The loss of Prince Andrew’s HRH title is ‘likely merely a matter of time now’

Questioned for his connection with Jeffrey Epstein, Prince Andrew "puts an end to his public commitments" **FILE PHOTOS**

Last weekend, there was a flurry of gossip about… Prince Philip, the Duke of Edinburgh. We heard that the widely-known and detailed reports of his serial infidelity were completely untrue (lol) and that the Queen and the palace were basically forcing Philip to spend time with his wife, which he does not want to do, in no uncertain terms. We also heard some curious reporting around the plans for the Duke’s 100th birthday, and that the celebrations around that milestone b-day will probably whitewash Prince Andrew out of the narrative of the royal family. Andrew stepped down from “royal duties” last year shortly after his utterly disgraceful BBC interview. While he doesn’t have the “income” of a full-time royal anymore, he does have everything else: his HRH style, his ducal title, his military awards and honors, his giant home (the Royal Lodge), and the Queen is still paying for his upkeep out of the Duchy of Lancaster funds. At least one royal commentator believes that Andrew could be losing his HRH style at some point soon though:

Andrew tried to tackle the [Jeffrey Epstein] criticism head-on in an interview with BBC Newsnight last November, but it was immediately dubbed a “car-crash”. Consequently, he was forced to step down from his public duties “for the foreseeable future” and stripped of his £250,000 salary in public funds. While he has retreated from the spotlight and was not even spotted in his daughter Princess Beatrice’s wedding photographs, he is thought to still have access to the Queen’s private funds, the Duchy of Lancaster.

The official website for the Royal Family also still refers to him as “His Royal Highness The Duke of York”, showing he has maintained use of his HRH despite no longer being a working member of the Firm. This has raised eyebrows within royal spheres.

Prince Harry and Meghan Markle were no longer allowed to use their HRH status once they decided to step down as working royals earlier this year — although they technically still have access to the regal titles. Princess Diana was stripped of her HRH following her divorce from Prince Charles in 1996, too.

However, Nigel Cawthorne, author of ‘Prince Andrew, Epstein and the Palace’, predicted that Andrew may lose access to his HRH soon. The commentator said Prince Philip’s difficult decision to reduce Andrew’s role in his 100th birthday celebrations next year suggests further obstacles may lie ahead of the Duke of York.

Mr Cawthorne said Philip is “extremely fond and very proud of his son”, but “knows that Andrew’s name is poison currently”. He continued: “The survival of the monarchy requires that Buckingham Palace backs away from his son.”

The commentator then added: “It is a poignant moment and the loss of Prince Andrew’s HRH title is highly likely merely a matter of time now.”

Indeed, many royal fans noticed Andrew’s HRH title was omitted from birthday messages on social media, sent by the Royal Family’s official account.

[From The Daily Express]

The time for Andrew to lose his HRH was when he stepped down from royal work last year. I mean, that’s what should have happened – the Queen should have been clear that this was punitive action, and he was being fired for cause, and that he wouldn’t be able to keep his HRH or his military honors. That was literally what they took from Prince Harry when Harry… you know, married a biracial American woman. So will Andrew eventually be stripped of his HRH? Maybe. But I feel like the Queen is going to keep her head in the sand about it until it becomes a larger conversation. Like, people inside and outside of the palaces were really hellbent on punishing Harry and Meghan. Does that same energy exist for punishing Andrew?

Prince Andrew and Virginia Roberts **FILE PHOTOS**

Photos courtesy of WENN, Backgrid.

Related stories

You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.

56 Responses to “The loss of Prince Andrew’s HRH title is ‘likely merely a matter of time now’”

Comments are Closed

We close comments on older posts to fight comment spam.

  1. ABritGuest says:

    Nah I don’t see it happening as if anything they don’t want to draw attention to Andrew especially with Ghislaine’s trial coming up .

    Many in the public started pointing out contradiction with the Firm’s treatment of the Sussexes & the author is just tapping into that talking point whilst trying to promote his book.

