The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, use the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.
This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourcedmust be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.
This article is within the scope of the Aviation WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.AviationWikipedia:WikiProject AviationTemplate:WikiProject Aviationaviation
This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography
This article is within the scope of WikiProject British Royalty (a child project of the Royalty and Nobility Work Group), an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to British Royalty on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you should visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.British RoyaltyWikipedia:WikiProject British RoyaltyTemplate:WikiProject British RoyaltyBritish royalty
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of crime and criminal biography on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Crime and Criminal BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyCrime-related
This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history
This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor is part of the Scouting WikiProject, an effort to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Scouting and Guiding on the Wikipedia. This includes but is not limited to boy and girl organizations, WAGGGS and WOSM organizations as well as those not so affiliated, country and region-specific topics, and anything else related to Scouting. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.ScoutingWikipedia:WikiProject ScoutingTemplate:WikiProject ScoutingScouting
This article is within the scope of WikiProject London, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of London on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LondonWikipedia:WikiProject LondonTemplate:WikiProject LondonLondon-related
@ItsShandog: I agree that it should not be necessary to repeat sections in the article. Does anyone have any ideas for how to deal with User:Neutrality's duplication of this section? How about dismantling the "Titles and styles" sub-section entirely and moving all that into the article body? DrKay (talk) 16:31, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I was actually thinking of bringing that up myself. I agree that the "Titles and styles" section should be removed entirely it is unnecessary at this point, since he no longer holds a title and all of that information is already clearly explained in the new repercussions section — which is where most readers would naturally look for it. I think your approach makes the most sense and I fully support the change. ItsShandog (talk) 16:39, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We also have to take into account other articles. Since the majority of articles on members of the royal family have a section for titles and styles I think some users might actually expect to find relevant information at a similar section here. I think the issue of titles removal should be presented as a summary of two to three sentences in the repercussions section and the titles and styles section can be used to elaborate on it. Keivan.fTalk17:02, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, this article is kind of hard to grapple with, because it is all interrelated. I agree that the more intuitive approach is what Shandog suggests (sort of the opposite of Keivan's) - we could keep the "Titles and styles" section, but make it a bare-bones list (titles/dates), and include all the substantive narrative material about why/how the titles were removed in the repercussions section. That is where the reader would expect to find it. Neutralitytalk17:07, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Please remember that, in terms of the three peerage titles, nothing has been 'removed'. Andrew Mountbatten Windsor is still Duke of York Earl of Inverness and Baron Killyleagh, it's just they cannot formally or legally be used. Removal from the Roll of the Peerage does not mean removal of the titles from the peerage holder, they are still legally extant. Only an Act of Parliament along the lines of the Titles Deprivation Act 1917 enables formal removal of any peerage title, but even then the said Act only put the various peerage titles into 'suspension'. They were not extinguished, and they did not merge back into the Crown. The said Act also gives the opportunity (still current) for the heirs of the two surviving Dukedoms to be 'reactivated', but to date the current heirs have not done so. The only way that any hereditary peerage is fully removed and made extinct is with the death of the title holder with no legal heirs.
What has definitely been removed are the styles HRH and Prince of the United Kingdom by Letters Patent issued in the Privy Council by the Great Seal. The 'Titles and Styles' section does explain this, so should be retained.Ds1994 (talk) 20:52, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I guess we have two discussions on the same thing happening here. See my note above about the research briefing from Parliament. Or as the WSJ said today "A constitutional headache for Buckingham Palace means that he remains the Duke of York." Utahredrock (talk) 22:16, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've been bold and stipped down the coverage of the removal of Andrew's titles in the 'repercussions' section in favour of covering the bulk of the topic in the 'titles and styles' subsection, as the latter seems to be the most appropiate place to get into the details of what has happened.
