header-logo header-logo

Home Login E-newsletter About us
07 November 2025 / Dr Graham Zellick CBE KC FAcSS
Issue: 8138 / Categories: Features , Constitutional law
printer mail-detail

A prince no more, but a duke still

© Copyright LexisNexis 2026. All Rights Reserved.
235020
Professor Graham Zellick KC on why Andrew Mountbatten Windsor remains a duke

Following Buckingham Palace’s statement last month, the public will doubtless have concluded that the former Prince Andrew would lose his title of Prince and his peerage as a duke, as well as his other honours and dignities (I refer to him hereafter as ‘Andrew’, which sounds less jarring than Mr Mountbatten Windsor).

The opening words of the statement were: ‘His Majesty has today initiated a formal process to remove the Style, Titles and Honours of Prince Andrew.’ I assume, but do not know, that the king has exercised his undoubted prerogative powers to withdraw the honorific of ‘His Royal Highness’ and the title of Prince, and cancel his two knighthoods (of the Garter and the Royal Victorian Order). Anyone reading the statement would inevitably conclude that his dukedom was also being formally removed, especially as the earlier statement had already indicated that he had decided no longer to use the title.

We

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Read All
Sponsored by
Switalskis—Naila Arif, Harriet Findlay & Ellie Thompson

Switalskis—Naila Arif, Harriet Findlay & Ellie Thompson

Firm awards training contracts to paralegals through internal programme

Ward Hadaway—Matthew Morton

Ward Hadaway—Matthew Morton

Private client disputes specialist joins commercial litigation team

Thomson Hayton Winkley—Nina Hood

Thomson Hayton Winkley—Nina Hood

Cumbria firm appoints new head of residential property

NEWS
Read All
NLJ this week: Divorce ‘nuclear weapon’ freezes assets but entangles outsiders
Freezing orders in divorce proceedings can unexpectedly ensnare third parties and disrupt businesses. In NLJ this week, Lucy James of Trowers & Hamlins explains how these orders—dubbed a ‘nuclear weapon’—preserve assets but can extend far beyond spouses to companies and business partners 
NLJ this week: What counts as ‘rent’? Court says labour alone won’t do
A Court of Appeal ruling has clarified that ‘rent’ must be monetary—excluding tenants paid in labour from statutory protection. In this week's NLJ, James Naylor explains Garraway v Phillips, where a tenant worked two days a week instead of paying rent
NLJ this week: Freed but failed—justice system leaves the innocent empty-handed
Three men wrongly imprisoned for a combined 77 years have been released—yet received ‘not a penny’ in compensation, exposing deep flaws in the justice system. Writing in NLJ this week, Dr Jon Robins reports on Justin Plummer, Oliver Campbell and Peter Sullivan, whose convictions collapsed amid discredited forensics, ‘oppressive’ police interviews and unreliable ‘cell confessions’
NLJ this week: Clarity on whistleblowing, settlements and tribunal limits
A quiet month for employment cases still delivers key legal clarifications. In his latest Employment Law Brief for NLJ, Ian Smith reports that whistleblowing protection remains intact even where disclosures are partly self-serving, provided the worker reasonably believes they serve the ‘public interest’ 
NLJ this week: Family law urged to ditch adversarial instincts
Family law must shift from conflict-driven litigation to child-centred problem-solving, according to a major new report. Writing in NLJ this week, Caroline Bowden of Anthony Gold outlines findings showing overwhelming support for reform, with 92% agreeing lawyers owe duties to children as well as clients
Copyright © 2026 LexisNexis
back-to-top-scroll