Talk:Andrew Mountbatten Windsor

Titles

Everyone has already changed the article, but I don't think that a peerage can be disclaimed in the way that Andrew has done so. Legally, he is still the Duke of York. notadev (talk) 18:14, 17 October 2025 (UTC)

Agreed. Based on the public statement he is no longer using his title. There's a specific process for disclaiming it which he doesn't seem to be doing. john k (talk) 18:16, 17 October 2025 (UTC)

Which is confirmed by Sky News[1] (update of 19:10): "Andrew - who was the Duke of York - will retain the dukedom, which can only be removed by an Act of Parliament. However, he will not use it."143.58.134.247 (talk) 18:23, 17 October 2025 (UTC)

Sky has added, "To be clear, his titles aren't removed, they remain extant but inactive - like his HRH title. But Prince Andrew won't use them anymore..."

Also confirmed by The Guardian ("Technically, Andrew will retain the dukedom, which can only be removed by an act of parliament, but will not use it. The title, in effect, remains extant but inactive, like the HRH (His Royal Highness) honorific.") [2] and the Indy ("Andrew will retain the dukedom, which can only be removed by an act of parliament, but not use it") [3] 143.58.134.247 (talk) 19:35, 17 October 2025 (UTC)

Indeed, CBC news is also making the same mistakes in reporting he is no longer duke of York. Only the British Parliament can decide on that. GoodDay (talk) 18:27, 17 October 2025 (UTC)

Corrrect Danbrigg (talk) 21:38, 17 October 2025 (UTC)

His actual statement says "I will ... no longer use my title or the honours which have been conferred upon me". That's not "relinquish". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:41, 17 October 2025 (UTC)

You are using a title that it has been formally agreed with the King is not to be used. You can refer to the legal position in the text but to use the title Duke of York at the top of the article is highly misleading. 90.241.37.16 (talk) 19:01, 17 October 2025 (UTC)

I'm not using any title. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:03, 17 October 2025 (UTC)

Correct. Danbrigg (talk) 21:39, 17 October 2025 (UTC)

The article needs to simultaneously reflect that he is still de jure Duke of York, but that neither he, nor the King, nor any official body, will ever refer to him as Duke of York from now on. I have suggested a compromise opening paragraph.

Compare with Camilla. We did not insist on calling her Princess of Wales in bold in the opening paragraph after her marriage even though that was her legal title.

The difference is that Camilla was never called "Princess of Wales," but Andrew was known as the Duke of York for almost 40 years! john k (talk) 00:51, 18 October 2025 (UTC)

This has been my point in the discussion section. He has held the title since 1986. Regardless if he keeps it or not, won’t he forever be known as one of the twelve people to have held such title? GrandDukeMarcelo (talk) 17:03, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

Abeyance In his statement it says that the titles are in abeyance, meaning they will not temporarily be used by him.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2025/oct/17/prince-andrews-fall-from-grace-complete-as-monarchy-cuts-him-loose

Yet, as things stand he could reverse that decision, (I'm not using my car today but I might use it tomorrow.) His titles will, it seems only be relinquished upon death as he has no male heirs. The King has apparently mooted that Parliament should not interfere with the revoking of all his brothers titles. That seems to be the end of the matter in regard to titles personally bestowed on her son, Andrew by his mother, Queen Elizabeth II.

If Parliament were to become involved, it opens up a can of worms for the Monarchy as a whole, realisticly in the medium term, nothing much will change because it is not in their interest to question the whole issue surrounding titles and whether the titles should be stripped from the Prince.

He remains the Duke of York. Dotsdomain (talk) 05:28, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

The article needs to simultaneously reflect that he is still de jure Duke of York, but that neither he, nor the King, nor any official body, will ever refer to him as Duke of York from now on. I have suggested a compromise opening paragraph. Compare with Camilla. We did not insist on calling her Princess of Wales in bold in the opening paragraph after her marriage even though that was her legal title. Her article name was Camilla, Duchess of Cornwall, deferring to the title used by Camilla herself and the palace. EuroAgurbash (talk) 18:59, 17 October 2025 (UTC)

Being that Andrew is no longer using the style of Duke of York, perhaps the article should change to Prince Andrew of the United Kingdom? --Zimbabweed (talk) 19:00, 17 October 2025 (UTC)

There is a rename suggestion in the section currently above this one. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:04, 17 October 2025 (UTC)

Thank you, I just saw that after I posted. --Zimbabweed (talk) 19:08, 17 October 2025 (UTC)

No, the encyclopaedia should reflect the facts, not the statements of public relations departments. Danbrigg (talk) 21:41, 17 October 2025 (UTC)

As it reported by BBC - "He will remain a prince - but will cease to be the Duke of York, a title received from his mother, the late Queen Elizabeth." - Will cease to be a clear statement that since the title is voluntarily put into abeyance, it's now dormant and does not belong to him. Meaning that even de jure he is not Duke of York anymore. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 19:06, 17 October 2025 (UTC)

Well, that's not what Buckingham Palace says, as I noted above (they issued his statement). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:09, 17 October 2025 (UTC)

Also the BBC are saying "Prince Andrew is no longer using his titles and honours, but - as we reported earlier - he will remain a prince."— so they are still "his titles". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:11, 17 October 2025 (UTC)

There's also this from Rhiannon Mills, the Sky royal reporter: "To be clear, his titles aren't removed, they remain extant but inactive - like his HRH title. But Prince Andrew won't use them anymore..."[4] 143.58.134.247 (talk) 19:15, 17 October 2025 (UTC)

