Andrew Mountbatten Windsor
The annoyance formerly addressed as "Prince"* will henceforth be called Andrew Mountbatten Windsor, as King Charles has begun the process of stripping his brother of "the style, titles and honours" he has had since birth. The Guardian says the Prince of Wales is in agreement and that Andrew did not object. Andrew will also be evicted from Royal Lodge.
Is this very significant? Has the king avoided a lot of political nastiness by doing this? Do a fair number of members of the British public care?
*Couldn't resist.
Is this very significant? Has the king avoided a lot of political nastiness by doing this? Do a fair number of members of the British public care?
*Couldn't resist.
Comments
I'm a default, two-cheers monarchist in what I might call the Canadian liberal tradition(like, if Tom Paine decided American democracy could work alright with a figurehead king), but if I were in charge of things back in London, I would really make it so that the only person holding any title beyond "next-in-line" is the one actually sitting on the throne.
Also, encourage everyone in the line of succession to pay their own way via day jobs. If, as a result of too many people deciding they'd rather make a fortune in the City and snort coke in strip clubs at the weekend than live the life of a pampered rentier in exchange for a maximum surrender of privacy, free time, and homebodiness, a dearth of willing heirs emerges, become a republic.
In 2022 the song "Prince Andrew Is a Sweaty Nonce" by the comedy punk band The Kunts reached No. 20 on the Official UK Singles Chart. Nonce being slang for a sex offender.
There will be wide public support for this in the UK - to republicans his continued privilege exemplifies all the downsides of having a monarch. To monarchists he shames and damages the institution they care about - and nobody wants taxpayers to fund any part of his lifestyle.
It is somewhat more decisive than anyone expected the king to be I think - as it wasn’t the result of (as far as we know) an ultimatum from parliament - but with enough build up of public pressure if the king didn’t do this then parliament would have had to which would have been a much more drawn out and messy process.
His only virtue in public life really, has been serving as a helicopter pilot on active service during the Falklands war. For awhile the tabloids really liked him that reason and treated his sex life as a kind of lads will be lads joke - calling him Randy Andy - but that was the better part of 40 years ago now.
ETA As a process this is pretty unique, I don’t know the last time someone was formally stripped of royal status - even Edward of Wallis Simpson fame kept royal status and a number of titles despite his treachery. I suspect you have to go back hundreds of years and even then it would likely be due to allegations they weren’t of legitimate birth or in the true line of succession.
I think George 1st was 57th or 58th in line, but everyone in front was RC.
In a word: no. Parliament would prevent this happening ( one hopes) by passing a suitable Act even if it meant calling the most distant relative to the throne, and assuming it didn't just decide to abolish the monarchy altogether. This was done to Mr Mountbatten Windsor's great uncle who was briefly Edward VIII. And as mentioned above several German relatives were excluded from the succession during WWII. Also the Act of Succession 1701 excluded all Roman Catholics, after Parliament had kicked out James II (this law is now repealed). There have been other similar Acts.
When I mentioned that one of my friends had met Andrew when she was working as a docent at the McMichael Art Gallery (the main exhibitor of Group of Seven paintings) and he had introduced himself as "Andy" these lads looked at each other knowingly and said "Oh. You mean randy Andy?"
The name and the reputation definitely predated anything the British tabloids might have cooked up. Possibly followed him back across the pond after his high school days.
AFF
It seems mainly for treason - taking up arms against the British.
I think for anything less than that, it must be incredibly rare.
He will never become king. There is no way he would be kept in the line of succession if that seemed likely.
Also, it is a good thing. I mean, I am all for abolishing the monarchy altogether, so am no fan of it, but it seems that Charles has actually done something off his own back that is a positive and good thing. He has disowned his brother.
If nothing else, that is an admission that Andy W is tainted.
The link also has the stats for the rest of them (the King, William and Catherine remain popular, Princess Anne is more popular than the King).
https://yougov.co.uk/politics/articles/53286-royal-family-favourability-trackers-october-2025?utm_source=website_article&utm_medium=bluesky&utm_campaign=53286
Two things to note about the messaging:
Unlike the last statement, this one is about Andrew rather than from him. He didn't get a say in the matter.
These things are being done because the people who matter are the victims and survivors of abuse.
Just to clarify: the bit of the 1701 Act that was repealed was that prospective heirs to the throne can marry RCs without loosing succession rights, not that RCs can succeed to the throne ( still gotta be a Protestant)
I do want to just point out, that the latest biography of Andrew suggests he was a victim of childhood sexual abuse himself - and that is was those experiences that warped his attitude to sexual relationships.