The wording of the 'repercussions' section did seem inaccurate in some places, so I've largely stuck with the 'titles and styles' wording. Also, while I'm aware that Professor Graham Zellick has argued that letters patent could revoke a peerage, as no such letters patent have yet been issues I removed that claim for now as it's essentially speculation. Overall I think we're better sticking to statements of fact rather than trying to interpret what has been done. A.D.Hope (talk) 10:50, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
While your reorganization improves readability and avoids redundancy, the new version omits several verifiable legal details, particularly how the removals were enacted (letters patent, royal warrant, Roll of the Peerage) and the constitutional distinction between prerogative and parliamentary authority. A blended version retaining that context would be more accurate and stronger. Utahredrock (talk) 14:36, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In A.D. Hope’s rewrite, the two sections still overlap. Repercussions (2025) ends with the removal of Andrew’s titles, while Titles, styles… reintroduces many of the same events from a procedural angle. It would read more cleanly if Repercussions focused on the public and institutional fallout — the gradual loss of duties, patronages, and reputation — and Titles, styles… handled the legal and constitutional mechanics (letters patent, Roll of the Peerage, remaining peerages).
The 2025 portion also feels overly compressed. The previous version included well-sourced detail about how the King acted under the royal prerogative and about Andrew’s own public statement denying the allegations. Restoring those points would make the section more coherent and complete, and better convey how the King’s actions culminated in the formal deprivation of titles. Utahredrock (talk) 14:51, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
On the question of including Professor Zellick’s view: I would argue that it merits retention. His commentary is a verifiable, attributed legal opinion rather than speculation, and it helps illustrate that constitutional interpretation on this point is not entirely settled. We already state—accurately—that most legal experts hold that depriving a peerage requires an Act of Parliament, but acknowledging Zellick’s position adds balance and reflects the range of expert commentary. It’s also worth noting that similar claims of “impossibility” were made before the removal of Andrew’s princely title, which shows that precedent in this area can evolve. Utahredrock (talk) 14:59, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The problem with the view provided by Professor Zellick is that it is purely theoretical. There is no precedent for it, so in terms of legal basis it is speculation. The only precedent for formal removal of hereditary peerages is the aforementioned Titles Deprivation Act 1917, but even then they were only suspended, not extinguished. I don't think there is a problem in including it, so long as it is emphasised that such an action remains unlikely as it would be unprecedented, and therefore speculation. It doesn't matter how highly qualified the person is in suggesting it, that is how it remains. As it is, any further action with regard to the three peerages titles is now highly unlikely. Of more concern going forward is the position of the person in question as 8th in line to the Throne of the United Kingdom and the fourteen other Commonwealth Realms. To change that would be a fundamental question of the constitution and would definitely require an Act of Parliament of the United Kingdom to change it, together with agreement from the fourteen other Commonwealth Realms.Ds1994 (talk) 16:36, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Good points. Here are some thoughts:
Zellick is a recognized constitutional scholar, and his position was published and cited by serious outlets (including the House of Commons). Wikipedia routinely includes attributed expert analysis, especially when a question is unsettled in constitutional law. Both positions are theoretical now because the parliamentary route hasn’t been used since 1919 and there’s no modern example of either method. Saying “only Parliament can do it” is itself an interpretation of constitutional convention, not a certain legal fact. Including Zellick’s view shows readers that credible legal debate exists. That’s exactly the kind of nuance Wikipedia should capture.
Charles’s 2025 letters patent are significant because, while they dealt with non-peerage dignities, the removal of the title of prince and the style of Royal Highness by prerogative is without modern precedent. That action demonstrated the King’s willingness to use prerogative powers to withdraw hereditary titles rather than rely on Parliament. Given that context, it seems reasonable to include Professor Graham Zellick’s view that the same mechanism could be used to revoke Andrew’s peerages. Excluding that sourced perspective would understate how Charles’s unprecedented step has expanded the practical boundaries of the prerogative. Utahredrock (talk) 17:25, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Also, it seems unlikely Parliament would challenge the King if he used his prerogative to revoke Andrew’s peerages. Public and political sentiment is strongly against Andrew, and such a move would almost certainly have government backing. While constitutional scholars debate the limits of the prerogative, there’s no real-world indication of political resistance. This may be worth keeping in mind when deciding how much weight to give to the argument that only Parliament can act. And back to an earlier point, Zellick is credible and all of this is relevant to this particular moment--especially if the article is going to assert that only Parliament can remove the peerages. All we have right now that is Wiki-worthy is Zellick, as referenced in the House of Commons report. Well there may be other sources (there likely are), but that is the one we know for sure and that is relevant to this discussion. Utahredrock (talk) 17:34, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There's value in adding in information about the legal debate surrounding the use of the royal prerogative to remove Andrew's princeley title and style of royal highness, because we are dealing with events that have happened.