The BBC is wrong -- a not unprecendented event. Andrew's titles cannot be revoked except by an act of Parliament, followed by the King issuing an Order in Council formally stripping him of the titles. This has happened before, most notably during WW1 when the British titles of German/Austrian royals/nobles were stripped of those who had participated in war against the United Kingdom See the Titles Deprivation Act 1917. There is no indication that this will happen in Andrew's case. But it could happen eventually, if circumstances change. So in the meantime, he will not use his titles (other than of Prince), presumably for the rest of his life. Cyberherbalist (talk) 21:27, 17 October 2025 (UTC)

BBC also report he will "give up membership of the Order of the Garter". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:02, 17 October 2025 (UTC)

Intro

The intro should still start with Prince Andrew, Duke of York, as he still is the Duke of York & it would match the article title. GoodDay (talk) 19:08, 17 October 2025 (UTC)

Not anymore :) Arthistorian1977 (talk) 19:18, 17 October 2025 (UTC)

The title is in ‘abeyance’ - "In abeyance" means something is temporarily suspended, stopped, or inactive, often awaiting a future decision or condition. In this case, the title will NOT be used at all for the remainder of Andrew’s life. Then it will revert to the Crown. Sophies mommy1988 (talk) 19:33, 17 October 2025 (UTC)

The title is not “in abeyance”. The holder is voluntarily choosing not to be referred to by his title. EuroAgurbash (talk) 19:38, 17 October 2025 (UTC)

While he still technically holds the dukedom, he does not use the title. For reference, the article has never opened with Prince Andrew, Duke of York, Earl of Inverness, Baron Killyleigh. While he holds the latter titles, he has not used them. His title is plainly Prince Andrew. MB2437 16:22, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

The legal status of Andrew's peerage, honours, and style

Given today's announcement I thought it might be helpful to collate some information about how British peerages, honours, and styles are revoked:

• British peerages can only be removed by act of Parliament. No such act has been passed depriving Andrew of his dukedom of York.

• British honours can only be removed by the monarch, on the advice of the Honours Forfeiture Committee via the prime minister. Individuals cannot voluntarily give up an honour. Andrew remains a Royal Knight Companion of the Order of the Garter and a Knight Grand Cross of the Royal Victorian Order.

• Andrew is styled a prince under letters patent issued by George V in 1917. New letters patent would have to be issued to strip him of the style.

The press coverage I have seen has mostly been inaccurate, implying that Andrew can and has given up some of his honours. This is not the case; he will no longer use them, but will still possess them. This is reflected in Andrew's statement: "I will therefore no longer use my title or the honours which have been conferred upon me."

TL;DR: Andrew retains his peerage, honours, and style, unless and until the appropriate steps are taken to officially remove them. A.D.Hope (talk) 19:49, 17 October 2025 (UTC)

This seems correct as a legal point, however, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a legal filing. Camilla became Princess of Wales, legally, the moment she married Charles in 2005. She chose not to use that title and nobody thought of her as Princess of Wales, which she legally was. On Wikipedia this was explained in her article, but the article was not titled Camilla, Princess of Wales. Nobody referred to her that way. Now with Andrew, he will no longer be referred to as Duke of York and this Wikipedia article should reflect that, even if parliament doesn't take that extra legal step.@ Utahredrock (talk) 21:55, 17 October 2025 (UTC)

The above is intended to help editors understand the legal situation so that they can make an informed decision about what to do, in part because I don't think the media has reported the situation well. It isn't intended to suggest any particular course of action. A.D.Hope (talk) 22:02, 17 October 2025 (UTC)

Got it. And well written legal summary too. : ) Utahredrock (talk) 22:12, 17 October 2025 (UTC)

Thank you! It's a confusing topic, so if my summary can help then that's great. A.D.Hope (talk) 22:38, 17 October 2025 (UTC)

I agree and youve made a good and valid point. Sophies mommy1988 (talk) 22:25, 17 October 2025 (UTC)

This is overly legalistic and has led to the use of a title that neither Andrew himself, nor the King, nor the Palace, nor any official government body, nor the media, nor the public will use again. Prince Andrew is both the title he uses and the name he is and will be widely known by. Keeping Duke of York is akin to insisting we call Camilla the Princess of Wales after her marriage - we did not, the article was Camilla, Duchess of Cornwall. The ‘stable’ version currently shown looks out of date and incorrect. We can do better and should do. EuroAgurbash (talk) 22:46, 17 October 2025 (UTC)

well said 90.241.37.16 (talk) 06:18, 18 October 2025 (UTC)

How do you know how the media or the public will address him in the future? (Crystal ball) GrandDukeMarcelo (talk) 23:21, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

Are you sure about that? The Crown Estates granted a 75 year Lease to the Duke of York, on his current home. That Lease remains a legal entity and the terms of the Lease remain enforceable against the Duke of York. Dotsdomain (talk) 05:50, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

There are many people who have legal titles which are not referred to in their wikipedia page title. The convention does generally seem to be whether they use them or not: Christopher Guest, Melvyn Bragg, Tim Bentinck. Mcc84mcc (talk) 07:45, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

What about Beatrix of the Netherlands. The Dutch royal family addresses her as Princess and her page title does not reflect that. In fact, it is the same as her son, the King. GrandDukeMarcelo (talk) 23:22, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

Just Andrew

he doesn't have royal titles any more, so article name should be changed to Andrew or Andrew Windsor. Villafancd (talk) 19:56, 17 October 2025 (UTC)

That is not accurate. He only gave up the Duke of York title, and those associated with it. He will continue to be known as The Prince Andrew. JasonKurth (talk) 20:05, 17 October 2025 (UTC)

He didn't give up those titles. He's simply not going to use them. Only the British Parliament can remove such titles. GoodDay (talk) 20:39, 17 October 2025 (UTC)

Not only is he not going to use them but they are not in use. Wellington Bay (talk) 20:41, 17 October 2025 (UTC)

