All Souls’ Day, 2025
Why an Act of Parliament was not needed to remove the title from the former Duke of York
The most fundamental feature of the constitution of the United Kingdom is the Crown.
At least, conceptually.
In one way or another the Crown invariably provides the ultimate source of power for the other elements of our constitutional order: Acts of of Parliament have effect once they have royal assent; the judgments handed down in the royal courts of justice; the discretionary powers of the prime minister acting on behalf of the crown.
Trace any legal power back far enough, and you will usually end up with the Crown.
(With a few exceptions.)
Indeed, the Crown can confer legal effect on all sorts of written instruments, of which Acts of Parliament are merely one example amongst others: royal charters, orders in council, royal warrants, royal proclamations, letters patent, and so on.
Once they are endorsed by the crown they, by constitutional magic, have legal effect.
It is a convention of the common law courts that Acts of Parliament have priority above the other royal instruments (a mere rule of statutory construction, as someone once mischievously put it.). But from another point of view, all are instruments that have legal effect once they are endorsed by the monarch.
Like a prime minister, an Act of Parliament is first amongst equals.
*
When the question arose about how to remove the ducal title from an individual previously known as a prince, many assumed that it could only be done by Act of Parliament.
Here there seemed to be a precedent: the Titles Deprivation Act of 1917 – the text of which is here – which was used to remove titles from aristocrats on the side of Germany in the first world war.
Presumably, the thought went, such a statute would be required again.
No.
If one looks carefully at the 1917 Act you will see that it recognises but does not create a right of the-then king to remove an honour. It instead provides a scheme for selecting which peers would lose their titles, and for dealing with consequential points like succession and property.
The 1917 Act was one way of putting the question before the king and for addressing any aftermath, but it was not the only one. It was not an exclusive method.
*
And so what happened last week was that the current king used another legal instrument – a royal warrant – to remove the title from his brother.
The warrant instructed the Lord Chancellor – responsible for maintaining the roll of peerage – to remove the title.
As simple as that.
One reason is was so easy was because of the constitutional changes of 1999-2005 which affected the composition of the House of Lords and the changed the nature of the Lord Chancellorship – see here.
Because a peerage no longer carries an automatic right to sit in the legislature, there is really little legal traction to a title, and so less impediment to it being removed by means other than an Act of Parliament.
A royal warrant was thereby a deft workaround, instead of a statutory scheme such as the 1917 Act.
*
Never underestimate the residual force of royal power in the United Kingdom (though Scots law is not necessarily the same on this as the laws of England and Wales and Northern Ireland).
The king can still do all sorts of things which have legal effect and without any Act of Parliament.
And many of these powers can be used “on behalf of the Crown” by ministers.
The problem with all this is that those royal powers are not directly checked and balanced by parliament.
And so whilst we may clap and cheer and the king’s clever constitutional move here, it would generally be preferable for such things to be dealt with by parliament, and not the crown.
***
Comments Policy
This blog enjoys a high standard of comments, many of which are better and more interesting than the posts.
Comments are welcome, but they are pre-moderated and comments will not be published if irksome, or if they risk derailing the discussion.
More on the comments policy is here.
Which Secretary of State countersigned the warrant? I can’t find it online, but Royal signature only has effect when countersigned.
I love these questions that show off the knowledge of the questioner!
I dunno – presumably the Lord Chancellor (who is also the secretary of state for justice).
That’s what I was wondering too – was he ordering himself?
Thank you for this insight. While I am in little way a monarchist is there a constitutionally beneficial point here? As we have seen in recent times, the robustness of constitutional checks and balances in this country on parliamentary and in particular Prime Ministerial activism being largely illusory, is there not a case to be made for the existence of potentially powerful crown powers such as the ones you mention? Of course they would need to be in the hands of someone disposed to exercise them in our interests, but nevertheless would they offer a real alternative check to the sorts of recent constitutional extremism we’ve seen here and are now seeing in the US?
Could that case be more clearly explained by defining particular examples of the extent of these royal powers and how they could be used to blunt or obviate a tyrannical PM? Has that exercise already been done; if so could you point me towards a useful source for the examination of those powers, please?
Sorry to pose questions on a Sunday morning, feel free to ignore or wait until regular working hours 😊
Doesn’t this create a rather problematic precedent though?
