LONDON — Prince Andrew’s agreement to stop using the Duke of York styling after talks with King Charles III has done little to quiet demands that his titles — and perks — be formally removed. Public anger and political pressure intensified after new disclosures about his contact with Jeffrey Epstein, with critics urging both Buckingham Palace and the government to go further, according to Chicago Tribune.

What changed this week

After discussions with his brother, Andrew agreed to cease using titles including Duke of York, an attempt to shield the institution from years of damaging headlines over his business dealings and his ties to Epstein, Chicago Tribune reported. The move is limited: he still technically holds the dukedom, granted by Queen Elizabeth II, and remains a prince by birth.

The timing sharpened scrutiny. Emails surfaced suggesting Andrew stayed in touch with Epstein longer than previously acknowledged, as reported by Chicago Tribune. The development comes days before publication of Virginia Roberts Giuffre’s memoir, “Nobody’s Girl,” which alleges three sexual encounters and includes claims that Andrew’s team tried “to hire internet trolls to hassle me.” In an excerpt, Giuffre writes the prince acted as if “having sex with me was his birthright.” She also says Andrew insisted their 2022 settlement include a one-year gag order to avoid overshadowing the late queen’s Platinum Jubilee, according to Chicago Tribune.

Andrew has long denied Giuffre’s allegations. He withdrew from public duties after a widely criticized 2019 BBC interview and later paid millions to settle Giuffre’s U.S. civil suit without admitting wrongdoing, while acknowledging her suffering as a trafficking victim, Chicago Tribune reported.

Political pressure and the constitutional limits

The backlash has spilled into politics. Scottish National Party leader Stephen Flynn urged legislation to strip Andrew of his titles. “The family of Virginia Giuffre, whose life was destroyed, are angry and aghast,” Flynn said. “The public across these isles are angry and aghast and they both deserve to know that some (members of Parliament) share their outrage,” according to Chicago Tribune.

Downing Street has signaled caution. The government says it supports the palace’s move but won’t act unilaterally. Under the U.K.’s constitutional monarchy, the crown avoids politics and politicians keep clear of royal family matters, Chicago Tribune reported. “Our thoughts have to be with the victims of Jeffrey Epstein, those who suffered and continue to suffer because of the abuse that they experienced at his hands, but these are matters for the royal family,” Education Secretary Bridget Phillipson told the BBC.

Constitutional commentary underscores the constraints: while monarchs originate titles, formal removal is rare and generally requires sovereign action or bespoke legislation, according to BBC News and History.com.

The evidence and the memoir

Giuffre’s forthcoming book is poised to renew public attention. Her claims — including those quoted above — land as London’s Metropolitan Police say they are “actively looking into” media reports that in 2011 Andrew asked a police bodyguard to check whether Giuffre had a criminal record, Chicago Tribune reported. The force’s review underscores that elements of the saga extend beyond optics to potential conduct questions.

Money and the Royal Lodge

Scrutiny is also trained on Andrew’s living arrangements. He resides at Royal Lodge, a 30-room mansion near Windsor Castle, with his ex-wife Sarah Ferguson. Questions have been raised about how he covers the costs of the property, which he holds on a long lease from the Crown Estate, a portfolio nominally owned — but not controlled — by the monarch, according to Chicago Tribune.

The finances matter because public confidence is at stake whenever Crown-linked resources intersect with scandal. Transparency over the terms of the Royal Lodge arrangement and any public exposure to costs could shape the debate about Andrew’s continued privileges.

The politics of public opinion

Royal scandals have historically dented support for the monarchy and accelerated calls for reform. Polling from YouGov shows sentiment can swing sharply in the wake of controversies; one survey found 62% of respondents felt less supportive following the Andrew affair. Background from The Guardian and History.com notes that reputational crises — from abdication dramas to the fallout after Princess Diana’s death — have repeatedly forced institutional introspection.

That pattern is visible again: the combination of a legal settlement, fresh documentary evidence, a high-profile memoir and police inquiries has pushed the matter from family crisis to political issue. The question now is less about optics and more about governance, accountability and the limits of constitutional action.

What accountability could look like

Beyond title changes, proposals emerging in public discussion outline steps aimed at restoring trust:

  • Commission an independent, time-limited palace review into Andrew’s status, including the handling of allegations, the use of styles and honours, and the Royal Lodge arrangements, with findings published for transparency, as discussed in analysis from The Guardian and BBC News.
  • Have the government issue a clear explanation of the legal and constitutional framework governing titles, and consider a non-partisan advisory mechanism for exceptional cases, consistent with commentary summarized by BBC News.

Such measures would not resolve the underlying allegations, but they could provide a credible process for decisions that are otherwise opaque — and help insulate the institution from ongoing political crossfire.

What this means for the monarchy

For now, Andrew’s retreat from using the Duke of York styling is a symbolic recalibration, not a structural change. Meanwhile, public and political demands are moving in the opposite direction — toward formal revocation, clearer rules and financial transparency. Sky Roberts, Giuffre’s brother, has asked the king to “remove the title of prince, too. He shouldn’t be able to call himself one,” he told The Times of London.

With the Metropolitan Police review ongoing and “Nobody’s Girl” set to publish, pressure is unlikely to ease. The palace’s next decisions — on titles, residences and disclosure — will test whether incremental steps can still contain a controversy that, as reported by Chicago Tribune, has already outgrown the private realm and become a test of public accountability.