Irrelevant, as he still has those titles. GoodDay (talk) 20:43, 17 October 2025 (UTC)

So are you saying we should also use HRH for Andrew, Harry, and Meghan even though they are longer using those titles? Wellington Bay (talk) 20:46, 17 October 2025 (UTC)

The only reason to change the article title or intro, would be the Camilla precedent. GoodDay (talk) 21:04, 17 October 2025 (UTC)

Do you have an argument for why that precedent shouldn't apply? Legally, Camilla was The Princess of Wales but she did not use the title amd was referred to instead as Duchess of Cornwall. As I recall her Wikipedia article accordingly was titled Camilla, Duchess of Cornwall. Wellington Bay (talk) 21:07, 17 October 2025 (UTC)

Re-read my previous post. The only reason to change this article title/intro, would be the Camilla precedent. GoodDay (talk) 21:15, 17 October 2025 (UTC)

Can you comment on Edward VIII retaining the page title as such, although he was later Edward, Duke of Windsor, or Beatrix of the Netherlands, although she is referred on the Dutch royal website as Princess? GrandDukeMarcelo (talk) 23:25, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

There is no evidence that he only gave up the "duke" title. His statement said he will "no longer use my title or the honours which have been conferred upon me", which naturally includes "prince" and "duke" and additional titles. Had he meant to keep his original and best known royal title, the statement would have said that. --Tataral (talk) 21:09, 17 October 2025 (UTC)

[5] U-Mos (talk) 21:22, 17 October 2025 (UTC)

@Tataral Prince isn't a title that 'was conferred upon' him, he automatically became Prince at birth. 90.244.141.66 (talk) 22:19, 17 October 2025 (UTC)

I would argue there is no evidence he intended to give up his princely title. As other stated, he was born a prince of the blood Royal, that was not a conferred title, it's a birth right. And in the announcement from the palace, he is referred to as Prince Andrew, indicating that is how he will be referred to without his ducal title. 76.229.94.61 (talk) 02:19, 18 October 2025 (UTC)

I like this argument by @Tataral but the IP is correct. By current practice, as codified in 1917 by the then king in Letters Patent, Andrew and every other child of a monarch, automatically becomes a prince or princess at birth. As far as his princely title, nobody chose to confer it on Andrew specifically, which as he might put it, would have been a "positive act." Good argument by Tataral, but a little off. Charles, as current monarch, could issue letters patent and take away Andrew's title of prince. Until and unless he does, it's Prince Andrew. Utahredrock (talk) 04:58, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

It would be Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor if that took place. 2603:8080:7D05:7200:147E:B181:8DAC:A800 (talk) 2603:8080:7D05:7200:147E:B181:8DAC:A800 (talk) 23:10, 17 October 2025 (UTC)

It hasn't taken place. This is not a forum for speculation. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:45, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

He has withdrawn the Duke of York title, meaning the page title should be changed.[6]MyGosh789 (talk) 21:54, 18 October 2025 (UTC)

Please remove from the lede

"He was the defendant in a civil lawsuit over sexual assault filed by Giuffre in the United States. The lawsuit was settled out of court in February 2022."--Justification: The lawsuit did not go to trial (eventhough 'some' money changed hands).--Undue focus, in lede. 2001:2020:303:F373:E896:F681:FA15:3BB7 (talk) 20:43, 17 October 2025 (UTC)

It is not "Undue focus"; it has been virtually the only thing the press has written about him—copiously, and internationally—for several years. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:55, 17 October 2025 (UTC)

The press wrote a lot about him, but 'we are an encyclopedia '.

'In 2022, the lawsuit between Giuffre and Andrew, was settled out of court.'--Something short like that, might be okay (with a link to the lawsuit).

The verbosity that is already in the rest of the article, is fine. 2001:2020:303:F373:7855:CF86:50DA:45FE (talk) 06:18, 18 October 2025 (UTC) /2001:2020:303:F373:7855:CF86:50DA:45FE (talk) 06:19, 18 October 2025 (UTC)

The degree to which we focus on specific issues in the biography, and therefore how prominently they are featured in the lead, is determined based on the secondary sources. As Andy pointed out, the coverage of the lawsuit is so significant that it obscures almost everything else. Hence, such prominent mention in the lead is appropriate in this case. We do not make any factual errors - we do not claim that he lost the lawsuit, we merely state that it occurred. Doing so seems to me consistent with the neutral point of view which we strive to maintain on Wikipedia. Cornerstone1949 (talk) 00:07, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

Lead wording

Separate to the discussion above about the article title, I'd like to suggest changing the second paragraph of the lead to the following:

Andrew served in the Royal Navy between 1979 and 2001 as a helicopter pilot and instructor and as the captain of a warship. During the Falklands War he flew on multiple missions including anti-surface warfare, casualty evacuation and Exocet missile decoy. He married Sarah Ferguson in 1986, and they have two daughters together: Princess Beatrice and Princess Eugenie. Their marriage, separation in 1992, and divorce in 1996 attracted extensive media coverage. He undertook official duties and engagements on behalf of his mother until 2019, and served as the UK's Special Representative for International Trade and Investment for 10 years until July 2011. He was created Duke of York on his marriage, but announced he would no longer use the title or his other honours in 2025; he continues to use the style ‘prince’.