There is less value in getting into the debate about the methods that could be used to revoke his peerages, because this is speculation on something that has not happened and which seems unlikely to happen in the near future. It further complicates an already complicated and technical series of events.
It's also worth noting that, while the Commons research briefing we've cited does itself cite Zellick, what is it citing is a letter by Zellick to The Times. It is not a formal acadamic publication or similar, and this combined with its relatively minor mention in the research briefing means we should be careful about giving it undue prominence. A.D.Hope (talk) 12:00, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the reply. You're right, it's in the briefing from the House of Commons if anyone wants to go deeper. I do feel like it's speculative to say the peerages can only be removed by an act of Parliament since the whole case is novel, but you took that out too . . . so this works. Though on your separate point, is there a legal debate about "the use of the royal prerogative to remove Andrew's princely title and style of royal highness?" Utahredrock (talk) 13:06, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with your comment. Looking at the provisions of the Roll of the Peerage, as you say there is no provision for removal via a royal warrant. It seems that in this particular case, those in authority are making things up as they go along. In other words, convention is being twisted to suit the situation. I'm not sure if this is the right way forward, and I'm not surprised it's engendering debate.Ds1994 (talk) 22:32, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Are we dismantling that section? It seems silly to keep this repetitive info in two different sections of the article when all of it could go in the repercussions section, doesn't need the titles and styles section now when he doesn't have any. ItsShandog (talk) 21:40, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed that we shouldn't be repeating the same information twice. I have no strong opinion on which section the removal should be discussed in, but I do feel that we should keep the historical info about his past titles, honours and so on in the titles and styles section. Rosbif73 (talk) 07:36, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The only reason I was thinking the Titles styles and honours section should go is cause it's a the very bottom and I can't see a lot of people going down to it as much as the repercussions part. Maybe they do but I just don't think it makes much sense to keep that section. Obviously keep Coat of arms and stuff he does still have but if he doesn't have anything i think it's better removing it but i'm happy for consensus but all this repetition is very confusing especially when you read it on phone. ItsShandog (talk) 08:15, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That's just a presumption though. By the way, the honours and arms section should not be removed because they are not covered anywhere else in the article (and frankly they cannot be covered anywhere else). For anyone who might be wondering, the part that's the matter of dispute is the "Titles and styles" subsection, not the entirety of the section which it is a part of. Keivan.fTalk22:00, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It is not that the section should be removed, but much of the content in Repercussions repeats what is already covered in Titles—particularly the 30 October changes, the peerage details, and the removal of “Prince” and "Royal Highness." Since all of that is fully explained in Titles, the Repercussions section should be condensed into a brief summary that highlights the consequence and directs readers to Titles for the complete account which it already does. It is acceptable to restate the outcome in summary form, but the current wording copies the same detail almost exactly, which makes the section feel redundant. ItsShandog (talk) 03:12, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Would it not be possible to organize the article chronologically? It would be much easier to follow, not to mention that it would be in line with MoS. Surtsicna (talk) 13:26, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Which bits are you referring to i didn't notice what wasn't chronological. I just noticed about the titles and repercussions all seems to be repeating the same thing. ItsShandog (talk) 08:12, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I find that regular editors of "royal" articles are overly concerned with "consistency". It seems obvious to me that the titles section should not be standalone in this article and should be integrated into the chronology of his biography. The history of his titles is integral to his story on a way that is virtually unique and the article should reflect that. DeCausa (talk) 22:57, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree but so far nobody is saying much about it as we started talking about this over 2 weeks ago and no changes have been made regarding the titles section or consensus reached about what we should do that's why i brought it up again. ItsShandog (talk) 04:37, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with ItsShandog that there is too much repetition in the article, esp. about styles and titles. That point is is surely uncontested. There is no reason why an editor, ItsShandog or someone else, can't charge on ("be bold") and remove said repetition. A starting point might be that the article already has too many main headings, as it happens: for instance, "Issue" should be combined with "Ancestry" as "Issue and ancestry". Were I assessing this article for Good Article status, for example, that's something obvious enough. 