Parliament vs Prince Andrew: Can Westminster Really Strip a Royal of His Titles?
Prince Andrew’s standing in British public life has been in freefall for years. Once a fixture of the royal establishment, he has retreated into near-seclusion since allegations surfaced that he sexually abused Virginia Giuffre, a victim of Jeffrey Epstein’s trafficking network — claims he emphatically denies.
Now, as Giuffre’s posthumous memoir Nobody’s Girl: A Memoir of Surviving Abuse and Fighting for Justice revives public anger, Parliament finds itself under growing pressure to intervene in the one way Buckingham Palace has not: by formally stripping the Duke of York of his title.
So far, Andrew has relinquished his public roles, military appointments, and royal patronages. He no longer uses the “Duke of York” style — a quiet arrangement reached, reports suggest, after discussions with King Charles III. But legally, the dukedom remains intact. In the eyes of the law, he is still His Royal Highness The Duke of York. And changing that, it turns out, isn’t simple.
The constitutional snag: Parliament holds the key
Peerages — including dukedoms — are creatures of statute and prerogative. They can be granted by the Crown, but not revoked without Parliament. The monarch cannot, on their own, erase a title once it exists.
The only historical precedent for removing peerages lies in the Titles Deprivation Act 1917, a wartime measure allowing George V to strip German-affiliated royals and peers of their British titles for “bearing arms against His Majesty.” It was a bespoke law, passed by both Houses of Parliament and given Royal Assent. The message from history is clear: if you want to take a title away, you need an Act of Parliament.
Maskell’s crusade for a new law
That’s precisely what York Central MP Rachael Maskell wants to change. She has proposed the Removal of Titles Bill, a one-clause piece of legislation that would, in her words, “allow Parliament to right the wrongs of history.”
Maskell’s Bill would give the Monarch, acting on advice from a parliamentary committee, the power to remove hereditary titles and baronetcies. The idea is to create a standing legal mechanism — so that every future case doesn’t require a full Act of Parliament.
“It’s extraordinary that you can give a title but you can’t take one away,” she told the BBC. “This Bill would ensure that Parliament has the power to hold people of privilege to the same standards as everyone else.”
The Bill, though, is not yet law — and as a Private Member’s Bill, it faces the usual uphill battle for parliamentary time and government support. The Government has indicated little appetite to back it, wary of being drawn into what ministers privately call “a royal family matter.”
So what could Parliament actually do?
If the political will existed, there are a few routes MPs and peers could take:
- A bespoke Act of Parliament
The most direct option would be a short, single-clause Bill — “An Act to Deprive the Duke of York of His Titles” — passed by both Houses and given Royal Assent. It would mirror the Titles Deprivation Act in form if not in purpose. Rachael Maskell argues such a Bill would be “quick and minimal,” taking up little parliamentary time.
However, it would require government cooperation to allocate time, or a significant backbench effort to force the issue — a challenge in a crowded legislative calendar.
- The ‘Removal of Titles’ mechanism
If Maskell’s proposed law were enacted, the Monarch could remove Andrew’s dukedom under its provisions, on Parliament’s recommendation. It would be a permanent fix for an antiquated gap in British law — though one that currently remains hypothetical. - A government-led reform Bill
The Government could, in theory, introduce a hybrid Bill — one part general reform, one part specific action — both establishing the mechanism and removing Andrew’s title in a single stroke. Such a move, however, would risk dragging the Palace directly into political controversy. - Lesser measures, already in place
Short of legal removal, the Palace can and has withdrawn royal patronages, military titles, and public duties. But these are cosmetic changes; they do not touch the legal status of the dukedom itself.
Political and constitutional obstacles
Even if Parliament wished to act, there are formidable barriers. Government ministers have made clear they do not wish to “detract from wider parliamentary business.”
There’s also the delicate matter of the Palace’s consent. In practice, no Bill affecting the Royal Family would proceed without the Monarch’s approval. Though the King has encouraged Andrew to step back, he has not sought to erase his brother’s titles entirely.
And there are questions of precedent. No royal has had a peerage revoked in modern times. The last titles stripped were those of wartime traitors a century ago. Stripping a royal title today could raise constitutional questions about Parliament’s reach into royal prerogative — and where the boundaries of monarchy and democracy truly lie.
The politics of principle
Still, support for action is growing. The SNP’s Westminster leader, Stephen Flynn, has said there is “no justification” for government inaction, urging legislation to strip both Prince Andrew and Lord Mandelson of their titles due to their ties to Epstein. Plaid Cymru’s Liz Saville Roberts has echoed that sentiment, saying she would back any measure to “hold royals to the same standards and laws as everyone else.”
Public mood, too, remains unforgiving. The image of a prince shielded by privilege, even as others face accountability, cuts against a broader national sentiment for fairness. As one constitutional observer put it: “If Parliament can legislate for who can be king, surely it can legislate for who can be duke.”
A constitutional test case
Were Parliament to act, the process would be historic. It would require:
- A Bill introduced — via private member or government sponsorship.
- Passage through both Houses of Parliament.
- Royal Assent — and, crucially, Palace acquiescence.
It would mark the first modern instance of Parliament directly curbing a royal’s hereditary privilege — a seismic statement about accountability in a constitutional monarchy.
The bigger question: power, privilege, and public trust
This is about more than one man’s title. The debate touches the heart of Britain’s constitutional balancing act: how power, privilege, and accountability coexist under a modern monarchy.
If Parliament moves to strip a royal of his title, it sets a precedent that no royal honour is beyond democratic scrutiny. But if it does not, critics will say it proves that in 21st-century Britain, some remain untouchable by law — and answerable only to the court of public opinion.
For now, Prince Andrew’s dukedom remains on the books, even if unused. But as Parliament stirs, the question lingers: how long can a title stand when the institution that bestowed it begins to turn away?