If this is accepted then the quote in the third paragraph from Andrew about dropping the use of his titles can be removed. The first paragraph does not need to be changed unless the move request above is successful, in which case Andrew's name should be changed to match the article title. I'd also suggest retaining 'Duke of York' in the 'title' field of the infobox, as Andrew will retain this title unless it is revoked by Parliament. A.D.Hope (talk) 22:31, 17 October 2025 (UTC)

I strongly oppose retaining Duke of York as his title in the infobox, and having no mention/reflection of today’s change in the lede paragraph. It’s a title that will never be used by himself, or any official. It would be akin to calling Camilla the Princess of Wales after her marriage. The lede paragraph looks plain wrong and out of date - it will look like that to anyone reading it right now. EuroAgurbash (talk) 22:43, 17 October 2025 (UTC)

This discussion isn't about the name used for Andrew in the lead paragraph; it will follow the article title and so be decided by the move request above.

The lead of Camilla, Duchess of Cornwall (as it was then) did mention that she was princess of Wales but did not use the title. The infobox gave her title as 'Duchess of Cornwall' with a link to the titles subsection; given Andrew will continue to legally hold his titles it seems appropriate to leave the infobox as it is, although maybe the explanation in the lead is enough. A.D.Hope (talk) 22:52, 17 October 2025 (UTC)

There is zero explanation in the lede. That is the problem. EuroAgurbash (talk) 22:55, 17 October 2025 (UTC)

What do you think of my proposal above? A.D.Hope (talk) 23:01, 17 October 2025 (UTC)

The stuff about him no longer using his title should be in the first paragraph not the second paragraph. EuroAgurbash (talk) 23:26, 17 October 2025 (UTC)

Maybe, but I think that might be WP:UNDUE. Although it's currently in the news, the fact Andrew is no longer going to use his dukedom isn't that important. A.D.Hope (talk) 23:33, 17 October 2025 (UTC)

The position is different. Camilla did not hold the title Pincess of Wales or Duchess of Cornwall substantively in her own right, they wrre effectively "aliases" she wad entitled to use due to her marriage to the title holder. The "Dukedom of York" is peerage conferred on Andrew by letters patent. There are laws covering the peerage and how it can be rescinded... in his case he can't, no matter what he or anyone else wants.. unless the law is changed. This link covers it: Cognator15 (talk) 00:10, 18 October 2025 (UTC)

The wife of a peer "by law" shares his rank and title. She was legally Princess of Wales, and chose not to be known as such. Lady Louise Windsor and James, Earl of Wessex are also legally Princess Louise and Prince James but are not referred to as such per their parents' wishes. We are not required to name an article after someone's legal name. What we go by is usually WP:COMMONNAME AND MOS:IDENTITY, the latter of which now clearly applies since the subject himself has essentially given up the title even though it's not legally relinquished. Keivan.f^Talk 05:53, 18 October 2025 (UTC)

No "Duke of York" title in the infobox and no title attached to his name in the first sentence. It should be plain Prince Andrew. We did not call Camilla "Princess of Wales" in the infobox or in the first sentence of her bio before her husband's ascension even though she was legally entitled to it. Keivan.f^Talk 23:07, 17 October 2025 (UTC)

How Andrew is referred to in the lead sentence is really outside the scope of this discussion, as it should match the article title (in line with MOS:FIRST). It will change if the move discussion above decides to change the article title. A.D.Hope (talk) 23:21, 17 October 2025 (UTC)

The guidelines don't dictate that the first few words should exactly match the article title; it's preferred but not required per policy. And as the article's history shows, users are eager to remove the title from the lead. In fact, keeping it there as this point makes Wikipedia look ridiculous. Keivan.f^Talk 01:02, 18 October 2025 (UTC)

The guildeine says "if possible, the page title should be the subject of the first sentence". That is possible in this case. The wording of the first sentence will be settled by the move request above, not here. A.D.Hope (talk) 08:12, 18 October 2025 (UTC)

It's a possibility not a necessity. MOS is a guideline not a policy. I can name dozens of articles where the opening words don't match the article title with Princess Victoria of the United Kingdom and Queen Victoria being two examples. One does not include the phrase "of the United Kingdom" and one does not include the prefix "Queen". Other examples include Cleopatra, etc. And frankly, I think it's been only you who has been reinserting "Duke of York" into the lede again and again. The title is dormant and it's pretty evident where the RM is going. Keivan.f^Talk 02:46, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

It's fine to vary the wording of the lead sentence from the article title under certain circumstances, but as a general rule they should match.

As an RM is taking place at this article it's best to keep the lead sentence as it was immediately before the RM was opened; the sentence is contingent on the article title, so changing it to reflect a preferred form of the title could be seen as trying to influence the RM result.

If, as seems likely, the RM results in a page move then the lead sentence should be updated to match the new article title. I've no issue with the options currently being considered, for the record. A.D.Hope (talk) 08:25, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

Indeed the intro should match the article title. GoodDay (talk) 14:34, 18 October 2025 (UTC)

I think your proposed wording is an improvement over the current wording. My only comment is that the lead should make it clear that the reason Prince Andrew ceased using the "Duke of York" title is because of the continued Epstein fallout. The current lead language discusses Andrew's creation as Duke of York in the second paragraph and his decision to stop using the title in the third paragraph. While perhaps it isn't ideal to discuss this in two different locations, I also think it makes sense to talk about Andrew giving up the use of the title in the same paragraph as the rest of the Epstein-related discussion.

So, I would suggest replacing the sentence He married Sarah Ferguson in 1986, and they have two daughters together: Princess Beatrice and Princess Eugenie. with He married Sarah Ferguson in 1986 and was created Duke of York; the couple had two daughters: Princess Beatrice and Princess Eugenie. I would suggest deleting the last sentence of the second pragraph and tweak the last sentence of the third paragraph to say something like: In October 2025, amidst continued controversy over his ties with Epstein, Andrew announced that he would no longer use his peerage titles or the honours bestowed upon him, including his Duke of York title.

