The removal of titles and honours

In a statement on Thursday 30 October 2025, Buckingham Palace announced that the King had that day “initiated a formal process to remove the Style, Titles and Honours of Prince Andrew”. This followed a previous statement on 17 October, in which Andrew said he would “no longer use” his title (the Duke of York) or other honours conferred upon him.

This short briefing looks at the legal status of certain titles and honours and the processes by which they can be removed.

Award and use of titles

Most titles and other honours are awarded under the royal prerogative, which means their legal basis is not an act of Parliament but powers recognised by the courts as being held by the Monarch. The King bestows a title or honour by authorising a prerogative instrument such as Letters Patent or a Royal Warrant, often on ministerial advice. Many titles and honours can also be removed under the prerogative; again, usually on ministerial advice.

Other titles are statutory, for example life peerages.

Statute trumps the prerogative, so Parliament could – via primary legislation – alter or annul a title or honour conferred under the prerogative.

Sometimes individuals with titles or other honours choose not to use them, but this does not affect their legal existence.

Prince or Princess

Under 1917 Letters Patent (PDF), the style of “Royal Highness” and the title (or dignity) “Prince” or “Princess” was restricted to the children of a Monarch, the children of the sons of a Monarch and the eldest living son of the eldest son of the Prince of Wales, who is the eldest son of a Monarch and the heir apparent. This meant some members of the then royal family lost their titles, including the three-year-old Prince Alastair of Connaught, a great-grandson of Queen Victoria. Further Letters Patent from 2012 (PDF) extended the 1917 provisions to all the children of the eldest son of the Prince of Wales.

The title of Prince or Princess can be removed by statute or under the prerogative, although the latter would likely require ministerial advice. Under the Titles Deprivation Act 1917, Prince Ernest Augustus, Duke of Cumberland and Teviotdale, a Prince of Hanover and of the United Kingdom, had his British title removed (PDF) because he had been a German enemy of the UK during the First World War. This was the first time such a title had been removed in this way.

In February 1919, Princess Patricia of Connaught (a granddaughter of Queen Victoria) was permitted by King George V’s Royal Licence and Authority (a form of Royal Warrant) to relinquish the style of Royal Highness and the title of Princess of the United Kingdom upon her marriage to a commoner.

On 5 November 2025, the London Gazette included a notice which stated that:

THE KING has been pleased by Letters Patent under the Great Seal of the Realm dated 3 November 2025 to declare that Andrew Mountbatten Windsor shall no longer be entitled to hold and enjoy the style, title or attribute of “Royal Highness” and the titular dignity of “Prince”.

The Lord Chancellor (David Lammy) was instructed via Royal Warrant to prepare the necessary Letters Patent. Press reporting suggested this was cleared in advance with the government. A statement from Number 10 Downing Street on Friday 31 October said: “We fully support the decision taken yesterday by the Palace.”

In other instances, there is no formal deprivation, but an individual can choose not to use a title or dignity which they nevertheless continue to possess. In 1923, Princess Maud (a granddaughter of King Edward VII) chose to be known as Lady Maud Carnegie upon her marriage to Lord Carnegie. More recently, despite becoming Princess of Wales upon her marriage to the then Prince of Wales in April 2005, Camilla (now Queen Camilla) chose to be known by her subsidiary title the Duchess of Cornwall.

His or Her Royal Highness

The style of His or Her Royal Highness (HRH) is conferred by Letters Patent under the royal prerogative and can be removed by the same instrument.

Under Letters Patent from May 1937, King George VI declared that his brother the Duke of Windsor (the former King Edward VIII) should continue to hold the style of “Royal Highness” but that his wife and children and grandchildren (if any) “should not be so entitled”.

More recently, under 1996 Letters Patent (PDF), Queen Elizabeth II declared that:

a former wife (other than a widow until she shall remarry) of a son of a Sovereign of these Realms, of a son of a son of a Sovereign and of the eldest living son of the eldest son of The Prince of Wales shall not be entitled to hold and enjoy the style, title or attribute of Royal Highness.

This applied to Diana, Princess of Wales, who divorced the then Prince of Wales (now King Charles III) that same month (August 1996), and to Sarah, Duchess of York, who had divorced the Duke of York (the then Prince Andrew) in May 1996.

The 30 October 2025 Palace statement added that “Prince Andrew will now be known as Andrew Mountbatten Windsor”. This has its basis in a 1960 declaration by Queen Elizabeth II which covered:

descendants who will enjoy neither the style, title or attribute of Royal Highness nor the titular dignity of Prince, and for whom therefore a surname will be necessary.

