Prince Andrew has announced that he will no longer be using his royal titles, but could it be too little too late to change public opinion on King Charles’s disgraced brother?
For nearly six years, Prince Andrew has not been a working royal. Allegations of sexual assault, inappropriately close relationships with convicted sex offenders and alleged spies, along with financial impropriety, have plagued the late Queen Elizabeth’s favourite son – and therefore the entire Royal Family, for too long.
Andrew “categorically denies” sexually assaulting Virginia Giuffre three times when she was 17, amongst other allegations levied against him, infamously declaring himself to be “too honourable” to cut ties promptly with Epstein. He has also stated that his accuser’s story could not be true because at the time she alleges he assaulted her, he was both physically incapable of sweating and conveniently at dinner with his daughter, Princess Beatrice, at Pizza Express in Woking.
However, the public might be relieved to hear that due to renewed scrutiny on the scandals surrounding Andrew – and the imminent publication of his accuser’s posthumous memoir – the disgraced younger brother of King Charles will no longer be using his royal titles, though he still legally holds them. Andrew’s “honourable” nature must have struck again, because he is doing so voluntarily, as a royal source said they hoped he would, before Parliament strips him of them.
Andrew claimed to have cut ties with Jeffrey Epstein during a visit to New York in 2010, where the pair were photographed walking in a park together, and during the trip, Andrew said he stayed with the disgraced financier because it was “convenient”, though he admitted that with the power of “hindsight”, it was probably the “wrong” move.
In 2011, the now-infamous photograph of Virginia, Maxwell, and Andrew at the socialite’s London home was first published. Andrew claims it is a photograph of a photograph and cannot be relied upon, and Giuffre said Epstein took it, and she handed it over to US authorities in 2011 for examination.
An email recently emerged from shortly after the photo’s publication, in which Andrew said to Epstein – contradicting the royal’s timeline – that the pair were “in this together”, and beseeching the sex offender to “keep in close touch” and promising “we’ll play some more soon”.
READ MORE: Prince Andrew titles loss: What former Duke of York has been accused of
After his sit-down with Newsnight in 2019 stunned the public, breathtaking in both the claims he made and the seemingly total lack of contrition, Prince Andrew swiftly stepped down from royal duties. In 2022, when a civil case was brought against him by Virginia Giuffre in the US, and in the face of extreme public outcry, he was stripped of his royal patronages and styles, honorary military titles, and faced the legal action as a “private citizen”.
It was as a “private citizen” whose mother wore the crown, whose brother shortly would, and whose family wealth is based upon their royal position, that he settled the case out of court with Giuffre, reportedly for millions – but remember, Andrew claims he never met her.
Virginia died in April this year by suicide in her home in Western Australia, with her family saying that the “toll of abuse… became unbearable”. She was 41 years old and had three teenage children. Her family has welcomed the news that Andrew is relinquishing his royal title, calling it a “vindication”.
“This is not just a victory for her, but for every single survivor of the horrific crimes perpetrated by Epstein and his co-conspirators,” they said in a statement.
Andrew’s biographer, Andrew Lownie, however, took a dim view of the move, calling it “window dressing” and “symbolic”.
“A much firmer line should have been taken,” Lownie continued, speaking to BBC Breakfast, adding that the statement “was pretty offensive.”
Lownie is right, the move is symbolic – but the Crown in itself is the ultimate symbol. The parameters within which King Charles is able to effectively operate are those of the totem and metaphor. The gesture, therefore, is not entirely worthless, and whilst it will never improve the perception the public has of Andrew, the commitment of Charles, William, and the other royals to the crown over family loyalty might endear some to the House of Windsor at large.
Andrew, whether he uses the royal titles that come with being part of his particular family or not, cannot escape that his existence, as well as the lack of ramifications for serious allegations he faces, is also deeply symbolic.
According to Rape Crisis, 71,227 rapes were recorded in England and Wales by police in 2024, but charges were brought in only 2.4 per cent of cases. Victims of sexual assault are let down on a systemic scale, leading the charity to say: “ Rape and sexual abuse have been effectively decriminalised.”
Lownie was right, a “firmer line” should be what such serious allegations require, but as it stands, the leniency with which Andrew has been met exemplifies the status quo, and what victims are met with up and down the country perfectly.
So it is in the court of public opinion that such claims are now tried, because the courts we should actually be able to rely upon are letting so many down. Without faith that the justice system will take action against those committing sexual crimes, the court of public opinion is the only recourse we have left.
And in the public court, Andrew has been weighed on the scales and found wanting.
READ MORE: Prince Andrew still worth £3.7m even after losing all his royal titles
‘ The preceding article may include information circulated by third parties ’
‘ Some details of this article were extracted from the following source www.mirror.co.uk ’