    I think the Firm are just going to lay low with Andrew & hope nobody notices he still has various privileges.

    • Honora says:

      Exactly this. That would draw attention to the issue and how would they express the reason without admitting those unsavoury things?
      Stepping down (Harry) is a different story. Easy to explain and can be seen as something positive

  2. Smices says:

    Over Betty’s dead body.

  3. KellyRyan says:

    Keep him in a bunker in Switzerland. If he isn’t prosecuted, exile is the next best option.

  4. Becks1 says:

    I know I keep saying it, but that book is worth reading. (ignoring the horrible copy-editing, because seriously, at one point they call Dickie Arbiter “Dickie Arbiteron.”) And the book gets SUPER snarky about Andrew’s finances and how much the queen gives him and there’s lots of “how can he afford this on this 250k a year salary from the sovereign grant and his military pension? oh Fergie is in Saudi Arabia again….gee….”

    question about the Duchy of Lancaster – so is that not monitored by any public accounting? It’s just the queen’s private income?

    Anyway, the thing with HRH for H&M, for me, has always been that HRH is not tied to being a working royal. Beatrice and Eugenie are HRH, and while they may not use those titles in their job, they are certainly called that by the press and by the royal family’s social media accounts, but H&M are not.

    Like everything else, they could have established a good precedent with Sussexit – “from here on out, the practice will be that while non-working royals may have HRH under the letters patent, they will not be referred to as HRH in any capacity, including social media posts. This will include the Duke and Duchess of Sussex, the Duke of York, Princesses Beatrice and Eugenie.” They could have just wrapped it all up in one.

    • molly says:

      That would have been such a logical, simple step to publicly remove HRH from everyone at once if they couldn’t stand H&M keeping it. It surprises me exactly zero that they didn’t do it.

    • Tessa says:

      Fergie has kept her Duchess title since the divorce way back when and was never a call to remove it yet she hawked her products on home shopping and traded on her title.

      • Chrissy says:

        Ah yes, but remember her ex is Andrew, who probably called in a favour from Betty for her to keep her title if not her HRH.

  5. Eleonor says:

    Too late too small.

  6. Sofia says:

    I mean, they could just say Andrew won’t use his HRH like they told Harry and Meghan but legally removing it is a whole ‘nother ballpark (involving parliament as I was saying a few days ago) and HM won’t allow it to happen to her favourite son.

    Not to mention, I don’t think the peerage (that make up 1 branch of government) want to set a precedent of removing titles and styles no matter what (other than treason)

    • Ainsley7 says:

      Andrew did commit treason. He’s known to have given away government secrets. Parliament didn’t just force him out of the trade ambassador role back in 2011 because of Epstein. Andrew was the useful idiot of several dictators, arms dealers and other shady people.

      • Sofia says:

        Yet if they thought he committed enough treason, they would have removed his titles a while ago. The fact that they haven’t means a) they don’t care enough b) they didn’t consider it treason “enough” c) all of the above.

      • (TheOG) Jan90067 says:

        It could ALSO have been BIG pressure from Petty Betty and payoffs/bribes… she’s got a mighty big *personal/private* purse (unlike that patent leather Grandma bag she schleps everywhere lol)

      • MissMarierose says:

        The Duke of Windsor committed treason during World War II and they never took away his HRH, so I doubt it will happen with Andrew.

      • Tessa says:

        The Duke of Windsor was never tried for committing treason. He got to keep all his titles until he died. The only one who was “punished” was Wallis, who was not allowed to use the HRH lest she divorce Edward and keep the title even if she married again.

      • Chrissy says:

        The Duke of Windsor’s only punishment was being exiled to the Bahamas and being treated like an idiot outcast for the rest of his days. Wallis was ignored for the most part and only allowed to return to the UK for the Duke’s funeral. The Queen Mum never forgave her nor reconciled with her, if I remember correctly. She blamed her for George VI’s death to the end even though he smoked like a chimney all his life.