I would imagine that removing him from the line of succession would go hand-in-hand with stripping him of all royal titles and privileges. Presumably, therefore, if the King and all seven people currently above Andrew in the line were killed in the same accident (a virtual impossibility) then we'd be welcoming Queen Beatrice to the throne.
Interesting that despite the apparently harsh decision, his older brother will, at his own expense, still be hiding him away in the woods in Norfolk.
Note that passing an act of parliament would involve debates in parliament. Parliamentary privilege would apply to those debates, which would normally mean that all sorts of shady details about the royal family could be referred to. It seems likely they would not want any such debates to be seen or heard, but would also not want to be seen to be interfering in any way in the parliamentary process.
Yes.
The whole thing's just a charade anyway. A cynical attempt at virtue-signalling and arse-saving.
My experience of supporting women who alleged they’ve been raped by people who did know they weren’t consenting is that the bar for successful prosecution is very high and I doubt that the CPS would have anything like the evidence needed for conviction. And I think this has less to do with his privilege protecting him from prosecution, and more to do with the threshold of evidence required in the UK courts.
You’d have to prove he knew *at that time* that she wasn’t giving free and informed consent. That he was much older than her and not in a relationship with him would not be enough - he could just claim women wanted to sleep with him because he was famous. Even if he believed that she was a sex worker - that is not in itself illegal in the UK.
If a neighbour, who you sometimes used to go drink with, was convicted of those kinds of crimes, would you make a point of telling him some of the things Andrew said to Epstein? I doubt it.
I don't have a brother but I have to say that I very much would not love and support my sister if she did the things that Andrew is accused of. I find it baffling that the coincidence of siblinghood is seen as a reason to support someone doing heinous things. Our parents having had sex more than once isn't a reason to tolerate things you wouldn't tolerate in anyone else.
Charles' comparatively modest provision for his brother seems not unreasonable, and I don't suppose he (Charles) will be a frequent visitor to Andrew's abode.
I can't speak for the general public, but it does look to me as though the royals are - at last, and at the cost of unimaginable pain to those involved in the Epstein affair - being removed from the risible heights of privilege (and worship) they've enjoyed up until recent years.
Marina Hyde in today's Guardian:
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2025/oct/31/firm-prince-andrew-windsor-king-prince-william
I recently became aware of a constitutional-nerd discussion which raised this (unlikely) possibility. Apparently as Canada's Governor General has only two limits on her signing power (appointment of supplementary senators, and of a governor-general), both of which require the sovereign's direct assent, all that need happen is that the House of Commons can assemble after breakfast, pass a bill arranging his departure from the throne, the Senate agreeing after their morning coffee, and the GG pronouncing assent before lunch. Presumably we would then have Queen Beatrice, but they might skip to Edward-- who knows?
It seems that as this measure would simply affect the occupant of the throne, rather than the monarchy itself, it need not go the constitutional amendment route. It does not, however, necessarily apply to other Commonwealth realms and would require that the Government ignore the Commonwealth-realms-act-together practice. Other Commonwealth realms might just jump on to the Canadian bandwagon rather than get into their own amendment procedures (Australia would likely just hold referenda about King Andrew for the next decade-- Andrew might end up being just King of Queensland).
y,
Hey, maybe I can claim that?
Naw, Harry is still hanging around.
It is, however, a reason to support someone despite them doing heinous things. A subtle, but key, distinction.
If, for example, my brother was recently released from a long prison sentence for some unspeakable crime and had nowhere to go, I would offer him a room at my house. That's support for him, but it's not support for him committing crimes. Big difference. And King Charles' brother hasn't even been convicted of a crime, as Doublethink pertinently reminded us.
I think that's it's more that siblings are part of a bigger picture. Withdrawing support from Andrew impacts his daughters, and possibly members of the Royal Family are fond of Beatrice and Eugenie, and don't want to hurt them, or have them estranged. Or they might feel that they abhor Andrew, but want to downplay because they don't want to tarnish their mother's memory, or might think that their mother would spin in her grave if they cut him off completely.
Not in the same league if heinousness at all, but there's an alcoholic in my wider family, and there's all sorts of accommodations made, because to do otherwise would impact on other members of the family.
I'm not familiar with the names of schools in Canada, but can you have been thinking of Lakefield?
Upper Canada College appears to be a different school. Andrew went to Lakefield on some kind of exchange, not sure about Upper Canada.
Incidentally there are some unpleasant allegations about Lakefield.
Later on the same person showed me a marble plaque which indicated that the school had been formally opened by H.R.H. the Duke of York. My guide was quite amazed when I told her that the Duke of York was indeed Prince Andrew.