Reasonable minds can differ though -- I'm not wedded to my proposal and would be fine with your version. Just thought I'd throw this alternative out there. Aoi (青い) (talk) 00:17, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for the input; I've considered it and agree that the information about Andrew's titles is best covered primarily in the third paragraph. I've varied slightly from your wording and included a mention of his dropping of 'His Royal Highness' in 2022, so let me know what you think. A.D.Hope (talk) 15:09, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

Thank you, the wording looks good. I appreciate you taking my feedback into account. Aoi (青い) (talk) 20:24, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

The end of Prince Andrew's official trade role in 2011 was directly precipitated by public and governmental concern over his continued association with Jeffrey Epstein. Separating the two obscures the documented cause of his withdrawal and misrepresents the timeline. ItsShandog (talk) 11:54, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

I think the lead as it is makes it clear to the reader that Andrew's withdrawal from public life is because of his association with Epstein. The second paragraph covers his official life up to the start of the allegations from Giuffre, and the third the result of those allegations. A.D.Hope (talk) 12:02, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

The 2011 resignation is placed after his marriage and divorce, with no mention of Epstein until the next paragraph. That structure makes it easy for readers to assume all fallout came later. Since the 2011 resignation was already prompted by public and governmental concern over Epstein, I think the lead should reflect that causality — otherwise, it risks misrepresenting the timeline and downplaying the earlier consequences. I think we’re assuming too much background knowledge from readers. Just because 2019 is mentioned doesn’t mean it’s clear that Andrew’s association with Epstein had consequences before the Giuffre allegations. ItsShandog (talk) 12:19, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

The resignation itself is written in very casually — grouped with his official duties as if it were a routine administrative detail — which further obscures its significance and the reason it happened. ItsShandog (talk) 12:25, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

The lead is written thematically then chronologically, not simply chronologically. Whether Andrew's trade role should be in the second or third paragraph is debatable, but as an official role I think it fits best with his other official roles in the second paragraph. A.D.Hope (talk) 12:33, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

From what I've seen, most other well-developed or Featured royal articles follow a broadly chronological structure in the lead, even when they group by theme. That helps readers follow the timeline of roles, events, and consequences without needing to infer connections. If we're aiming for consistency and clarity, I think this article should do the same.

Take Edward VIII's page, for example — it's a Featured Article, and while it includes some thematic grouping, it's primarily chronological and presents events in a clear causal sequence. His abdication isn't just mentioned; it's explained in context, with the reasons and consequences laid out so readers unfamiliar with the history can follow what happened and why. Obviously Andrew's resignation isn't an abdication, but it's the same idea: a major turning point prompted by public and political pressure, and the lead should reflect that causality and that kind of clarity is exactly what's missing here.

If there's no clear consensus, maybe a simple poll would be the best way forward. ItsShandog (talk) 12:45, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

The exact form of the lead does vary from person to person, with some figures lending themselves to more chronological overviews and some more thematic ones. Elizabeth I and Elizabeth II both have 'thematic' leads within a loosely chronological structure, for example.

In this case, there's no particular reason why we can't make the wording of Andrew's resignation stronger whilst keeping it in the second paragraph, and in fact I do think the lead is currently a little reticent about just how controversial he is. Perhaps something like:

Andrew served as the UK's Special Representative for International Trade and Investment for 10 years until July 2011, when he resigned due to questions over his expenses and links to figures including Saif al-Islam Gaddafi and the convicted child sex offender Jeffrey Epstein. He undertook official duties and engagements on behalf of Elizabeth II until 2019.

The third paragraph would be tweaked slightly:

In 2014, Virginia Giuffre alleged that, as a 17-year-old, she was sex trafficked to Andrew by Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell.

I'm not sure how to retain the mention of Maxwell's conviction without repetition, but I'm sure that can be ironed out. A.D.Hope (talk) 12:59, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

"Following his naval career, Andrew undertook official duties and engagements on behalf of his mother, and served as the UK's Special Representative for International Trade and Investment. He resigned from the trade role in July 2011 amid growing scrutiny over his association with Jeffrey Epstein — a connection that would later lead to sustained public criticism and legal consequences."

Wouldn’t something like that work better placed between the marriage section and the larger paragraph at the bottom? I tested it on the page and it’s visually consistent with the other paragraphs — it’s not like everything has to be crammed into one massive block. Sometimes that kind of density puts people off reading altogether. ItsShandog (talk) 13:14, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

Based on the sources used in the body of the article, the criticism of Andrew was over his expanses and associations with several figures, not just Epstein. This needs to be mentioned to avoid giving the impression that criticism of Andrew has only ever been in relation to Epstein.

The number of paragraphs is ultimately a matter of taste, but I do tend to take the view that 3–4 are best and that a few medium-length paragraphs are better than several short ones. The latter can read choppily. A.D.Hope (talk) 13:26, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

I'm sure there's a way to include the other associations without making the lead too long. For consistency, I think it's better to follow the example set by good and featured articles. I understand that not all pages have to be identical, but if something has been reviewed and classed as a good or featured article, I believe other pages should aim to meet that standard. ItsShandog (talk) 14:43, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

I've been bold and changed the end of the second paragraph of the lead to the my suggestion above. It's reasonable to mention why Andrew resigned from the trade role and I think we agree that it should be mentioned.

On the paragraphs, I think three works well, but I appreciate you may think differently. A.D.Hope (talk) 10:35, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

I think a vote should be done on it and whichever is chosen then go with that. ItsShandog (talk) 11:05, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

And thank you for adding why he resigned. ItsShandog (talk) 11:06, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

'Title' parameter in infobox

The 'title' parameter of the infobox, which listed Andrew's title as 'Duke of York' and linked to the relevant section of the body, has been removed as part of the changes to the article since he announced he would no longer use his titles.

