When I wrote a piece saying Mr Windsor would pose constitutional issues to be resolved some of you criticised me. You thought this was not a serious topic. You thought it wrong to call the ex Duke of York Mr Windsor.
I hope now the King tells us he is Mr Mountbatten Windsor you will agree with His Majesty. Now the King is using prerogative to strip him of titles formally you see this is a serious constitutional issue. He will presumably be taken out of the line of succession.
It would clearly be best if after cross party soundings this use of royal prerogative is widely supported and ideas of new legislation be shelved. The wise decision to move to private property and to rely on family money removes the need for Parliamentary investigation of the properties of the Crown estate in this connection.
October 30, 2025
Agreed.
And parliament can then spend it’s time on bigger issues!!
October 30, 2025
With Mr Mountbatten Windsor’s position clarified, let’s hope Mr Starmer and his chums can get back to the serious business of a grooming gangs inquiry without further distraction.
October 30, 2025
QED.
October 30, 2025
The king has moved against his own brother.
I feel for his majesty.
October 30, 2025
I’ve been a royalist all my life …but today I wouldn’t mind if we where a republic
October 30, 2025
Do Eugenie and Beatrice lose their title too? It came from the title held by their father.
Is it time to be rid of Meghan, Princess of the United Kingdom and her husband too?
Reply The King does not think the daughters share the problems of their father. Meghan was not born a Princess .She is a Duchess by marriage.
October 31, 2025
@ Lynn Atkinson – Yes, it is overdue time to act similarly against Harry (and hence his wife).
The York antics have badly tarnished the Royal Family but they did not attack and attempt to undermine the institution, selected family members or the U.K. itself, in stark contrast to the truly reprehensible and repugnant behaviour of Harry and his household. He constitutes a threat and failure to deal with him is to risk great harm.
October 31, 2025
Meghan’s passport states her job as being ‘Princess of the United Kingdom’. Princess Henry in the same way that Princess Michael has the title from her husband who is a Prince but not a Duke.
October 30, 2025
Then logicaly it should be the same conclusion delivered by the King to Mandleson. He has the same connections and associations as the King’s Brother, and a title that can only be removed by the King. Mandleson remaining part of the Nation’s legislative process is an insult to us all and the King
October 31, 2025
Good point.
October 31, 2025
If our King cannot repeal an Act of Parliament, nor remove someones title of Lord ….then whats the point of ‘royal assent’
October 31, 2025
He can giveth but can’t taketh away
October 31, 2025
He cannot repeal an Act of Parliament. Indeed he can’t even enact an Act of Parliament. Only Parliament can do those things.
The Monarch is a figurehead – he prorogue Parliament under instruction from the PM. In the Dominions the Kings Representative does the same.
October 31, 2025
What would happen if he refused to give royal assent to an Act
Reply Parliament would remove the need for his consent I expect. He would not do that.
October 31, 2025
If he’s only a figurehead, why does our PM meet with him weekly
October 31, 2025
The hologram must be maintained, it was during the period when we were a slave state to the EU, that we had a Parliament and Government.
They retained one power during that time – to reassert our Sovereignty by leaving the EU.
It’s all about not scaring the horses.
October 31, 2025
@glen cullen – at the time when his(Mandleson) involvement with the same Epstein gang came about it was said that Parliament couldn’t remove him from the Lords only the King can. I personal wouldn’t know either way, but it smacks of complicity by some when its one rule for one clique and another for others when there is a similar situation
Reply Only Parliament can and the Labour majority backs Mandelson.
October 31, 2025
It seems that in Lord Mandelson’s case, his life peerage (as a baron, ie, rather different from the royal titles previously worn by the ex-prince, Mr AMW’s) could only be removed by an Act of Parliament (Titles Deprivation Act 1917, House of Lords Reform Act 2014, House of Lords (Expulsion and Suspension) Act 2015).
Any lord to be so ejected from the HoL (eg, Lord Ahmed, Lord Sewel (who resigned first before being expelled)) still keeps their title.
lordslibrary.parliament.uk ‘Peerages, can they be removed?’, 10/02/2022.
commonslibrary.parliament.uk ‘The removal of titles and honours’, 20/10/2025.
Halsbury’s Law of England.
October 30, 2025
Sir John, I have no problem with the loss of his title now that HM The King has made the decision. I just thought it presumptive to move ahead of him. However, I still feel that the pile on to Andrew Windsor was an hysterical over-reaction egged on by the mainstream media. But, perhaps that’s the world in which we live.
October 31, 2025
@Michael Staples – agreed. Assassination from what appears to be the media and a troubled girl. A girl said to be abused by her Father, then Her Husband, then Epstein(& Co) on the run from the US Authorities leaving her children in the care of her abusing Husband. Then committing suicide.
The troubling bit for how ‘all our Law & Rules should work’, is the proof, the evidence – just innuendo and profit making from those that cant possibly know. This Gentleman’s family dispute is of no concern to me, it is the undermining of the structures of Laws and Rules by unaccountable hype, by nobodies that points to a worrying future for us all.
October 30, 2025
It is all very unfortunate for those of us who support the monarchy. Unfortunately Mr Windsor’s reported past conduct to many people over many years, even leaving aside the very serious allegations made against him, have left him with few if any defenders with a public voice. He must of course leave the line of succession now.
It would be better if he retired completely from public view and the same for his former wife. Perhaps there is a multi-generational benefit in an example being made of what happens to a royal prince if their behaviour is such as Mr Windsor’s is alleged to have been. If it deters any such future behaviour by members of the royal family, the monarchy will be strengthened by the episode.
October 30, 2025
Thanks Goodness the late Queen was spared seeing this.
October 31, 2025
She sought to avoid this while she was alive, and paid off the risk at the time which will not lie quietly.
