As far as Halloween goes, the former ‘Prince’ Andrew got a pretty rough trick this week. His home was left un-TPed; he wasn’t plagued with herds of hopeful trick-or-treaters; and (I suspect) managed to avoid the Halloween party rounds without running into his ex and their new girlfriend in couples costume. I’m yet to figure out that last one myself.
That said, the disgraced former Duke was booted out of his palatial pad in the Royal Lodge. And is to be stripped of his Prince title.
Buckingham Palace announced its executioner’s call on October 30th. In short, the man is publicly disgraced and humiliated, disregarded with disdain by the Royal Family, much like a university student’s colourful assortment of wine bottles on November 1st.
Former ‘Prince’ Andrew disgraced and displaced.
Britain’s Prince Andrew, the younger brother of King Charles, will forfeit his Princely prefix. The 65-year-old will resume life under the more pedestrian, and painfully common, name ‘Andrew Mountbatten Windsor’.
He’s also been kicked out of his 31-room pad in Windsor, the aptly-named Royal Lodge, where he’s been giddily kicking his legs around the ‘sprawling mansion’ for over two decades. Now, it’s looking like he’ll be forced to slum it in a measly property on the £60 million Sandringham estate.
Some sources have suggested the five-bed Wood Farm cottage, where his father, Prince Philip, used to stay, is a hot property contender. Other reports have suggested he may move into York Cottage, a previous holiday home for the family.
You know, at least Lucifer had the gentlemanly politeness to go to Hell when he fell from Heaven. Andrew is falling to Norfolk.
However, all the options will be a massive downgrade from his palatial edifice in Royal Lodge. There’ll be less room to kick his legs up, that’s for sure. That is, when he isn’t busy not worrying about paying more than ‘a peppercorn rent’.
Why is this happening?
The eviction might make for easy headlines, but the truth behind it is anything but.
This decision has been made in response to growing evidence relating to the ex-Prince’s association with Jeffrey Epstein, an American financier and convicted child sex offender. Andrew’s confirmed affiliation with Jeffrey Epstein has long tormented the Royal Family.
Most notably, his BBC interview with Emily Maitlis – where, among other things, he admitted to staying with the convicted sex offender in his New York mansion – is enough to make the Royals’ PR team break out in a sweat. Not Andrew, though. As he was vehemently adamant to convey, he confessed to suffering from a “peculiar medical condition” that prevents him from sweating.
This is all to say, the public pressure to boot Andrew from his royal honours has been mounting for some time. In 2022, he was removed from his royal duties. And now it’s understood that Charles is in the process of sending royal warrants to the Lord Chancellor – currently Justice Secretary David Lammy – to secure “title removals for the Dukedom of York, Prince and ‘Royal Highness’ from Andrew”.
Does the punishment fit the crime? The British public says no
A YouGov poll made on October 31st asked: “Do you think the King made the right decision to strip Andrew of his prince title?”. 4000 people responded, and almost 79% supported the King’s decision.
The Daily Mail posed the same question to its readers and, from 37,000 votes, 83% agreed it was the right thing to do.
Across the pond, Americans were quick to celebrate the ex-Duke’s public eviction from royal esteem.
But this doesn’t mean the Royal Family is fully off the hook. Far from it, in fact. What these statistics fail to capture is the number of Brits who, whilst satisfied with the action taken against Andrew (at last!), think more could be done.
Keep in mind, there are currently no plans to remove Andrew from the line of succession. The former Duke of York’s right to succession can only be removed by an act of Parliament. But the government has already ruled out this possibility. This means he’s still technically eighth in line for the throne.
Forget Sandringham estate. A Columnist for the Metro suggested a Milton Keynes council flat opposite a ring road as an appropriate lodging for the penitent ex-Prince.
But that is assuredly a step too far. I’m sure British taxpayers would have no qualms with relocating him to a cosy residence much closer to home. After all, I hear the Tower of London is beautiful this time of year.
Virginia Roberts Giuffre’s ‘Nobody’s Girl’
But as tantalising as it is to fantasise about these extravagant accommodation plans, we shouldn’t get distracted. Some Brits think Andrew’s punishment (if you can call it that) is too little, too late. It’s the equivalent of a cheeky slap on the wrist. A drop of gold in the ocean of a billionaire’s wealth.
There is growing evidence to say that the man persistently lied about the extent and duration of his association with a convicted sex offender. Allegedly, they had a close involvement spanning 26 years. Additionally, there is more to say on his utter lack of public sympathy for the girls and young women who were caught up in the tragedy.
Virginia Roberts Giuffre, one of Jeffrey Epstein’s most notable accusers, died in April 2025. Her memoir, Nobody’s Girl: A Memoir of Surviving Abuse and Fighting for Justice, was published posthumously in October 2025, reigniting scrutiny of Epstein’s circle and those linked to it. Her family and advocates welcomed recent palace moves as a step toward accountability. But many argue it still falls short of true justice.
Over the last decade, many women have bravely come forward with similar accounts. Clearly, irreparable damage has been caused; that much is undeniable. And not just to the victims, but to their surviving families who are still struggling to put the pieces back together.
So whilst it sounds all well and good that Andrew is finally moving out of his vast Royal Lodge mansion and has given up use of his royal titles and honours, there comes a point where the British public has to take a strong look at the monarchy and ask themselves: ‘Is this good enough?’.
Has the monarchy truly held Prince Andrew accountable, or just managed the optics?
Interest in supporting the monarchy in the UK is undeniably not what it was half a century ago. This is especially true among the younger generation. (Except for when it comes to watching The Crown, it seems.) A recent poll indicated that 42% of 18 to 24-year-olds favour an elected head of state.
Another poll showed that over half of respondents (58%) believed that the Royal Family was too slow in dealing with the revelations about Andrew’s relationship with Epstein. A further 28% believed that the King could have done more.
Admittedly, there have been fair reasons for the Royals’ reluctance to act swiftly. Inhibiting parliamentary procedure is one thing. Paralysing legal restrictions regarding Royal Lodge’s ownership is another. But also on a more personal level. This would have been an incredibly tumultuous time for the family. I’m sure several rounds of Earl Grey were consumed throughout the whole ordeal.
But that doesn’t change the fact that the Royals’ hesitancy in dealing with the Siege of Royal Lodge, and the painfully slow Andrew ‘banishment’ more generally, hasn’t helped the royal rep. And what with Remembrance Sunday coming up, this probably isn’t the best time to be whipping out the royal parade.
For some, it can be hard to shake the feeling that this looks like a propagated PR stunt. Stripping his titles and evicting him from his luxury sofa allows them to save face in public. But what they should really be doing is looking internally to sincerely address the deeper moral rot that his actions represent.