I'd like to suggest re-instating it, as the fact he still officially holds these titles despite no longer using them is something readers may not be aware of, especially as the press reporting around the issue has not been the most accurate. Linking to the titles section of the body is a natural way of leading curious readers to the part of the article that explains the situation. A.D.Hope (talk) 15:22, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

While he is still technically the Duke of York, it is not his title. The same reason why Earl of Inverness and Baron Killyleigh are not linked there. MB2437 16:25, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

'Duke of York' won't be part of Andrew's style going forward, but he still possesses the peerage. The infobox has only ever listed his dukedom, presumably to avoid clutter. A.D.Hope (talk) 17:06, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

The parameter is "title". It is not his title. MB2437 17:41, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

What do you mean? He is still Duke of York, just choosing not to go by this title. Same as Jamie Lee Curtis, who is a Baroness but chooses not to use it, not is referred by sources as such. Andre has been duke for 40 years, and sourced as such since. GrandDukeMarcelo (talk) 17:46, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

Yes, you're correct and I withdraw my suggestion. Having checked Template:Infobox royalty, the 'title' field is specifically for a person's 'principal substantive title(s) in use' (my emphasis). Andrew's dukedom is no longer in use and so cannot be in the infobox. A.D.Hope (talk) 18:00, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

The French info box changed it to be from 1986 to 2025 GrandDukeMarcelo (talk) 18:33, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

Agree. And even if they remove it, I think there is room to keep it in the info box as “held the title between X and Y years” GrandDukeMarcelo (talk) 17:00, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

It is not held, but used. He still holds the title, but no longer uses it. TFD (talk) 20:43, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

It should be restored. GoodDay (talk) 16:48, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

The template doc disagrees: title → principal substantive title(s) in use. With regard to the date range idea above, the parameter is typically omitted in deceased persons' infoboxes with no mention of prior peerage e.g. Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh, Princess Margaret, Countess of Snowden. MB2437 17:09, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

Edit request

The first sentence: "Prince Andrew (Andrew Albert Christian Edward; born 19 February 1960), is a member of the British royal family." That comma needs to be removed.38.64.168.161 (talk) 23:05, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

 Done Billsmith60 (talk) 23:12, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

Requested move 26 October 2025

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Not moved. I'm boldly closing this, in the light of recent events. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:26, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

---

Prince Andrew → Prince Andrew of the United KingdomPrince Andrew of the United Kingdom – The previous move request removed the "Duke of York" title, which was the substantive point of that request and discussion. WP:NCPRINCES is also clear that a country designation should be used in the absence of a substantive title, so this convention should be followed regardless of whether this Prince Andrew is the primary topic. U-Mos (talk) 11:54, 26 October 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose Per WP:COMMONNAME. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 12:31, 26 October 2025 (UTC)

To be clear on this point, my understanding of the relevant policies is that the specific topic guidance of WP:NCPRINCES aims for a WP:CONSISTENT approach, and is not superseded by WP:COMMONNAME (if anything, the opposite would be true). U-Mos (talk) 13:05, 26 October 2025 (UTC)

• Support per WP:CONSISTENT. It's clearly consistent with pages on other children of British monarchs, including Prince John of the United Kingdom, Princess Augusta Sophia of the United Kingdom, Princess Elizabeth of the United Kingdom, Princess Sophia of the United Kingdom, Princess Amelia of the United Kingdom, Princess Alice of the United Kingdom, Princess Helena of the United Kingdom, Princess Beatrice of the United Kingdom, Princess Victoria of the United Kingdom. And the phrase "Prince Andrew" will be in the name so his WP:COMMONAME will also clearly be part of the article title. Keivan.f^Talk 14:01, 26 October 2025 (UTC)

  Oppose: Not consistent with Princess Alexandra (born 1936) or Andrew’s daughters Princess Beatrice/Princess Eugenie. Shouldn’t it be consistent with living members? The ones you listed are all deceased. I support a change to “Prince Andrew (born 1960)”. GrandDukeMarcelo (talk) 16:34, 26 October 2025 (UTC)

  Those are not children of British monarchs. Beatrice and Eugenie were born Princess Beatrice of York and Princess Eugenie of York and Alexandra as Princess Alexandra of Kent. Their titles actually are "Princess Beatrice, Mrs Edoardo Mapelli Mozzi", "Prinecss Eugenie, Mrs Jack Brooksbank" and "Princess Alexandra, The Honourable Lady Ogilvy", but the community preferred to shorten their names because "Mrs [husband name]" appears outdated and sexist. Keivan.f^Talk 16:55, 26 October 2025 (UTC)

• ::: Isn't that outdated and sexist even for figures like Princess Michael of Kent or Lady Nicholas Windsor? They don't even have their own names in the title. Sira Aspera (talk) 11:39, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

  Considering they directly disagree with NCPRINCES, I'm surprised those three articles haven't previously been discussed. It would be worth looking at Beatrice and Eugenie if this page were moved, and at Alexandra at any event given the unnecessary parenthetical disambiguation. U-Mos (talk) 17:32, 26 October 2025 (UTC)

  Princess Alexandra move was discussed February this year. GrandDukeMarcelo (talk) 17:35, 26 October 2025 (UTC)

  Yep, and like here in a "we need to move from the current title" way, rather than a ringing endorsement for any particular alternative. There is definitely scope to revisit that disambiguation. U-Mos (talk) 17:40, 26 October 2025 (UTC)

  This particular change would be complicated by Princess Beatrice of the United Kingdom 84.66.136.67 (talk) 18:00, 26 October 2025 (UTC)

• Support per above. ItsShandog (talk) 14:07, 26 October 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose As nobody disputes that he is the primary topic I question if we need this. Consistency is often important but does not always override other considerations. The cases listed by Keivan.f are now rather obscure and may not have been very prominent even in their own day, whereas Andrew has definitely become a notorious figure. PatGallacher (talk) 17:16, 26 October 2025 (UTC)

  Strong Oppose for reasons stated by PatG above plus WP:COMMONNAME Utahredrock (talk) 17:25, 26 October 2025 (UTC)

• Support to a move (and neutral on whether to "of the United Kingdom" or (born 1960). Either way, no evidence he is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC of all Prince Andrews in story, rather the current assumption that he is would be a WP:RECENTISM bias. Joseph2302 (talk) 17:24, 26 October 2025 (UTC)

  I respectfully disagree. Under WP:PRIMARYTOPIC criteria, a topic is primary by usage if it is much more likely than any other to be what readers seek when they search the term, and by long-term significance if it has substantially greater enduring notability and educational value.