      • Tessa says:

        wallis did return earlier than that. There was a dedication to Queen Mary in the sixties that Wallis did attend with her husband. The picture appears in some of their biographies.

  7. Linda says:

    So Phillip is”proud” of his pedo, immature, conceited, waste-of-skin son. How nice.

    • Alarmjaguar says:

      Yep, caught that, too, and the whole thing is “poignant” rather than something that should have happened ages ago. Not to mention the soft-peddling of the accusations against him vs the vitriol aimed at H&M for daring to move to CA and do charity work. Crazysauce!

    • ArtHistorian says:

      Caught that too. Ugh!

  8. Noki says:

    Her stripping his HRH would be admitting that she failed him,and that is her CHILD. With Harry she has room for less blame because whatever he has ‘done wrong’ fingers can be firmly pointed towards Charles.

  9. Murphy says:

    Yeah I don’t see this happening. They would take the dukedom first, the HRH he was BORN with.
    Take the dukedom and give it to Beatrice in her own right.

    • TheOtherSam says:

      Actually the HRH would be taken first. Andrew may be born HRH but he’s not entitled to keep it if TQ doesn’t want him to have it, she can readily remove it by either official Letters Patent or simple public declaration. It’s a styling and form of address that she can grant or take away, pretty much at will.

      The dukedom is another thing. Standing precedent (going back to 1917) is that Parliament would probably have to weigh in on that. It gets sticky.

      It would be nice for Beatrice to inherit her fathers peerage, but as the York dukedom didn’t allow for female inheritance at its creation, it will merge back with the Crown at Andrew’s death. William, once King, will likely ‘re-create’ the dukedom for his second son Louis, after Andrew has passed.

  10. Talie says:

    This is the main reason why I think the palace seems to have shut down the conversation around removing Harry and Meg’s titles. Because who started trending on Twitter? Prince Andrew. And there’s no way The Queen wants to remove anything from him.

  11. JT says:

    Andrew is the queen’s favorite, why are they trying to act like Philip is the one he’s closest to? I’ve never seen so many articles speaking about Andrew and Phillip’s relationship until now.

    • Kalana says:

      Shielding the Queen. Philip is the one who made a surprise to Balmoral last year and drove Fergie out of there.

  12. bluemoonhorse says:

    This talking point sounds like it came from Charles. JMO

  13. aquarius64 says:

    Even if they take Andrew’s HRH the Sussexes are a non starter because Harry and Meghan have not consisted with a convicted pedophile.

  14. Mariane says:

    I highly doubt this will happen especially after Barbados move for a republic. It’ll ignite a public debate about the use of the monarchy and why Beatrice, Eugenie and others are keeping their titles whilst harry lost his+is able to work instead of relying on taxpayers

  15. Lori says:

    I do think this is a mess that will be left to Charles to clean up. I dont think they would have taken this pervy uncle off the front porch if Charles hadnt insisted after that interview mess. Right now they seem to be in an “over Betty’s dead body” situation. So hurry up and die you old bag.

  16. lemon8 says:

    I saw an article discussing how he was being whitewashed from PP’s birthday celebrations and all of the commenters were appalled how at how ‘unfair’ it was to poor Andrew! And 17 is legal in England! It was so gross. These same people are so hateful towards H&M for what? Daring to forge their own path? Be attractive and likable? It’s crazy.

  17. Candikat says:

    Serious question: What real-life advantage does the HRH give? I understand that it means a great deal to this small group of people who follow rules about who curtseys to whom. But other than that … ? For instance, how would the Duke of Windsor’s life have been different if he had lost his HRH, and how would Wallis Simpson’s life have been different if she’d been granted the HRH?

    • Becks1 says:

      I might be wrong, but I think it literally just means that someone has to call you “your royal highness.” There’s no extra money or anything attached to it, just prestige. But for this group of people, that prestige is everything. (and its important bc it shows you’re close to the monarch in terms of family relationship, I would imagine.)

