Protecting the Prince: did Prince Andrew’s former royal status protect him from the full force of the law?

Keira Pearce

On the 30^th of October, Buckingham Palace released a statement revealing King Charles had initiated a process to remove the Style, Titles and Honours of Prince Andrew, meaning that he will now be known as Andrew Mountbatten Windsor. This came over a decade after allegations that he sexually assaulted Virginia Guiffre on three separate occasions when she was under eighteen first emerged in court documents in Florida relating to convicted child sex offender Jeffery Epstein. The Guardian reported that this decision came as a result of growing controversy around Andrew’s links to Epstein, which heightened after the posthumous publication of Guiffre’s memoir.

The British public has been widely receptive to this decision, with YouGov reporting that 91% of the public had a negative opinion of Andrew in October. But, while undoubtedly embarrassing, the question must be asked whether this is truly enough ‘justice’ for his victim.

In 2021, Guiffre filed a lawsuit against Andrew in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, citing ‘sexual assault and intentional infliction of emotional distress’. In February of 2022, they reached an out-of-court settlement, meaning that Andrew has never had to testify under oath about his relationship with Guiffre, nor be cross-examined about his story. After the lawsuit was filed, the Metropolitan Police decided not to launch a criminal investigation into the allegations against him in the UK. They have upheld this decision in subsequent reviews. However, they have stated that if new credible evidence were to emerge in the future, he could still be subject to a criminal investigation in the UK.

Unlike the late Queen, Prince Andrew never had sovereign immunity from criminal investigation, however, given the Royal Family’s close ties to the Metropolitan Police – their personal security and protection units are part of the Metropolitan Police – it is difficult to believe that this was a fully impartial decision and not in part dictated by wanting to protect the reputation of the family, especially given that a US judge ruled that there was enough evidence against Andrew to allow the civil case to proceed. It is hard to imagine what ‘new credible evidence’ could be found to push them into launching a formal criminal investigation against him – especially with Epstein and Giuffre now both deceased.

After the removal of his titles, several British royal’s experts seemed to believe that Andrew was now more vulnerable in the eyes of the law, with British broadcaster and photographer Helena Chard suggested that Andrew is now ‘vulnerable to charges being made against him’ as his is no longer protected by his royal status. Furthermore, British royals expert Hilary Fordwich suggested that although the route to Andrew being arrested or charged remains reliant upon evidentiary developments, the ‘removal of royal styles and titles was a formal barrier that gave him a degree of protection.’

However, earlier this month, Andrew was asked by Democrats in US Congress to sit for an interview in front of the congressional committee investigating the Epstein case on the grounds that they believe that he may ‘possess knowledge of his activities’ which are relevant to their investigation. The committee does not have the power to compel Andrew to appear in front of them, but UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer suggested that ‘anybody who has relevant information should always be willing to give it to whatever inquiries need that information’. Despite this, given his reluctance to testify in court, it seems unlikely that Andrew will agree to appear in front of the committee, and thus will not face public scrutiny of his actions.

There is a want for Andrew to face consequences for his actions – especially as public opinion of him continues to deteriorate. I believe that this is also a result of public support for the monarchy as a whole decreasing, as they are increasingly seen as out of touch and privileged, especially while the rest of the country battles a cost-of-living crisis. The National Centre for Social Research, in their British Social Attitudes survey, found that 59% of younger people aged 16-34 supported an elected head of state, rather than the continuation of the monarchy, and that the proportion of people who view the monarchy as ‘very or quite important’ has fallen from 86% of people in 1983 to just 51% of people in 2025.

The more senior royal officials, such as King Charles or Prince William seem aware that having Andrew in the ‘inner circle’ of working royals does not help public opinion of them as a contingent, thus the removal of his titles. However, ultimately, this is a purely ceremonial decision, with no legal consequences, and therefore Andrew, in the eyes of the public, remains a privileged, upper-class man who can escape allegations of sexual abuse by wielding the power of his family and his status.

In my view, part of the reason much of the public would like to see Andrew prosecuted is less about his specific actions, and more about what it would represent. Jeffery Epstein and his associates – mostly powerful, upper-class men - sex trafficked and abused dozens of young women and girls, however, following Epstein’s suicide in 2019, the only person who has been held criminally responsible for these crimes is the lone woman who seemed to be vastly involved – Ghislaine Maxwell. The Epstein affair as a whole serves as a reminder that powerful men, more often than not, do not have their lives ruined by sexual abuse allegations, and can continue to live in property funded by the King, or act as the President of the United States.