In the 1960 declaration, the surname Mountbatten-Windsor is hyphenated, but a hyphen was absent from the Palace statement and subsequent media reporting. Following a request for clarification from The Times newspaper, the Palace stated on 12 November that it would “use a hyphen going forward”. The full text of the Letters Patent removing Prince and HRH refer to “Andrew Mountbatten Windsor”.

In other cases, members of the royal family agree not to use the style of His or Her Royal Highness.

In January 2020, a statement from Buckingham Palace said the Duke and Duchess of Sussex (Prince Harry and his wife Meghan) would “not use their HRH titles as they are no longer working members of the Royal Family”. The BBC reported in April 2025 that HRH was still being used by the Sussexes in a private capacity.

In January 2022, it was announced that the now former Prince Andrew would not use “His Royal Highness” in any official capacity.

Line of succession

A member of the royal family can also be removed from the line of succession to the throne by legislation, although under a convention enshrined in the preamble to the Statute of Westminster 1931 this would require the consent of every other Commonwealth Realm (independent states where the King is also head of state).

The Duke of Windsor (the former King Edward VIII) and his descendants were removed by section 1 of His Majesty’s Declaration of Abdication Act 1936. Section 2 of the Succession to the Crown Act 2013, meanwhile, restored to the line of succession individuals previously excluded “as a result of marrying a person of the Roman Catholic faith”.

Any change to the line of succession would impact those members of the royal family eligible to serve as Counsellors of State under section 6 of the Regency Act 1937. This currently includes Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor.

On 23 February 2026, Darren Jones, the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister, told the Commons he understood:

that there has been a high level of public interest in the news of Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor’s arrest [...] and in what may follow. The Government are clear that we are not ruling out action in respect of the line of succession at this stage, and we will consider whether any further steps are required in due course. It is vital, however, that we first allow the police to carry out their investigations.

Speaking on BBC Radio 4’s Any Questions, the defence minister Luke Pollard said the government had “absolutely” been working with Buckingham Palace to prevent Mountbatten-Windsor from “potentially being a heartbeat away from the throne”. The Australian, Canadian and New Zealand governments expressed support for the move.

Peerages

Peerages are created either under statute (legislation) or the royal prerogative.

Life peerages

Under section 1 of the Life Peerage Act 1958, the King can by Letters Patent confer on any person a “peerage for life” which entitles them to receive a writ of summons to attend the House of Lords.

Under sections 1, 2 and 3 of the House of Lords Reform Act 2014, a peer is disqualified from attending proceedings if they have resigned from the Lords, ceased to be a Member by virtue of not attending during a session lasting six months or more, or they have been sentenced to imprisonment indefinitely or for more than one year. Under section 1 of the House of Lords (Expulsion and Suspension) Act 2015 the House may pass a resolution to expel a Member for misconduct. Lords Standing Order 11 provides that this must follow a recommendation from the Conduct Committee after the Member has been found in breach of the Code of Conduct.

In any of these scenarios, the peerage itself is not removed, only the holder's right to attend the Lords. Otherwise, an appointment under the 1958 Act is irrevocable: life peerages cannot be disclaimed or renounced.

Hereditary peers

Hereditary peerages of first creation (those created for the first time) also cannot be disclaimed (that is, legally renounced). Under section 1 of the Peerage Act 1963, however, the heir to an hereditary peerage can disclaim via an “instrument of disclaimer” within 12 months of succeeding to the title. This does not apply to the 92 hereditary peers currently entitled to attend the House of Lords under section 2 of the House of Lords Act 1999. Andrew Lownie, a royal biographer, has suggested a “small amendment” to the 1963 act which could also allow the first holder of an hereditary peerage to disclaim.

According to Debrett’s, a “Prince of the Royal Blood” is usually created a duke either shortly after coming of age or upon his marriage. Prince Andrew was created Duke of York, Earl of Inverness and Baron Killyleagh upon his marriage to Sarah Ferguson in July 1986. This meant that from then until 1999, he was also a Member of the House of Lords.

Dukes are listed on the Roll of the Peerage (PDF) maintained at the Crown Office (PDF). Under the 2004 Royal Warrant requiring maintenance of the Roll of the Peerage (PDF), any person entered on it may apply to the Lord Chancellor to be removed. Any peer not entered on the roll shall not “be addressed or referred to by any title attaching to his Peerage in any civil or military Commission, Letters Patent, or other official document”. Removal from the roll, however, does not extinguish the peerage itself.

On 5 November 2025, the London Gazette included a notice which stated that:

THE KING has been pleased by Warrant under His Royal Sign Manual dated 30 October 2025 to direct His Secretary of State to cause the Duke of York to be removed from the Roll of the Peerage with immediate effect.