@Doublethink, you discuss the difficulty of prosecuting Andrew in the UK - would British courts even be looking at things he might or might not have done overseas? Andrew settled a civil suit brought by Virginia Guiffre in the US, paying an undisclosed sum without admitting guilt. And Ghislaine Maxwell was convicted in a US court, as she broke US law.
As to the king's supporting his brother - Andrew has to live somewhere, and much as many would probably like to see him occupying a grotty flat somewhere, that's not realistic. Reports say he'll live at Sandringham but not be invited to join the family at Christmas when they gather there. Charles can support his brother financially without supporting what he's alleged to have done, as @Marvin the Martian points out.
Criminals and felons are still human beings. I don't know about the UK, but in the US we have done serious damage to our society by treating many of them as if they were not.
I don't think there's much danger of him not being "treated like a human being".
This.
The Lib Dem MPs were pushing for The Andrew Formerly Known As Prince (a lot of us had been saying that already @Ruth and several tabloids ran variations on it as headlines) business to be raised in Parliament.
The King appears to have pre-empted that by exercising royal prerogative and going for the nuclear option on his brother.
His aim, of course, is to protect the monarchy and prevent Parliament from interfering with it in future, as has already been noted upthread.
I think it's taken everyone by surprise but arguably should have been done long before now.
Whether it will have any long term effects on the trajectory of the monarchy remains to be seen. Prince William is reported to have been working with his father behind the scenes which wouldn't surprise me as he has a vested interest in keeping scandal at bay for when he inherits the throne.
True, but people have said in essence that they don't want him to be treated like a human being. That's what I was arguing against.
Maybe he transferred to Lakefield. When I was in grade nine, he was definitely going to UCC. It was a well known "secret" in the Toronto area. All the girls going to Branksome were atwitter over the potential of meeting him at the social events between the two schools.
AFF
How strange. According to the official records he went to Gordonstoun, an exclusive school in Scotland and had an exchange to Lakefield for six months in 1977.
I don't think anyone suggests he shouldn't be treated like a human being, at least nobody I've heard.
Inhuman: being made to live in a field like an animal
Human: forced to live in a small bungalow, pay his own bills and put up with the reality that nobody likes him
I don't know what to say. I'm not making it up and I'm not misremembering. Maybe I'm remembering from some Mandela effect alternate reality.
AFF
Did any of those UCC alumni explicitly claim to have personally met Andrew? Because I can easily imagine a situation where hearing rumours about a student at another boys' school in the same social milieu gets misremembered as hearing rumours about someone who actually went to your own school.
Even before this, he was a minor figure, now well down the order of succession. Whatever he might or might not have got up to, both Epstein and Mrs Guiffre are now incapable of answering any questions or giving evidence in any court. Besides, neither were people whom anyone in their right mind would regard either as persons of good repute or credible.
Nobody should be guilty with no benefit of the doubt, yet alone not treated as a human being, on the say-so of a book published post mortem by a ghost writer.
The BBC and much of the rest of the media have been going on and on about this at a time when there are plenty of far more important things that they should be reporting on, but it lets them off doing so. He's now been shunted off the scene. He did not have much influence before that. Being a lesser royal is a bit of a duff draw in life. Whatever your abilities (apparently in his case relatively few) you get next to no scope or opportunity to fulfil them and as you get older and other people get born who are higher up the tree, your scope gets less. His situation meant that he has not had much opportunity to do much in life. Let him be.
The question it poses to me, is why are people making such a fuss about him? What are they trying to distract the rest of us from? To get any sort of answer to that, ask who is making the noise? For once, it does not look like the politicians. It does look more like the media and there are certainly two big issues, neither anything to do with this story, where they are collectively seriously in default and might be wanting the public not to notice.
Anyone know if it's been renamed?
According to the Daily Record "more than 50 teenage girls waited up to 4 hours to get a glimpse of him when he flew into Canada."
The Daily Mirror reported teenage girls making a 200 mile round trip from Toronto in the hope of spotting him.
Why do people keep referring to Epstein as Epsteen? That's no more how his name should be pronounced than anyone talks about Eensteen's Theory of Relativity or the films of Serjee Eesensteen.
Not your main point at all, but I wonder about this:
I haven't read up on her life - why do you think this about Virginia Giuffre?
I remember as much as I have related here. They weren't alumni, they were classmates. It's not important. Call me crazy or confused or a liar. It was a funny recollection, is all. Sorry I brought it up.
AFF
No. I'm not saying YOU would be crazy or confused or a liar. I'm saying the guys you talked to might've been crazy or confused or liars, and most likely just confused.
And yes, it is, an interesting recollection, since even if their memories are inaccurate, it gives you a glimpse into the cultural milieu they were living in.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=PeGMzQ1bRyo