Let’s say that the current government didn’t like a life peer in the House of Lords. Couldn’t it effectively issue an order in council to “instruct the lord chancellor to remove him/her from the roll of peerage” and thereby deprive them of their seat in parliament?
No.
The composition of parliament is a matter for parliament. The king was able to do this in this way because Andrew does not sit in the Lords.
Are there not layers of subtlety at work here though?
I’m not questioning the focus of the article, but rather asking if there are different threads here for different titles. The individual we now know as Andrew Windsor has just had four titles stripped away: Prince, Duke of York, Earl of Inverness and Baron Killyleagh.
Let’s set aside Prince for a moment. The remaining trio were once inherited titles passing down through generations of local families. Wikipedia, for instance, records the first Duke of York as being Edmund of Langley, who inherited lands north of the Trent when his godfather, the Earl of Surrey, passed away – and since then the title has been merged with and separated from the Crown multiple times.
So to simplify, we could say that the title “Duke of York” is currently analogous to being a proxy landowner on behalf of the Crown, though that’s a bad example to choose since the “Duke of York” presently has no association with property in Yorkshire – Allerton Castle has an historic association but is currently a privately-owned property.
We could make similar observations about the titles Earl and Baron – former familial inheritances that have now passed to the Crown.
Prince is different.
A prince is, by definition, the son of a Monarch. It is not a title given, as such, but one inherited at birth. And while I would certainly not want to try and build a case to argue the same – it’s interesting to note that the Monarch who bestowed the title Prince to Andrew was his mother, Queen Elizabeth.
Which is not to argue that either the King Charles or Parliament lacks the authority or the means to strip Andrew of his title of Prince, merely that the mechanism should necessarily be different thanks to that very particular definition of Prince and Princess as children of a Monarch.
In fact, speculating baselessly here for a moment, I have to wonder if the stripping of the title “Prince” is in fact closer to a complete disinheritance rather than the equivalent of a demotion.
I am sure that this is just a consequence of these sorts of events having no precursor in recent memory, but it rather feels as though this is all being made up as we go along.
“A prince is, by definition, the son of a Monarch.”
No, it can be grandchildren and I think nephews.
Ah yes; thank you. Perhaps I should have written “direct descendants” for clarity.
That’s an interesting question. The BBC website has a family tree:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-23272491
That predates the recent changes to Andrew’s status, but there is some useful info there.
In particular, looking at Archie (Harry and Meghan’s son):
“Archie was not automatically a prince when he was born because he was not a grandson of the monarch. But he gained the right to that title when King Charles acceded to the throne.”
James (Edward’s son and Charles’ nephew) isn’t listed as a prince there, but Wikipedia says that he has the right to that title and his parents just chose not to use it, i.e. he’s introduced as Earl of Wessex.
I think the implication is that if Edward or Anne had another son now, that son wouldn’t automatically become a prince. I.e. the new son would be the nephew of the current monarch, but wasn’t the grandson of the previous monarch (during their reign).
Also great-grandchildren, ie William and Kate’s children while the late Queen was alive
Who is entitled to the style and titular dignity of prince seems entirely a matter of royal prerogative. Andrew was born a prince under letters patent issued by George V in 1917. The Queen made her husband, the then Duke of Edinburgh, a prince by letters patent in 1957. See https://www.thegazette.co.uk/London/issue/41009/page/1209
So a prince is, by definition, whoever the sovereign wants (subject to ministerial advice, etc).
He’s not been removed from the line of succession, though – too difficult to pull off with similar sleight of hand or to avoid creating a precedent? Both?
With the possibility of succession, however improbable, isn’t he essentially still a prince, whatever pre- and post- nominals he’s allowed to announce himself with?
The succession is explicitly defined by an Act of Parliament and changing it requires a new one that is also replicated across lots of other countries.
Any descendant of Sophia of Hanover unless disqualified (e.g. by being Catholic) is in the line of succession. The list is several thousand now, and I don’t think anyone seriously thinks about calling them all princes or princesses.
That comment was by a different James to me.
As I understand, both changing the order of succession and removing peerages would require an Act of Parliament (and changing the order of succession would require the consent of the other commonwealth realms). It’s been reported the King did not wish to take up parliamentary time and preferred to do what he could within the royal prerogative.
