New Zealand could have a part to play in what happens next with Andrew Mountbatten Windsor, formerly Prince Andrew.
King Charles today announced that he has officially begun the process of removing all titles and honours from his brother Andrew, who, as of today, is to be known as Andrew Mountbatten Windsor.
Andrew has also been told to move out of the Royal Lodge, and will move into a property on the private Sandringham estate in Norfolk, funded by the King.
Dr Cindy McCreery, associate professor at the University of Sydney, cultural historian and monarchy expert, says “this is not the end of this story” and we should expect to see further fallout for the now former prince.
“Although King Charles has taken decisive action, what hasn’t happened yet – and isn’t in Charles’ power – is that we haven’t seen any formal moves by the Parliament in England to remove Andrew from the line of succession.”
The former prince is currently eighth in line for the throne.
The Sydney-based monarchy expert says “it is highly likely that he will be removed” from that line of succession as this announcement made it clear “he is no longer seen as an appropriate person to serve as a monarch”.
For that removal to happen, legislation will have to pass not only in London but in the Commonwealth realm, including in New Zealand.
McCreery says there is precedent for this, in a not-so-distant past: the 2013 Perth Agreement, which saw Commonwealth countries come together in Perth, Western Australia, to pass legislation that allowed for reform to the laws of succession. With that agreement, which New Zealand had to sign as well, there was, among other changes, a change in the rule so that older princesses could no longer be leapfrogged by younger brothers – effectively bringing gender equality to that line of succession.
Should the UK Parliament start the process of removing Andrew from that line of succession to the throne, New Zealand, among all countries in the Commonwealth realm, would also have to pass legislation to bring that into effect. McCreery points out that “it is up to each individual government to pass the legislation”.
The historian says “this is a story that people in Australia and New Zealand have been following closely”, particularly due to the late Virginia Giuffre having ties to Australia, where she died in April this year.
“People in the Commonwealth realm will be reflecting on this all the more closely,” McCreery says.
The expert also highlighted that the statement issued today by Buckingham Palace dedicated a paragraph to expressing sympathy for victims of abuse: “Their Majesties wish to make clear that their thoughts and utmost sympathies have been, and will remain with, the victims and survivors of any and all forms of abuse,” the statement read.
For McCreery, this is no small detail. “That line is a remarkable statement, really signalling that the King and the Queen hear the survivors of sexual abuse and exploitation and want to make a powerful statement about that”. She adds that she does not believe a previous reign would have issued such a statement.
While Andrew has not been trialled in a court of law and has always denied the allegations, he did reach an out-of-court settlement with the late Virginia Giuffre in 2022 for an undisclosed sum.
“King Charles is hoping this will draw a line under these events and will convince the people that he is in charge, removing the rotten branch from the tree,” McCreery says.
“I don’t think this story is over yet.”
“There’s a lot of concern about Andrew’s actions. But nevertheless, this story has not reached its conclusion. The Epstein files may shed more light on this.”
McCreery believes that the King will be very anxious about how people respond to this and what comes next for the royal family.
Today’s announcement comes just weeks after Andrew gave up his other royal titles, including the title of Duke of York and also days after the release of Giuffre’s posthumous memoir, Nobody’s Girl.
He was forced to give up his remaining royal titles, including the title of Duke of York, earlier this month after it emerged he had stayed in touch with convicted paedophile Jeffrey Epstein longer than he previously admitted.
A few days ago, it was revealed that the Metropolitan Police is “actively looking into” claims that Andrew passed his alleged teenage sex abuse victim’s private information to his protection officer.
According to a leaked email, the now former prince asked his taxpayer-funded police bodyguard to investigate Giuffre and passed him her date of birth and social security number.
He then told Buckingham Palace aide Ed Perkins, who at the time was Elizabeth II’s deputy press secretary, that he had asked one of his personal protection officers to dig up information about Giuffre.
“We are aware of media reporting and are actively looking into the claims made,” a police spokesperson said.
Andrew could potentially face a criminal investigation in the US for sharing Giuffre’s social security number without her consent.
The family of the late Virginia Giuffre has issued a statement reacting to the announcement from Buckingham Palace.
“Today, an ordinary American girl from an ordinary American family, brought down a British prince with her truth and extraordinary courage,” a statement from her brother Skye and sister-in-law Amanda said.
“Virginia Roberts Giuffre, our sister, a child when she was sexually assaulted by Andrew, never stopped fighting for accountability for what had happened to her and to countless other survivors like her.
“Today, she declares victory. We, her family, along with her survivor sisters, continue Virginia’s battle and will not rest until the same accountability applies to all of the abusers and abettors connected to Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell.”
Giuffre alleged she had sex with Andrew three times when she was a teenager, an allegation the former prince has denied repeatedly.
This is not his only legal worry – he also faces a private prosecution for alleged sexual assault, corruption and misconduct in public office.
The case is being brought by campaign group Republic, which is said to have instructed a law firm to examine evidence and, if justified, initiate legal proceedings.
“I firmly believe there is strong enough evidence to justify a serious investigation. The authorities and politicians appear to want to look the other way, while minimising the accusations made against Andrew. The truth must prevail and justice must be seen to be done,” Republic’s chief executive, Graham Smith, said.
“If not us, then who? It’s a devastating indictment on the UK’s criminal justice system, police and politicians – not to mention the King and heir – that we must resort to a private prosecution. It should be a cause for concern that so many people believe – rightly in my view – that the royals are not treated equally in law. Equality in law is a basic tenet of democracy."
The group’s action follows years of controversy surrounding Andrew’s association with the late US financier and convicted sex offender Epstein.
The controversy has had a deep impact on the royal family. Earlier this week, King Charles was heckled as he met crowds during a visit to Lichfield Cathedral in the Midlands. Upon seeing the King, a man shouted: “How long have you known about Andrew and Epstein?”
Historian and author Andrew Lownie, who this year published a book on Prince Andrew called Entitled: The rise and fall of the House of York, says this will not be the end of the troubles for Andrew, or the royal family, on this matter.
Speaking to the BBC, Lownie said the palace is “finally taking some decisive action”, but it won’t be enough as far as public opinion is concerned.
The historian also said this is a “huge humiliation” for Andrew.
“He’s been very depressed about it all, even though he’s been defiant in public,” the author told the BBC.
Lownie was interviewed by Herald NOW earlier this month and warned that this crisis was the “biggest threat to royals” since the abdication in 1936.
“People are pretty appalled that his ex-wife, who he hasn’t been married to for 30 years, is being included in this deal, that we’ve got to kind of pay for her because these are properties owned by the Crown Estates, which are in effect owned by the taxpayer,” he told Herald NOW.
“Unless they can cut themselves loose from Andrew, I think he’s going to bring them down.”