Britain’s famously stable constitutional monarchy has rarely faced such public strain as it does now, with the intersection of scandal, politics, and royal protocol swirling around Prince Andrew. Fresh revelations about Andrew’s relationship with the late convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein have reignited calls for the prince to be stripped of his royal titles—a move that would require a complex dance between Parliament and the crown, and has left both institutions pointing fingers at each other about who should act.
On October 22, 2025, as reported by The New York Times, new disclosures came to light: a published email between Prince Andrew and Epstein, and damning details from the memoir of Virginia Roberts Giuffre, the woman who accused Andrew of raping her when she was a teenager. Giuffre died by suicide in April 2025 in Australia, but her posthumous memoir, Nobody’s Girl, paints a harrowing picture of her experiences as a trafficking victim and further implicates Andrew in Epstein’s web. Notably, Andrew, now 65, has steadfastly denied all allegations, and in 2022, he settled a sexual abuse lawsuit with Giuffre without admitting wrongdoing.
The public outcry has been intense, with critics demanding that Andrew be stripped of his most familiar title: prince. But here’s where things get sticky. Stripping Andrew of his prince title isn’t as simple as a royal command. The title is governed by a 1917 Letters Patent issued by King George V, which restricts the title of prince or princess to the child of a monarch, the child of the sons of a monarch, and the eldest living son of the eldest son of the Prince of Wales. Amending this decree would be a grave and unusual step, likely only possible if both King Charles III and the government agreed in advance—a scenario that currently seems unlikely.
On October 17, 2025, under pressure from his brother King Charles, Andrew announced he would stop using the title Duke of York. Yet, he did not formally lose the dukedom or his prince title. According to The New York Times, this half-step has done little to quell the storm. The government argues that it’s up to the king to initiate any removal of titles, while Buckingham Palace insists it would be improper for the king to act on a matter that could come before Parliament for royal assent. It’s a classic British standoff, with both sides citing centuries-old conventions and the unwritten constitution as their shield.
Vernon Bogdanor, a leading expert on the constitutional monarchy at King’s College London, told The New York Times, “The argument that this is purely a matter for the royal family will not wash. Our monarchy since 1689 has been a parliamentary one. It exists only so long as Parliament, representing the people, want it to continue.”
Against this backdrop, Labour MP Rachael Maskell introduced a bill on October 22, 2025, that would give King Charles III the authority to rescind royal titles on his own initiative, following a recommendation from a parliamentary committee. Without government backing, though, the bill is unlikely to pass. According to Professor Bogdanor, there are multiple hurdles to government involvement—not least because Andrew has not been convicted of any crime. The last time a British prince lost his titles was in 1917, when Prince Ernest Augustus was stripped of his titles for swearing allegiance to Germany during World War I.
Meanwhile, the Metropolitan Police have launched their own investigation into claims that, back in 2011, Andrew attempted to dig up damaging information on Giuffre through a police contact. The BBC and other outlets reported on October 19-20, 2025, that Andrew allegedly passed Giuffre’s date of birth and social security number to his bodyguard as part of a smear campaign. Buckingham Palace responded by stating that the reports should be investigated, but Andrew himself has not commented publicly.
Public scrutiny of Andrew’s lifestyle has also intensified. On October 21-22, 2025, the BBC reported details of Andrew’s tenancy agreement at the Royal Lodge, a stately 30-room house on the Windsor estate. Instead of paying annual rent, Andrew paid approximately £8 million (around $10.7 million) upfront to renovate the residence. Critics argue this arrangement amounts to a state subsidy for Andrew’s lavish lifestyle, adding fuel to the fire of public outrage.
The government, for its part, seems content to let the royal family handle Andrew’s punishment. After his disastrous 2019 interview with the BBC about his ties to Epstein, Andrew was forced to withdraw from official duties. In 2022, after Giuffre’s lawsuit, he relinquished his honorary military titles and agreed to stop using the honorific His Royal Highness. Still, the accusations keep coming, and the drumbeat of bad publicity shows no sign of abating.
In an unexpected twist, the scandal surrounding Andrew has intersected with a separate protest action involving Windsor Castle and the name of another controversial figure: Donald Trump. On September 16, 2025, four men aged 36 to 60 were arrested after projecting a nine-minute film onto Windsor Castle. The film, organized by campaign group Led By Donkeys, highlighted Trump’s links to Epstein, including a letter from Trump to Epstein for his 50th birthday. Led By Donkeys called the stunt a peaceful protest, but police arrested the men on suspicion of malicious communications and public nuisance.
On October 22, 2025, Thames Valley Police announced that no further action would be taken against the arrested men. A spokesperson for Led By Donkeys told The National, “It’s good the police now accept it’s not illegal to project a film about Donald Trump’s close relationship with America’s most notorious child sex trafficker onto a wall. The fact they didn’t come to that obvious conclusion on the night makes it look suspiciously like political policing.” The group also expressed relief that police resources could now be redirected to the ongoing investigation into Prince Andrew.
Robert Ford, a politics professor at the University of Manchester, told The New York Times that the government faces political risks if it moves against a royal—even a disgraced one like Andrew. “The temptation will be there for some,” Ford said, “But any government would be worried about the precedent this would set in terms of politicizing the monarchy—particularly an instinctive institutional conservative like Starmer.”
With the monarchy and Parliament at an impasse, and the public increasingly restless for accountability, some experts have suggested a different path for Andrew. Professor Bogdanor, for instance, proposed that Andrew spend the rest of his life doing good works, following the example of disgraced political figures like John Profumo, who clawed back some respectability through charity after scandal.
For now, the story of Prince Andrew, his titles, and the shadow of Jeffrey Epstein remains a thorny one—caught between law, tradition, and the court of public opinion. As Britain’s constitutional monarchy faces this rare moment of stress, the outcome may well shape the future of royal accountability for years to come.