So Andrew is Schrödinger’s Duke: the dukedom hasn’t been abolished, but he has been removed from the roll of peerages so is not entitled to any precedence attaching to the peerage or be officially addressed or referred to by any title attaching to it.
I eagerly await sight of the letters patent, royal warrant, or whatever has been issued…
“That comment was by a different James to me.”
For the avoidance of further confusion, perhaps one of you would agree to post henceforth as “James I & VI” and the other as “James II & VII”.
😂
Here we go….
Warrants Under the Royal Sign Manual
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.
Letters Patent
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”.
Published in The Gazette 5 November 2025, 12:00
The monarch of the day issued the 2004 Royal Warrant, presumably the monarch of the day can also issue another Royal Warrant that overrides it where necessary.
(Trying again as peskily last comment had line breaks removed)
Published at noon today in the Gazette:
Warrants Under the Royal Sign Manual
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.
Letters Patent
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 king can still do all sorts of things which have legal effect and without any Act of Parliament…”
And there is the fundamental point of difference between monarchists and those who yearn for a day when the soap opera finally comes to an end.
And let’s do it properly – constitutionally.
The Royal Warrant establishing the Roll of the Peerage (which is surprisingly recent: https://www.thegazette.co.uk/London/issue/57314/page/7320) says in section 3 “Any Peer who is not entered on the Roll shall not […] be addressed or referred to by any title attaching to his Peerage in [official documents]”.
Which implies that if you are removed from the roll, you remain a peer, but the government won’t use your title.
Many thanks David, it helps makes some sense of how the “system” functions although doesn’t really solve anything around what to do with the sailor
As a commoner he’s now liable (presumably) for income tax & all the other niceties we all struggle with and yet he’s hardly having to knuckle down to earn his keep. Presumably such loopholes only stretch so far?
His loss of privilege does however does feel like one of Trump’s executive orders as a means of using a loophole to get around an awkward dilemma for the royal family; somewhat akin to Boris Johnson’s tactics as PM (proroguing parliament etc)
The royal prerogative has been used many times over the years alongside the nodding-through of post-brexit legislation with minimal or no scrutiny in the recent past
It seems past time that some of these loopholes should now be closed off, if nothing else, in the interests of greater parliamentary democracy
Only the King is exempt from income tax by law (although pays it voluntarily – as the Queen did since the 1990s). So Andrew’s change in style won’t affect his liability for income tax.
I don’t think the peerage is fully extinguished by this – see https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-10370/
In theory Andrew could apply to be re-enrolled under the Royal Warrant that established the Roll, though it’s unlikely he would, and the Secretary of State could probably just refuse: https://www.college-of-arms.gov.uk/RoyalWarrant2004.pdf
“They order, said I, this matter better in France…” — (Laurence Sterne, “A Sentimental Journey Through France and Italy,”)
(I prefer the more usual misquotation, i.e. for “better” read “differently”.)
See:-
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_nobility#From_the_Third_Republic_(1870)_to_today
“Since the French Third Republic on 4 September 1870 the French nobility is no longer recognised and has no legal existence and status The former regularly transmitted authentic titles can however be recognised as part of a name, after a request to the Department of Justice.”
It is devoutly to be hoped that a future Scottish Republic won’t concede even that. For, as our Auld Alliance partners have it, “On leur donne le doigt et ils vous prennent le bras.”
More of that ilk. Oh.
Aristocratic titles are banned in Austria, including even the use of “von” in surnames. Herbert von Karajan got away with it by registering.”von Karajan” as his stage name
The House of Commons briefing note published on 3 November observes in relation to the reported instruction to remove the Duke of York from the Peerage Roll that “as the 2004 Royal Warrant did not include a unilateral power of removal, it is not yet clear how this has been given effect.” Since removal involves withdrawing official recognition of the peerage, it is a significant step which no doubt is reasonable where the holder has requested it in accordance with the provision in the 2004 Warrant, but scarcely seems justifiable otherwise.
One possibility is that the King invited his brother to apply for removal from the Roll; in that case an instruction to the Lord Chancellor would be otiose but perhaps attractive presentationally. I see that a Freedom of Information request was made on 31 October asking whether Andrew himself applied for removal.