The 2004 Royal Warrant did not include a unilateral power of removal, but the full text of the 2025 Warrant appears to claim authority under section 1(4), that the Lord Chancellor “may take such steps and do such acts as he considers expedient to preparing and keeping the Roll, or incidental thereto”.

Andrew’s dukedom is not in “abeyance”. English hereditary peerages only fall into abeyance if in certain circumstances they are not restricted to male heirs and there is more than one daughter (“co-heirs”).

Removal of peerages

Halsbury’s Laws of England states that no peer “can be deprived of peerage except by or under the authority of an Act of Parliament”. The government agrees with this legal position. On 4 November 2025, Nick Thomas-Symonds (Minister for the Cabinet Office) stated in response to a parliamentary question that: “An Act of Parliament is required to remove a peerage once conferred”.

Titles Deprivation Act 1917

A precedent is the Titles Deprivation Act 1917 (“the 1917 act”). This was a specific piece of legislation passed during the First World War and does not provide a general power to remove peerages or other titles. The then Liberal–Conservative coalition government had advised a reluctant King George V to “take the necessary steps” in response to widespread anti-German sentiment.

The 1917 act enabled the King to appoint a committee of the Privy Council to:

enquire into and report the names of any persons enjoying any dignity or title as a peer or British prince who have, during the present war, borne arms against His Majesty or His Allies, or who have adhered to His Majesty’s enemies.

If neither House of Parliament disapproved the committee’s report within a period of 40 days, then it was presented to the Monarch. Where the “name of any peer or prince” was included in such a report, then upon presentation peers were “struck out” of the Peerage Roll while “all rights to any dignity or title […] under any Royal Warrant or Letters Patent” ceased.

The government stated on 17 November 2025 that it has no plans to amend the Titles Deprivation Act 1917.

2025 proposals

In the House of Commons on 23 October, Sir Alan Campbell, the Leader of the House said:

The question of titles is primarily a question for His Majesty. I know that there has been speculation about legislation, but the palace has been clear that it recognises that there are other matters that this House needs to be getting on with, and we are guided in this by the palace.

Stephen Flynn, the Scottish National Party leader at Westminster, has expressed his support for legislation. On 20 October he sponsored an early day motion calling on the government “to take legislative steps to remove the dukedom granted to Prince Andrew”.

Bills that directly affect the monarchy are sometimes introduced to Parliament in response to a message from the Sovereign. If proposed legislation included provisions affecting the prerogative, then it would require King’s Consent. Consent is always granted by the Monarch when requested by the government.

Professor Graham Zellick, a legal academic, has argued that (then Prince) Andrew’s dukedom could be “withdrawn in the same way it was conferred, by new letters patent”.

Lord Mandelson

On 3 February 2026, it was announced that the Prime Minister had asked officials to draft legislation which allowed Lord Mandelson's peerage to be removed “as quickly as possible”. Sir Keir Starmer's official spokesperson also referred to “a broader need for the House of Lords to be able to remove transgressors more quickly”, and said the government would “publish proposals as soon as possible to tackle this issue”.

Later that day, the Lord Speaker (Lord Forsyth) announced that Lord Mandelson was to retire from the Lords under section 1 of the House of Lords Reform Act 2014. This did not affect his peerage title.

On 9 February 2026, Darren Jones, the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister, said the legislation would be brought forward “very, very shortly”, but the following day (10 February), Baroness Smith of Basildon, the Leader of the Lords, said it would not be passed in the 2024-26 session of Parliament. She added:

I think the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister was saying that we want to move at pace on this, so that we have something that Members can look at. It is not something that we want to delay unduly, but it will go through the normal processes of Parliament. I have already given assurances to the noble Lord, Lord True, and other noble Lords that we will consult on this. It will not be a consultation that goes on for months and months, because we want to ensure that we have the legislation in place in good time, but there is a balance between working at pace and getting it right.

According to a report in The i Paper, the legislation (giving the House of Lords “greater power to remove titles from peers they believe have brought the upper chamber into disrepute”) will be included in the King's Speech due on 13 May 2026.

Knighthoods and other honours

Most knighthoods or damehoods are awarded under the royal prerogative on the advice of the Prime Minister. The statutes of most orders of knighthood include provision for the Monarch to “cancel and annul” appointments.

These honours (as well as others such as OBE, MBE and BEM) can be withdrawn or “forfeited” if the holder is found guilty of a criminal offence or other behaviour that is “deemed to bring the honours system into disrepute”. Former Royal Bank of Scotland chief executive Fred Goodwin’s knighthood was revoked by Letters Patent in 2012. The former chief executive of HBOS, James Crosby, asked for his knighthood to be removed in June 2013.