      I read an article once that there is a difference between the title having the HRH and the person. So its Catherine HRH The Duchess of Cambridge, or just HRH The Duchess of Cambridge, but its HRH Prince William the Duke of Cambridge. But I don’t know the nuances there and I could be misquoting what I read.

      • original penguin says:

        Catherine is never Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge no matter where the HRH. Using her name is only if she were widowed or divorced. She is always The Duchess of Cambridge or Princess William. So she would be HRH The Duchess of Cambridge or HRH Princess William

      • Becks1 says:

        Okay, that makes sense for her title. But she would be never be HRH Catherine, as opposed to William, who is HRH Prince William, right?

        So then during her marriage Diana was HRH The Princess of Wales, and then afterwards* she was Diana, Princess of Wales, right. My * is for the period before she lost her HRH, because she didn’t lose it until Fergie did, right?

    • Elizabeth says:

      Class status means a great deal and carries a lot of cachet in England. HRH is top of the line. They’re considered anointed by god and superior to everyone else. Does it make sense? No, no, it does not (esp. because the current family is basically German). But that’s the attitude of many of the more conservative people. Royalty is associated with things such people view positively, such as Victorian teacups and massacring colonial subjects and hoarding wealth.

      • Jolie says:

        Oh dear. I doubt if anyone seriously thinks they are anointed by God any more, and that was only ever the sovereign. The UK is not a very religious country any more.

        Once again folks are equating what the gutter press say and what people in general think.

  18. backhand says:

    The BRF would like to appear responsible and upright by removing the title. But, the FBI would see this as a signal of acknowledgement of wrongdoing and pressure the UK to deliver Andrew for questioning, at the very least. No, title stripping would have serious legal consequences for Andrew and is too close to the border of admission of guilt.

    • Thirtynine says:

      I think so too. What reason could they possibly give for taking his title? Up till now, Andrew and the palace deny he has done anything wrong. ‘Punishing’ him b y taking Hrh Is an admission of guilt. They would never do it unless he was actually convicted, I don’t think. I don’t think they will even like this brought up or discussed- it opens the way for too many questions.

  19. Liz version 700 says:

    Sure Jan

  20. Couch potato says:

    It takes an act of parlament to remove his HRH and his duchy. It’s never going to happen. They can, and should, take away his military honors granted to him by the queen.

    • TheOtherSam says:

      No it would not require Parliament to remove his HRH. The Queen needs only to state that she is removing it, as she is “fount of honour” as sovereign and controls that status/form of address (it is a considered a courtesy form of address, there is no legal right to keep “HRH”). She did it to Harry (essentially removed it really), she can easily do it to Andrew or any of the rest.

      Removal of a peerage is another issue. It’s likely that Parliament would need to weigh in on that potential removal.

      ITA re Andrew’s honorary military ranks. He can keep those he earned himself, but be stripped of the honorary ones as Harry was, if he’s no longer working royal.

  21. NotSoSimpleTaylor says:

    I think Andrew has been confined to Windsor Lodge by order of the Queen. I think within a month of the Queen’s death, Charles will have parliament strip Andrew and hand him over to American authorities. The only one protecting him right now is Elizabeth.

    I would not be surprised if Charles wants Andrew out of the way completely.

  22. Likeyoucare says:

    The BRF will only strip Andrew title and abolished him when he dare to fall in love and marry a WOC.

  23. Shazze says:

    Does that same energy exist for punishing Andrew?

    Royals can do no wrong, unless they marry someone of color. Pedophilia – “they were in their teens” they said. “Not really abuse.” Cheating on your spouse since before the marriage? Bah!
    Calling the Sussexes hypocrits was the move of narcissists who believe THEY can do no wrong.

  24. Gobo says:

    Not a hope. He’s her favourite son, she would never do that to him. I don’t even think Chuck will do it when he gets the throne.