  By both measures, Prince Andrew, son of Queen Elizabeth II, is overwhelmingly the primary topic. In virtually all English-language media and reference sources, “Prince Andrew” unambiguously refers to him. Other historical Prince Andrews are obscure and rarely searched for. His decades of public visibility and connection to the modern British monarchy also ensure lasting significance that far exceeds any other person with the same name.

  Per Wikipedia:Article titles and WP:Common name, article titles should use “the name that is most commonly used in reliable English-language sources,” avoiding pedantic or official formulations. “Prince Andrew” is the natural, common name—accurate, concise, and instantly recognizable—fully satisfying Wikipedia’s naming policies and both primary-topic criteria. Utahredrock (talk) 17:37, 26 October 2025 (UTC)

  Good points. I find it fascinating that the community was quick to want to move on from the "Duke of York" title, although he was known by it for almost 40 years, and yet want to give a "new title" to the page. I agree it would be helpful to have some differentiation from the other Andrews. GrandDukeMarcelo (talk) 17:46, 26 October 2025 (UTC)

  Well, the pro-keeping-Duke-of-York view was in the minority. Nice to know that we're in agreement on this one! Utahredrock (talk) 17:50, 26 October 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose - Clearly primary topic. Can reconsider in the future if another Prince Andrew becomes more prominent. Wellington Bay (talk) 22:40, 26 October 2025 (UTC)

Support with Caveat - Agree with the sentiments of the proposer that the title should have that name per the naming conventions, however Prince Andrew should be kept as redirect to the resulting page as they are evidently the subject of WP:COMMONNAME and WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Rambling Rambler (talk) 22:50, 26 October 2025 (UTC)

• Support per nom. WP:NCPRINCES Is very clear that when they have no substantive titles we should include the name of the country in the title. GothicGolem29 (talk) 00:30, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

  In what world is "Prince" not a title? How many princes are there in the UK (or anywhere)? Utahredrock (talk) 00:35, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

  WP:NCPRINCES mentions Princess Irene of Greece and Denmark as an example of when to include the country and she is a princess. So the naming convention absolutely is saying we should include a country when they are only a prince or princess. GothicGolem29 (talk) 00:47, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

  "Prince" is always a title, but it isn't always a substantive title. In Andrew's case, he still has a substantive title, namely "Duke of York" – so he 'ought' to be covered by WP:NCSUBSTANTIVE rather than WP:NCPRINCES – except that he no longer uses this substantive title. He remains a British prince but this is not a substantive title; rather, it is a title he has held since birth as child of the reigning monarch. The unprecedented case of a prince who holds a substantive title but no longer uses it (and, more importantly from a Wikipedian point of view, that recent reliable sources have also stopped using) is not directly covered in the naming convention. So we fall back to standard WP:AT policy, and "Prince Andrew" meets all of the policy requirements. Rosbif73 (talk) 14:14, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

  So we agree that Prince isn't enough to not meet the criteria to include the country. As for your other point, he is not using that title anymore and the previous RM decided to remove that from the name. In my view that is enough to say he does meet the criteria in NPRINCES to have his country listed in the title. GothicGolem29 (talk) 14:46, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose, with explicit opposition to this version/interpretation of WP:NCPRINCES. Per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, we do not add disambiguation when it is not needed. — HTGS (talk) 07:08, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
• Strong oppose per WP:COMMONNAME: almost no reliable sources refer to him by the proposed title. He is very clearly WP:PRIMARYTOPIC on the basis of WP:PT1 (what readers are overwhelmingly looking for) and almost certainly also for WP:PT2 (long term significance), and indeed has been the undisputed WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT on Prince Andrew (disambiguation) for many years. WP:NCPRINCES probably ought to be updated to make clearer it applies only when there is a need for disambiguation (as set out explicitly in the WP:SOVEREIGN section of the same naming convention) – but that's a discussion to be held elsewhere. Rosbif73 (talk) 07:26, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose. Besides the points raised by others, this is a unique case in that Andrew has a substantive title (see point 2 of NCPRINCES) but is choosing not to use it. Changing the title to include '...of the United Kingdom' could give the impression that he no longer holds any peerages, which is not the case. A.D.Hope (talk) 10:24, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

  Not to get into crystal ball realm and speculation, but it is highly unlikely the British royal family will ever have another prince named Andrew, as royal names are usually a form of homage, and I presume the BRF wants to stay away from more drama. So I hear your point about the uniqueness of this "Prince Andrew" compared to previous ones. I agree it would be helpful to have some sort of differentiation from them, hence why I proposed something similar to Princess Alexandra (born 1936) page, as she is a living royal. GrandDukeMarcelo (talk) 13:45, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