This is the responsibility of the Cabinet Office’s Forfeiture Committee, whose recommendations for forfeiture are submitted via the Prime Minister to the King. If the King approves, a notice of forfeiture is usually placed in the London Gazette.

Although an individual can decide to renounce an honour voluntarily, they continue to hold it unless or until it is annulled by the King.

Other knighthoods and honours are awarded on the personal prerogative of the Monarch rather than on government advice (for example, a Knight Companion of the Most Noble Order of the Garter (KG) and a Knight Grand Cross of the Royal Victorian Order (GCVO)). Prince Andrew was awarded a KG in 2006 and a GCVO in 2011.

Appointments to the Garter are for life unless a Knight Companion offends against certain “points of reproach”. In modern times, removals from the Order have all been foreign royals (Stranger Knights) who have had their appointments cancelled by the Sovereign via Royal Warrant. These include German and Austrian Emperors during the First World War, and the King of Italy and the Emperor of Japan during the Second. A Royal Warrant can also direct that knights’ banners be removed from St George’s Chapel. Andrew’s banner was removed in late October 2025.

On 1 December 2025, the London Gazette included a notice which stated that:

THE KING has directed that the appointment of Andrew Albert Christian Edward MOUNTBATTEN-WINDSOR to be a Knight Companion of the Most Noble Order of the Garter, dated 23 April 2006, shall be cancelled and annulled and that his name shall be erased from the Register of the said Order.

THE KING has directed that the appointment of Andrew Albert Christian Edward MOUNTBATTEN-WINDSOR to be a Knight Grand Cross of the Royal Victorian Order, dated 19 February 2011, shall be cancelled and annulled and that his name shall be erased from the Register of the said Order.

Both cancellations were backdated to 30 October 2025.

Foreign honours

In February 2026 it was reported that Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor had handed back the Grand Cross of the Order of St Olav to Norway's Royal House. The Order of St Olav is Norway's highest civilian honour and is awarded to individuals who have demonstrated exceptional service. King Olav V bestowed the distinction upon the then Prince Andrew in 1988.

That same month, a spokesperson for New Zealand Prime Minister Christopher Luxon confirmed that the 1990 Commemoration Medal (which marked the Treaty of Waitangi’s 150th anniversary) awarded to Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor had been cancelled in December 2025 on his advice and at the direction of King Charles III.

Military affiliations and royal patronages

Members of the royal family often hold military affiliations and other royal patronages. These are awarded under the personal prerogative of the Monarch.

With the approval of Queen Elizabeth II in January 2022, the Duke of York’s military affiliations and royal patronages were returned to Her Majesty. These included Colonel of the Grenadier Guards, which was taken up by Queen Camilla in December 2022.

John Healey, the Defence Secretary, told the BBC on 2 November 2025 that the government was “working” on removing Andrew’s last remaining military affiliation as a vice-admiral in the Royal Navy. On 13 December, a spokesman for the Ministry of Defence said:

Following formal consideration, Defence Council have agreed the immediate reversion from the rank of Vice-Admiral to the rank of Commander (Retired) Royal Navy, the rank held on retirement from Regular Royal Naval Service by Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor. This decision aligns with such processes as to remove other styles and titles.

Membership of the Privy Council

Membership of the Privy Council, a body of advisers to the King regarding the exercise of his statutory and prerogative powers, allows individuals to style themselves “the Right Honourable”. Privy Counsellors are appointed for life by the King (on the advice of the Prime Minister) under the royal prerogative.

An individual’s request to resign from the Privy Council is usually construed as a request seeking the Monarch’s agreement to the removal of that individual’s name from the list of Privy Counsellors. This request is usually made following a political scandal or a criminal conviction. In such cases, the minutes of a Privy Council meeting will record an “Order directing that the name […] be removed from the List of Privy Counsellors”.

“Enforced removal” is a matter for the Sovereign “acting on the advice of Ministers”. At a meeting on 8 June 2011, for example, an Order “striking out the name” of the former Labour MP Elliot Morley from the list of Privy Counsellors was made following convictions for fraud in relation to his parliamentary expenses.

On 4 February 2026, the Prime Minister told the House of Commons that:

This morning I have agreed with His Majesty the King that [Lord] Mandelson should be removed from the list of Privy Counsellors on the grounds that he has brought the reputation of the Privy Council into disrepute.

At a meeting of the Privy Council on 10 March 2026, it was ordered:

by His Majesty in Council that The Lord Mandelson be struck out of the List of Members of His Majesty’s Most Honourable Privy Council.

Further reading

• The royal prerogative and ministerial advice
• The line of succession
• Honours: Refusal and removal
• Honours: History and reviews
• The Privy Council: history, functions and membership

About the author: Dr David Torrance is a researcher at the House of Commons Library, specialising in monarchy and the constitution