\u201cWe\u2019re certainly not grinning and we\u2019re not bearing it,\u201d says a Palace source. \u201cWe\u2019re taking the fundamental issues extremely seriously. It is very much not the case that the Palace is turning a blind eye or a deaf ear to it all. We are taking every fresh allegation extremely seriously and reviewing the potential options for further censure, while being aware that significant steps that can be taken have largely been enacted.\u201d<\/p>\n
They added: \u201cIt is a source of immense frustration and concern that there continue to be holes picked in the duke\u2019s story. And there is understandable anxiety that it will impact on the royal family\u2019s wider reputation and public work, not least, of course, the Queen\u2019s notable leadership in campaigning against all forms of sexual abuse.\u201d<\/p>\n
![\"Prince](\"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/uk\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/10\/\/f92d5d29-cd45-4928-aa20-9de1a24ec8bf.jpg\")
<\/p>\n
Prince Andrew, Virginia Giuffre and Ghislaine Maxwell in 2001<\/p>\n
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK\/AFP VIA GETTY IMAGES<\/p>\n
A source who knows Andrew said: \u201cIf he is a man of honour, you would hope that he would tell the truth. These latest developments beg the question: what else may he have \u2018forgotten\u2019 or wilfully misled the public, and his family, about?\u201d<\/p>\n
Andrew has, of course, always denied that he had sex with Giuffre, the woman to whom he paid a reported \u00a312 million to settle a civil case out of court with no admission of liability. Yet her testimony continues from beyond the grave as the Palace braces itself for the publication of her posthumous memoirs within the coming days.<\/p>\n
So what\u2019s to be done? Today Andrew retains his title of Duke of York and that of prince. Both are difficult to remove given that to do so would require intervention from parliament.<\/p>\n
Some commentators have described it as a real crisis for the monarchy, while for others it merely confirms their already rock-bottom opinion of the duke. A YouGov poll over the summer, before the latest revelations, showed that 67 per cent of the public would back the idea of removing Andrew\u2019s dukedom.<\/p>\n
While it has been done before, notably in the First World War to sanction titled aristocrats fighting for the German army, extinguishing a dukedom would require a legal mechanism. \u201cAnd even if you did strip Andrew of being a duke,\u201d notes a well-placed source, \u201che\u2019d still be known as a prince, which sounds better anyway.\u201d<\/p>\n
Andrew\u2019s right to be titled \u201cPrince\u201d is enshrined in letters patent issued by George V in 1917 and updated by Elizabeth II in 2012. The law stipulates that a child of the sovereign and the children of the sons of a reigning sovereign have the right to be called prince or princess. George V meant it as a way of limiting the use of the title but today it protects Andrew and Harry\u2019s children from having theirs removed.<\/p>\n
Yet Andrew does still hold one constitutional role: that of counsellor of state. These are members of the royal family who might be called upon to deputise for the King if he is overseas or unwell by carrying out his official duties.<\/p>\n
Two are required to act in consort in the monarch\u2019s absence. Typically these are the monarch\u2019s consort and the next four in line to the throne over the age of 21. That includes the Queen, the Prince of Wales, the Duke of Sussex, Andrew and Princess Beatrice.<\/p>\n
In 2022 an amendment was made to the Counsellors of State Act that added the King\u2019s sister and his younger brother, the Princess Royal and the Duke of Edinburgh. Rather than removing Andrew and Prince Harry, a rule was added to sideline them by stating that \u201conly working members of the royal family will be called on to act as counsellors of state\u201d.<\/p>\n
\u201cIn a sense the opportunity was missed in the 2022 amendment to remove the Duke of York,\u201d says Craig Prescott, a constitutional law specialist. \u201cWhat they did instead was to all intents and purposes make it a legal dead letter by saying that he and Harry would never be called upon to act.\u201d<\/p>\n
The other role that Andrew still has is as a Knight of the Garter, a position he has held since 2006. While he has agreed to stay away from what one source described as \u201cthe theatrics\u201d of the annual Garter Day parade through the streets of Windsor, he is still permitted to attend the private lunch at the castle.<\/p>\n
Some wonder if Charles should rescind the lunch invitation altogether, given that he has already been uninvited from family Christmases<\/a> and almost every other public gathering except funerals.<\/p>\n \u2022 Prince Andrew\u2019s finances: my four-year quest to uncover the truth<\/b><\/a><\/p>\n Taking the ancient chivalric honour away, a \u201cdegradation\u201d, as it is known, usually only occurs for treason and heresy, and hasn\u2019t been seen since the 18th century, although more recently Wilhelm II of Germany and Franz Joseph of Austria-Hungary simply had the honour removed. Others who have had honours withdrawn in disgrace include Robert Mugabe and Benito Mussolini.<\/p>\n A source said: \u201cFor Andrew the punishment seems to be the life he\u2019s living as he has had everything apart from Royal Lodge taken away from him.\u201d Even the money: Andrew\u2019s private allowance from the King was removed last year when Charles pulled the plug. And he hasn\u2019t received any public money since he ceased his official duties six years ago.<\/p>\n How he is funding his lifestyle at Royal Lodge, a year on, is said to be a mystery to Charles. Andrew has given verbal assurances to the Keeper of the Privy Purse that he can afford the upkeep but it\u2019s unclear quite how. Any suggestion, I\u2019m told, that Andrew still has a treasure trove left over from the last Queen and the Queen Mother is \u201cwide of the mark\u201d.<\/p>\n Funds may be coming from overseas as Andrew has maintained business contacts in China and the Gulf states, in one case launching a commercial arm of his Pitch@Palace venture. It emerged that Yang Tengbo<\/a>, a businessman who had been appointed founder of the programme\u2019s enterprise in China, was banned from the UK by the Home Office and accused by MI5 of being a Chinese spy. Tengbo denies the claim.<\/p>\n A source described Andrew\u2019s fall from grace as \u201cepic\u201d but suggests that he is far from the only headache for Charles. Sarah Ferguson, Andrew\u2019s former wife, was also disgraced when an email was revealed in which she described Epstein as a \u201csupreme friend\u201d despite denouncing him in public. Charities she had supported, some for more than two decades, dropped her within hours of the publication of the email.<\/p>\n