'As a son of the reigning monarch, he was styled at birth as "His Royal Highness The Prince Andrew"': this surely is better in early life, at his birth. Also, 'On 23 July 1986, the day of his wedding, he was created Duke of York, Earl of Inverness, and Baron Killyleagh, and assumed the style "His Royal Highness The Duke of York".' - this is almost verbatim from what occurs above in the bit about getting married in 1986. The point I'm making is for someone to cut the Gordian Knot now Billsmith60 (talk) 12:52, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There seems to be some inconsistency with his title as Duke of York. Per this source, he is still Duke of York, but places like Template:Dukes of York list him as Duke of York until 2025. Is there a way to address this better, that he is legally Duke of York but the use of the title and any privileges associated with it are discontinued? Thank you. cookiemonster755(talk)10:00, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with the inconsistency with regard to the template. There is no termination date for any of the three peerages in question (Duke of York, Earl of Inverness and Baron Killyleagh), they are still legally extant but not in use. So the logical step would be '2025 extant, not in use'.Ds1994 (talk) 15:38, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Seems that way. Neither Andrew nor Prince George have a brother named William, for one thing. The citation given is paywalled so I'm not sure what was intended here. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 23:25, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The whole thing was incorrect as William is not a brother to Andrew and Andrew is in fact the first candidate that's legally eligible to act as regent if both Charles and William were to die before George's 18th birthday. The article states "If by some very sad event the King and the Prince of Wales were to predecease little Prince George before he is 18 in 2031, the Regency Act comes into force. It would make the Duke of Sussex the Regent, reigning in George's place. But the Duke of Sussex lives abroad, and that would disqualify him under the Act. So the lot would fall on Andrew." Keivan.fTalk00:09, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think the possibility of Andrew becoming regent is speculative and is far too remote to merit mention. For one thing Prince Harry is ahead of him in the line of succession and is still officially domiciled in the UK (if he wasn't he wouldn't be listed as a Counsellor of State) and even if he wasn't he could move back to the UK. Secondly, if the possiblity of Andrew becoming regent became less remote he'd likely either be persuaded to renounce his claim or an amendment would be passed disqualifying him. Wellington Bay (talk) 18:37, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think the possibility of him becoming regent is remote, it is merely unlikely. Such things do happen, e.g, with Princess Elizabeth of York in 1930. And it's not just idle crystal-ball speculation; if it's not wanted that he become regent, then legislation must be put in place beforehand. I suppose if the situation arose Harry would hotfoot it back to be domiciled in the UK. The grey area of Harry's domicile is discussed in a 2023 article; I think it's still a grey area that needs clarifying, but am not sure. "His brother William" and "second in line" was nonsense introduced by me when I should have been in bed, sorry. I realised next morning, but it had already been corrected, thanks. Best wishes, Pol098 (talk) 19:02, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"Such things do happen" if they're allowed to happen. There was no parliamentary opposition to the prospect of Elizabeth eventually becoming Queen if the then-Prince of Wales never had children. There is quite a lot of opposition in parliament to Andrew having any future public role. And let's not forget the 1953 Regency Act which named Prince Philip as the regent should Elizabeth die while Charles was a minor was passed without concurrent legislation being passed in what were then called the Dominions, regardless of the Statute of Westminster, so a new Regency Act would only require an Act of the UK Parliament. Even if concurrence by the Commonwealth realms was deemed desirable it would not be difficult to obtain. Wellington Bay (talk) 23:44, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Under the 1937 Regency Act, Princess Margaret would have become regent had Queen Elizabeth been incapacitated or died before Prince Charles turned 18. Margaret was not particularly well regarded and while this was not given as the reason, shortly after the controversy over her engagement to Peter Townsend, the 1953 Regency Act was passed naming Philip as the person who would be regent ahead of Margaret. I expect should William become King prior to George's 18th birthday, or should George otherwise become heir apparent prior to turning 18, we'd see a similar move with the Regency Act to prevent either Harry or Andrew from becoming regent should the need arise. Of course this is speculative but it goes to show you that Andrew becoming regent should the need arise is not at all a given or even likely. Wellington Bay (talk) 00:45, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
.jpg)
.svg)
