Prince Andrew retains royal titles as Palace sources reveal King Charles’s dilemma

The Royal Family’s refusal to officially strip Prince Andrew of his Royal title in parliament is just an excuse according to some royal commentators

Prince Andrew may have been stripped of his Royal title during a brief 10-minute telephone conversation with his brother, the King, but it has done little to calm public anger towards the shamed former duke.

The Royal surrendered what little status he had left last week as examination of his connections to paedophile Jeffrey Epstein intensified.

It came as shame fell on the Royal Family when Virginia Giuffre’s posthumous memoir was published detailing the atrocities she endured under Epstein’s control.

Giuffre, who took her own life earlier this year aged just 41, claimed that Andrew sexually assaulted her on three occasions when she was a teenager – accusations which the Royal has consistently rejected.

READ MORE: Queen’s one-word response to Prince Andrew’s allegations before she passed

Andrew was stripped of all his military appointments and honorary positions earlier this month. At the same time, Buckingham Palace announced Andrew would no longer be referred to as His Royal Highness. But there has been no formal decree stripping Andrew of HRH – it has simply disappeared from his name.

While some people are demanding that it is made official – a process requiring Parliamentary action – royal insiders suggest Charles is reluctant to pursue this route. The Palace has said it doesn’t want to burden the government with the matter, but not everyone thinks this is good enough.

Responding to this latest twist, a Royal expert told the Mirror it’s nothing more than an “excuse” in their opinion. Andrew Lownie is the author of a recently published bombshell biography about Andrew and Fergie titled Entitled: The Rise and Fall of the House of York. He spent four years researching and interviewing hundreds of people and uncovering more details around his scandals.

The book is highly critical of the prince and Lownie argues that the Palace’s handling of the Andrew crisis has been woefully inadequate. “The Palace are doing too little, too late as always and trying to preserve the status quo,” Lownie remarked.

Fellow Royal commentator Emily Andrews shared similar views on BBC Breakfast, stating, “This line from Buckingham Palace that the King doesn’t want to take up Parliament’s time, doesn’t want to make a fuss, is a smokescreen, because actually it could be done very easily.”

While Andrews acknowledged it would be “tricky” to strip the fallen Royal of his Prince title, she revealed government insiders had informed her that Andrew’s dukedom could be revoked within “a day”. The inaction, or what Lownie termed “too little, too late,” could stem from what one Royal expert has described as a “brotherly blind spot” that Charles allegedly harbours for Andrew.

In his book Endgame, Omid Scobie suggests that although the monarch has long “openly detested Andrew’s indiscretions,” the King still maintains a “brotherly bias” towards him.

“One all-too-human family complication that the King apparently has a blind spot for is the shameful burden of Prince Andrew,” the author penned, noting this was a trait the late Queen shared, with Andrew frequently described as her favourite son.

“Understandably, he cares for his brother,” Scobie wrote, “so much so that a close source said that during the most heightened moments of Andrew’s downfall, Charles was tearful over fears for the shamed duke’s mental health.”

The king has allegedly endured sleepless nights fretting over his disgraced younger sibling, the author revealed, citing a source who said: “You’d find it hard to believe, but [Charles] has [lay] awake many nights worrying about him”.