Calls for greater scrutiny of Prince Andrew’s royal titles and his taxpayer-funded residence have reached a fever pitch in Westminster, but the government has made it clear: there will be no dedicated time in the House of Commons to debate the embattled royal’s conduct or privileges. The decision, announced on October 23, 2025, comes amid mounting public and parliamentary pressure following renewed allegations against Andrew, detailed in the posthumous memoir of Virginia Giuffre, and fresh revelations about his long-standing, rent-free lease on the sprawling Royal Lodge in Windsor Great Park.
According to BBC News, Downing Street’s stance is that Parliament should focus on “important issues,” echoing the royal family’s wishes to avoid public debate over Andrew’s affairs. The government, which controls the Commons timetable, has thus far refused to allocate time for a full debate, effectively stalling legislative efforts to strip Andrew of his dukedom or probe the details of his lease.
This move comes just days after ex-Labour MP Rachel Maskell introduced the Removal of Titles Bill in the Commons. The bill, tabled on October 22, 2025, sought to empower the King to remove royal titles following a recommendation from Parliament or at the request of the title holder. But as a private member’s bill lacking government backing, its prospects were always slim. The government’s refusal to grant debating time has now rendered it dead in the water, as The Guardian reports.
Pressure on Andrew has intensified in the wake of Giuffre’s memoir, Nobody’s Girl, which revived claims about his ties to convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein. Andrew, who reached a financial settlement with Giuffre in 2022, has always denied her allegations, including those of forced sexual encounters when she was just 17. The prince’s legal team has been adamant in their denials, and Buckingham Palace has declined to comment on the latest developments.
In response to the renewed scrutiny, Andrew announced last week that he would stop using the “Duke of York” title. However, as multiple outlets including BBC News and The Independent have pointed out, only formal legislation can remove the dukedom, which is now held in abeyance—not fully rescinded, but not actively used either. The symbolism is powerful, but the legal reality lingers.
The controversy over Andrew’s living arrangements has further fueled public outrage. For over two decades, the prince has occupied the 30-room Royal Lodge in Windsor Great Park, reportedly paying a “peppercorn rent”—a nominal sum that has raised eyebrows about the appropriateness of such an arrangement for a royal under scrutiny. The Public Accounts Committee, chaired by Conservative MP Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown, has announced plans to write to the Crown Estate and the Treasury to seek “further information on the lease arrangements for Royal Lodge.” However, as Sky News notes, the committee’s programme is “full up until the new year,” and a decision on whether to launch a formal inquiry will not be made until after the Crown Estate’s next annual accounts are published in 2026.
The lack of immediate action has not gone unnoticed by opposition parties. The Scottish National Party’s Westminster leader, Stephen Flynn, has laid a motion demanding legislative action to remove Andrew’s dukedom, urging the government to “listen to parliamentarians and to listen to the public and to listen to victims.” Liberal Democrat Leader Sir Ed Davey and Cabinet Office spokesperson Lisa Smart have also called for Andrew to be hauled before MPs to give evidence about his lease. “The government should be making time for MPs to debate issues surrounding Prince Andrew’s lease of Royal Lodge—transparency is vital when it comes to how taxpayers’ money is spent. The public understandably want answers,” Smart told BBC News.
Polling conducted by Ipsos earlier this month underscores the scale of public dissatisfaction. A staggering 88% of respondents agreed it was right for Andrew to give up his titles, and more than half supported an Act of Parliament to formally remove them. Over four-fifths of Britons now hold a negative view of the prince, reflecting the deep erosion of trust in the monarchy’s ability to police its own ranks.
Despite the government’s intransigence, the Commons rulebook—known as Erskine May—does provide mechanisms for parliamentary scrutiny. Commons Speaker Sir Lindsay Hoyle clarified that while MPs cannot criticize members of the royal family during regular question time, debates can be held on “substantive motions” drawn in proper terms. “There are ways for the House to properly consider this matter,” Hoyle stated, adding, “Any discussions about the conduct or reflections on members of the royal family can be properly discussed on the substantive motions.”
One option open to MPs is to use opposition or backbench debate time—a route not controlled by the government but capable of generating political pressure. However, such debates are not legally binding, and the government is under no obligation to act on their outcomes. As Commons Leader Sir Alan Campbell put it, “The palace have been clear that they recognise that there are other matters that this House needs to be getting on with, and we are guided in this by the palace. That doesn’t mean that the House can’t find ways of debating these matters, whether it be the matter of titles, or whether it be a matter of the finances, which I know are under question here.”
In the meantime, Prince Andrew’s position remains in limbo. He has ceased using his titles, but the formal trappings of his dukedom persist in abeyance. His continued residence at Royal Lodge, under terms that many see as excessively generous, is likely to remain a flashpoint for critics of royal privilege and advocates for greater transparency in the use of public funds.
For now, the government’s refusal to grant parliamentary time for debate has left many feeling that the issue is being swept under the rug. Yet, with public opinion so firmly against Andrew and the monarchy’s handling of the affair, it seems unlikely that calls for accountability will fade anytime soon. Whether through committee inquiries, opposition motions, or renewed legislative efforts, the question of Prince Andrew’s titles and taxpayer-funded privileges is sure to resurface in the months ahead—and Parliament may yet be forced to reckon with it.