October 31, 2025
Our monarchy is not fit for purpose
October 30, 2025
A good time to bury bad news of actual double standards, and corruption that hurts the integrity of our real structures of State.
October 31, 2025
The commons vote on ECHRs
October 31, 2025
Good, they’ve done what I suggested: Removed him from the Crown Estate, accommodated him (not the ex wife) on the King’s private estate at Sandringham; removed him from his Constitutional position in the line of succession and stripped him of his titles.
Perhaps Charles has finally realised that support for the Royal Family is no longer guaranteed and their Constitutional becoming very vulnerable.
October 31, 2025
I understand he has NOT been removed from the succession.
October 31, 2025
What a shame the King was forced into this decision.
I hope Parliament keeps it’s nose out now as a result.
I would guess Starmer put pressure on the King with the thret of Parliamentary intervention along with all his cronies behind him.
I wonder now with Andrew outstead whether Trump will release all the Epsteen files, previously he would not, out of respect, wish to damage the Royal Family
October 31, 2025
The threat of Parliamentary scrutiny of the use of public money by the extended royal family was clearly a powerful influence on the King’s decision.
The first rule of the establishment is, never talk about the establishment….
October 31, 2025
As I understand it, the Crown Estate belongs to the Crown and at the beginning of his reign, the King gave the proceeds to the Treasury, for the general good. This has been done since George III but it is still the Crown Estate, not the Treasury Estate. The Treasury just rakes in the income. The Liberals and others have now put it about that the Crown Estate belongs to the tax payer. That the tax payer has to pay for each member of the Royal Family when in fact, the tax payer could be said to be making a stonking great profit out of the Royal Family, in billions, which is what the Crown Estate yields for the Treasury; while what the Royal Family gets in return, the Sovereign Grant, which used to be called the Civil List, is in tens of millions, and more and more Royal personages are chopped off it every generation.
This Liberal confusion is dangerous, because it puts into people’s heads the notion that the Royal Family is totally dependent on the mob and its capricious opinions. It is also dangerous for the King to strip his brother of everything at the behest of republican opinion polls, while leaving himself with many houses, palaces, and castles, and likewise the Prince of Wales. The two Royal Duchies are bound to attract the attention of people like Sarah Olney and Ed Davey who will make people think they belong to the taxpayer too. It is never wise to feed the crocodile, and this unprecedented action, whose timing has been so convenient for the Government, now sets an undesirable precedent. Get up a clamour and you can deprive the Monarchy of its titles and lands. Meanwhile we have taken in our stride the presence of disreputable members of the Royal Family for many centuries without letting ourselves be whipped up like this.
amily for centuriess without letting oursleves be whipped up by this.
October 31, 2025
The deal to exchange (some) of the Crown Estate for the Civil list, and the Duchies of Lancaster and Cornwall (tax free), entailed the Taxpayer assuming responsibility for the payment of the Defence force, which previously was the Monarch’s liability.
The Royal Family did very well out of the deal. They still occupy much Crown Estate property maintained by the taxpayer, although of course the own Sandringham and Balmoral (which has 100 bedrooms) privately. Those properties are inherited by the eldest son, which is why George V had to buy them from his brother after he abdicated.
October 31, 2025
The Crown Estate owns the rights to the seabed around the UK and leases sections of it to renewable energy companies for building wind farms. This income is contributing to a record net revenue profit of £1.1 billion in 2023/24.
October 31, 2025
So the Government is paying itself £1.1 billion pa. How does that help the public account?
October 31, 2025
Crown Estate = Reigning Monarch
November 1, 2025
The reverse. Crown Estate’s profits go to the UK Treasury to fund public services and the Sovereign Grant.
October 31, 2025
Dear Sir John, if you will forbear, may I as a layman, submit the following prayer as an encouragement for the Church in Britain and the wider world at this hour: “Nevertheless we, according to his promise, look for new heavens and a new earth, wherein dwelleth righteousness. Wherefore, beloved, seeing that ye look for such things, be diligent that ye may be found of him in peace, without spot, and blameless.” (2 Peter 3:12-14)
Against the rank darkness and folly of Halloween, and the gross hypocrisy over Prince Andrew, there’ll be many up and down this land and across the world who still identify by faith with the above words. The copyright for the Authorised King James Bible is vested in the Crown. Given all the escalating events in our daily news, our prayer should be: ‘God save the King, and deliver this people’, remembering that any who have erred (i.e. all) may through repentance find forgiveness in Christ (our blessed hope, and the only one who never sinned, who is now raised from the dead, and seated at God’s right hand). Remembering also that, as Jesus said to the Samaritan woman at the well: ‘Salvation is of the Jews – watch this space – it’s all there in the Bible! God is holy, just, longsuffering, faithful and love-personified withal! We shall all meet him face to face very soon, that is for certain!
October 31, 2025
Does this mean that “Lord” Mandelson will become plain old Petie?
Reply No
October 31, 2025
Looks like changing a name runs in the family and has little authority. After all the real family name is Saxe-Coburg. Or is it that what they didn’t want people reminded of that, the chest beating of the three cousins Wilhelm, George & Nicholas in what was essentially a family feud that caused the deaths of more than 15 million mere humans
October 31, 2025
More than that. The USSR alone lost 27 million in WWII.
October 31, 2025
As the second son of a Duke, there is still the courtesy title of Lord Andrew. Have they taken that way? Can a courtesy title be taken away?
October 31, 2025
As if this revolutionary strike against the hereditary monarchy were not shocking enough, I found these words particularly chilling:
“These censures are deemed necessary, notwithstanding the fact that he continues to deny the allegations against him.”
They could have been written by the sinister DPP Stephen Parkinson who said: “You may think you have not done anything wrong but you have.”