date, on 17 October 2025 Buckingham Palace released a statement on behalf of the then-Prince Andrew stating that he had decided to not to use his titles including the Duke of York, and that he would be giving up Membership of the Order of the Garter. This did not formally strip him of his titles and he remained a Prince; that was until yesterday’s announcement.

So why only now? We are 14 years on from Andrew standing down as the UK trade envoy shortly after scrutiny of his associations with Epstein; almost six years on from the infamous Newsnight interview; over three years since he had his military affiliations and Royal patronages removed shortly before he paid a settlement sum to Virginia Giuffre (without any admission of liability); and less than two weeks since he released a statement confirming that he would no longer use his titles.

In accordance with a 1917 Letters Patent, Andrew had the title of Prince bestowed upon him as the son of a monarch. The title could have been removed either by royal prerogative or an Act of Parliament, meaning it required the approval of our singular Head of State (here, being Andrew’s own brother) or precious time from our legislature.  Given there had been scrutiny of Andrew for many years now, and the slow chipping away of his use of titles to presumably attempt to draw a line under this, there was mounting disquiet before yesterday’s announcement by Buckingham Palace.

It is noteworthy that at the time of writing this blog, Andrew is also still listed in the line of succession.

From my own cases, I know how frustrating and opaque the honours forfeiture process can be. Some six years ago now, in light of the case of Hubert Chesshyre and the irregularities of honours forfeiture process there, I had called for a significant overhaul of the system. Today I repeat those calls; the system was too slow then, and it is still too slow today.

When survivors of abuse bravely speak out against those with honorific titles, they are doing so knowing that members of the public are likely to have previously viewed the accused with an air of prestige and authority. The nature of sexual abuse is such that it is vital that power is placed back into the survivor’s hand when they are on their recovery journey. Many of my clients understandably want assurances that their perpetrator no longer able to exploit a position of authority, or that measures are in place to prevent similar abuse. It is not difficult to understand why, therefore, that would involve removing any honorifics.

Though members of the Royal Family have personally undertaken work to shed light on issues relating to sexual abuse, the continued presence of “Prince Andrew” and the retention of his titles was disconcerting to many, to say the least. Despite her valiant fight, Virginia Giuffre did not survive to see yesterday’s announcement, and that is why we renew our calls for change. An opaque and protracted system for removal of honorific titles is simply not good enough, and it is high time for a complete overhaul.