In a move that has sent ripples through both the British establishment and international observers, Prince Andrew has voluntarily relinquished all his royal titles following renewed scrutiny over his association with the late convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein. The announcement came on October 17, 2025, when Buckingham Palace confirmed that the Duke of York—once a prominent figure in royal circles—would no longer use his titles, including the Earl of Inverness, and would step down from the Order of the Garter, Britain’s oldest and most esteemed chivalric order.
This decision did not come out of the blue. For years, Prince Andrew’s ties to Epstein have shadowed the royal family, with public and political pressure mounting steadily. The latest push for accountability arrived from the Scottish National Party (SNP), whose Westminster leader, Stephen Flynn, lodged a parliamentary motion on October 21, 2025, urging the UK Labour government to strip Prince Andrew of his remaining titles through an act of parliament—the only legal route to do so. Flynn’s motion, while not binding, was intended to pile pressure on Prime Minister Keir Starmer’s administration to act decisively.
“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,” Flynn declared, as reported by BBC Scotland. “The only real question is, what Keir Starmer's government is waiting for? 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.”
This is not the first time the SNP has used parliamentary mechanisms to demand accountability for those with links to Epstein. In September, a similar motion was aimed at removing the peerage of Lord Mandelson after revelations about his friendship with Epstein surfaced. Flynn’s latest call, however, is laser-focused on Prince Andrew, whose voluntary relinquishment of titles leaves them in abeyance but not legally revoked. The motion underscores the party’s belief that symbolic gestures are not enough; legal and legislative action is required to fully sever the prince’s remaining formal ties.
Prince Andrew’s fall from grace has been swift and dramatic. He stopped using the title His Royal Highness (HRH) in 2022, after facing a US civil lawsuit brought by Virginia Giuffre, who accused him of sexual assault. According to People, Prince Andrew issued a statement at the time of his latest withdrawal: “In discussion with the King, and my immediate and wider family, we have concluded the continued accusations about me distract from the work of His Majesty and the Royal Family. I have decided, as I always have, to put my duty to my family and country first. I stand by my decision five years ago to stand back from public life.” He added, “I vigorously deny the accusations against me.”
The allegations against Prince Andrew stemmed from claims by Giuffre, who said she was forced to have sex with him on three occasions between 1999 and 2002—in Epstein’s island residence, as well as in New York and London. The lawsuit, which was later settled, became a flashpoint in the global conversation about accountability for powerful figures linked to Epstein. Tragically, Giuffre died by suicide earlier this year, and her posthumous memoir, Nobody’s Girl: A Memoir of Surviving Abuse and Fighting for Justice, was published just days before the parliamentary motion was lodged.
Giuffre’s story, and its impact, has reverberated far beyond the UK. Her ghostwriter, Amy Wallace, told CBS Sunday Morning that Giuffre was particularly invested in the release of Epstein-related files in the United States. “She was a huge Trump fan, because he campaigned on releasing the Epstein files,” Wallace revealed. “She was very excited that he had made that one of the main planks of his campaign, and she felt validated by it.”
Yet, while the UK has taken visible steps—however incomplete—toward distancing itself from Epstein’s associates, the situation in the U.S. remains mired in political gridlock. Despite public calls for transparency, the files related to Epstein’s affairs are still locked away, with a government shutdown complicating matters further. According to reporting, House Speaker Mike Johnson has been accused of delaying a vote that would force the release of these files, with Democratic Representative Adelita Grijalva’s swearing-in pending as the final signature required to push the petition forward. The White House, meanwhile, has signaled its intent to delegitimize efforts to force disclosure, and former President Donald Trump, once a proponent of releasing the files, has pivoted—now dismissing the matter as a “hoax” backed by Democrats.
Back in Westminster, the UK government has so far resisted calls to legislate against Prince Andrew without explicit support from the monarchy. Education Secretary Bridget Phillipson told the BBC’s Today programme, “We would be guided by the Royal Family in this and I imagine the royal family would want parliament to continue to dedicate our time to our wider legislative programme, but we will be guided by the monarch. It's why we do support the statement that was issued and the action that has been taken. But of course, Prince Andrew holds the title of prince because he is the son of a monarch, and that's the situation that we have.” Her cabinet colleague, Ed Miliband, echoed this sentiment, stating, “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.”
The debate over Prince Andrew’s titles is not just a matter of royal protocol—it’s a litmus test for how institutions respond to scandal, public outrage, and the demand for justice. While some see the prince’s voluntary relinquishment as a step in the right direction, others argue that only formal legislative action can provide the closure and accountability that victims and the public are seeking. The contrast with the United States, where efforts to expose the full extent of Epstein’s network remain stalled, is striking.
As the dust settles on Prince Andrew’s royal status, the broader question of how societies reckon with the legacy of Epstein and his enablers remains unresolved. For now, the UK has taken a visible—if partial—step. Whether it will go further, and whether the U.S. will follow suit in its own way, remains to be seen.
