Prince Andrew’s decision to relinquish his royal titles and honours has sent ripples through the United Kingdom and beyond, reigniting public scrutiny of his ties to convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein and prompting fresh political and legal debate over his continued privileges. The move, announced on October 17, 2025, came just days before the release of Virginia Giuffre’s posthumous memoir—a book that has further intensified the spotlight on the prince’s past and the broader questions of accountability within the British monarchy.
For many observers, especially those following the Epstein saga closely, the timing of Andrew’s announcement was no coincidence. According to BBC Newsnight, Amy Wallace, co-author of Giuffre’s memoir Nobody’s Girl, said, “I know that she would view it as a victory that he was forced by whatever means to voluntarily give them up.” Wallace added, “For many, maybe particularly in the United States, but maybe even in the UK, it’s a symbolic gesture but it’s an important one. It’s made history, modern history, in terms of the royal era.” She noted that Giuffre’s ultimate wish was for all the men implicated in her trafficking to be held to account, and that Andrew’s loss of titles marked “a step in the right direction.”
The story, however, is far from over. While Andrew’s announcement was met with a mix of approval and skepticism, it has also raised practical questions about his future, particularly regarding his continued residence at the Royal Lodge mansion in Windsor. Documents released by the Crown Estate and reported by the PA news agency reveal that Andrew has held a 75-year lease on the sprawling 30-bedroom property since 2003, for which he paid £1 million up front. The lease stipulates that he pays a mere “peppercorn rent”—just one token payment per year, if demanded—while he invested an additional £7.5 million in refurbishments completed in 2005. A clause in the agreement even states that if Andrew were to relinquish the lease, the Crown Estate would owe him around £558,000.
Yet, Andrew’s financial situation appears to have shifted in recent years. In November 2024, King Charles withdrew the prince’s annual £1 million “living allowance,” a move chronicled by royal writer Robert Hardman, who noted that the keeper of the privy purse was “instructed to sever his living allowance” after Andrew refused to relocate from Royal Lodge to the smaller, nearby Frogmore Cottage. As debate swirls over whether Andrew should remain at Royal Lodge, government officials have so far declined to wade into the controversy. Children and families minister Josh MacAlister told Times Radio, “You’ll understand why a Government minister isn’t going to get into second guessing what Buckingham Palace and the King may decide. I imagine over the course of this week there may be lots of questions about arrangements for Prince Andrew.”
While the palace and government navigate these sensitive issues, the calls for further action are growing louder—especially in the political arena. On October 20, 2025, the Scottish National Party (SNP) stepped up pressure on the UK Government to strip Andrew of his dukedom entirely, submitting an early day motion (EDM) in Parliament. Stephen Flynn, the SNP’s Westminster leader, was unequivocal: “If the Westminster parties remain stubbornly slow in removing Prince Andrew’s titles the SNP will do all we can to force them to act. Prince Andrew’s titles can only be removed by an Act of Parliament therefore this SNP motion is a way to pile pressure on the UK Labour Government to bring forward that legislation immediately.”
The SNP’s proposed Bill would not only target Andrew’s dukedom but would also seek to remove Lord Peter Mandelson’s peerage, citing Mandelson’s own ties to Epstein. Flynn argued, “The public knows this is the right thing to do, and even more importantly the victims at the heart of the Epstein scandal know that it’s the right thing to do. It needs to be done without any further excuses and any further delay. Those implicated in the Epstein scandal have been able to escape justice because they have hidden behind their power and privilege.”
Historical precedent for stripping royal titles does exist, though it is rare. The Titles Deprivation Act 1917 was used after World War I to remove titles from royals who supported Germany, but its provisions are limited to that conflict and its relevance today is questionable. Still, the law remains on the books, and the SNP’s move is seen as an attempt to adapt or update it for modern circumstances.
The UK Government, for its part, has signaled reluctance to act without royal prompting. On October 20, 2025, the Prime Minister’s official spokesman stated, “The question of legislation was ‘a matter for the palace in the first instance’ and the ministers ‘support the judgment of the King’ regarding Andrew’s titles.” Energy Secretary Ed Miliband echoed this sentiment, telling the press, “I think the royal family have said that they didn’t want to take up parliamentary time with this; there are lots of other things that Parliament is discussing, I think it’s right he’s given up his title.”
Meanwhile, the legal dimension of the scandal remains unresolved. In the wake of Giuffre’s memoir, her brother and sister-in-law, Sky and Amanda Roberts, have publicly called for the police watchdog to review the Metropolitan Police’s decision not to continue investigating Andrew’s alleged sexual abuse of Giuffre when she was 17. In a Channel 4 News interview, they urged authorities to reopen the probe, arguing that if the police would not take action, the Independent Office for Police Conduct should step in.
Andrew, for his part, has consistently denied all allegations, stating that Giuffre was forced to have sex with him three times after being trafficked by Epstein. Despite these denials, the fallout from the Epstein scandal and the publication of Giuffre’s memoir have irrevocably altered the prince’s public standing and, some argue, the very fabric of the monarchy’s relationship with accountability and privilege.
As the dust settles on Andrew’s relinquished titles, the debate over his future, both as a member of the royal family and as a public figure, is far from settled. The question of whether Parliament will move to strip his remaining titles, or whether the palace will take further steps, remains open. What is clear is that, for many, symbolic gestures are no longer enough. The demand for justice and transparency is louder than ever, and the institutions at the heart of British public life are being called upon to respond.
In the end, the story of Prince Andrew’s titles is not just about one man or one scandal—it’s about the evolving expectations of power, privilege, and accountability in a changing Britain.