  We don't use disambiguators like that unless they are necessary – and in the case of Andrew they are not, he is the primary topic. As to crystal ball territory, never say never: it was long thought that Charles III would adopt a different regnal name (George VII being the leading suggestion) to avoid associations with his beheaded predecessor. Rosbif73 (talk) 14:05, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME. There is no other major figure internationally known as "Prince Andrew" so this is unnecessary.Anvib (talk) 18:14, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose, per WP:COMMONNAME. The namespace "Prince Andrew" uncontroversially served as a redirect to the article from at least 2008 until this month (before that it's hard to tell, as the redirect message wasn't on the page; the article may have been titled simply Prince Andrew from 2002 to 2008, or we weren't doing explicit redirect messaging on the primary page yet). There is no confusion about who Prince Andrew is. The disambiguation page has but four obscure and deceased other Prince Andrews, one renamed high school, and a not-yet-renamed Antarctic plateau. Moncrief (talk) 23:13, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME and WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. The argument for WP:CONSISTENT is strong in historical instances, but not for those still alive; all applicable, living British princes and princesses have followed this format, with many holding PRIMARYTOPIC redirects—as this article is—such as Prince William, Prince Harry, Prince Archie, Princess Beatrice (still the title), Princess Eugenie (still the title), Princess Anne, and Prince Michael. In fact, the only subjects in the same boat as Andrew—Beatrice and Eugenie—are both titled as such. This is a unique case in that regard for opposing the move in present day but revisiting it in a few decades, should the PRIMARYTOPIC argument over Prince Andrew of Greece and Denmark dwindle. In the years preceding Prince Andrew & the Epstein Scandal, Andrew of the UK had a four-fold increase in pageviews over Andrew of G&D, and it is very clear to see that G&D's pageviews are largely floated by the UK's media appearances. When readers search "Prince Andrew", they are almost certainly looking for this article. MB2437 05:26, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

Oppose per arguments by MB2437. S5A-0043🚎^(Talk) 07:33, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

Oppose: he is the primary topic and that's the common name Billsmith60 (talk) 11:25, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

Oppose - Clearly the primary topic. GoodDay (talk) 20:02, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose, clear primary topic, disambiguation here is not needed. DankJae 21:58, 28 October 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose It seems that there are two views here: that which argues that the policies WP:COMMONNAME and WP:CONCISE indicate the current title, and that those two are abrogated by the more specific guidelines of WP:NCPRINCES. I believe the first view is the correct one. The guideline of NC:PRINCES is designed for when no clear common name exists, and also for disambiguation purposes. The fact that Prince Andrew was a redirect before the recent move shows that he is clearly the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, and thus disambiguation is not needed. It is nearly indisputable in my opinion that Prince Andrew is the common name, and thus there is no reason why WP:NCPRINCES needs to change that. The reason that I can say this is that WP:COMMONNAME and WP:CONCISE are policies, while the specific naming convention is a guideline. The policies usually take precedence, per WP:POLCON. While we have the option to switch the name in the case of conflicting advice, I see no compelling argument to do so given that the current title is the one which is nearly universal throughout reliable sources. This isn't a obscure article, there are literally thousands of sources about him, with the vast majority using the current name. Therefore, as with other derivations from similar names such as Queen Victoria, this should remain Prince Andrew. Cornerstone1949 (talk) 19:17, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose - per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. SpartanMazda (talk) 00:01, 30 October 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose: not his common name, and he is the primary topic for Prince Andrew (no-one disputed the redirect from that short title to him for some 20 years, though I can't find the page history to show it, just now!) PamD 12:37, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Mention of Epstein in the first sentence

This was reverted back and forth yesterday, so I wanted to come here to get a proper consensus.

@Tataral edited the lead to mention the subject's relationship with Jeffery Epstein in the first sentence:

Prince Andrew (Andrew Albert Christian Edward; born 19 February 1960) is a member of the British royal family who is known for his association with the sex offender Jeffrey Epstein.

She gave the following justification: "this is now defining to the extent that it has impacted his titles and entire public role and the perception of him, so it should be included in the first para per WP:LEAD".

@ItsShandog reverted it:

Prince Andrew (Andrew Albert Christian Edward; born 19 February 1960) is a member of the British royal family.

@Utahredrock reverted Shandog's edit, and @Rosbif73 reverted Utahredrock's.

I have not been involved in this revert cycle so far, but given that multiple editors seem to disagree, I believe it necessary to discuss it here. For what it's worth, I am sympathetic to both sides here, and this is extremely subjective, but I think I support Tataral's wording due to the extreme level of significance that is now defining of him, as she pointed out. Cornerstone1949 (talk) 19:36, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

I appreciate the points raised about WP:LEAD and the significance of the Epstein association. I'd like to offer a precedent for comparison: the lead of Queen Camilla. Her long-standing affair with Charles was a defining controversy for years, widely covered and deeply impactful on public perception — yet it is not mentioned in the first sentence.

Andrew's association with Epstein is already covered in the lead, and in detail. He has not been convicted of any crime, so introducing the controversy in the first sentence risks implying guilt and distorting the neutral tone expected in the opening line. I believe keeping the first paragraph focused on royal identity maintains neutrality. ItsShandog (talk) 20:12, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

The mention of Epstein in the very first sentence is not appropriate in any way Billsmith60 (talk) 20:34, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

I agree. It's WP:UNDUE. If anything, in the span of his 65-year life he has been known for his association with Epstein for roughly 15 years when the media actually started reporting on it. There are enough details in the third paragraph. Keivan.f^Talk 22:51, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

Thanks cornerstone1949 for bringing this over to talk. The Epstein association dominates coverage of his later life, but reliable sources still introduce him first as a royal. I think I agree that adding Epstein to the first sentence would over-weight the controversy relative to how mainstream reference works and major outlets identify him. A balanced revision would be: Lead two sentences with his royal family status, because that is why he is most notable, then a new sentence with what is most notable now. So (this needs work but, something like it):

Prince Andrew (Andrew Albert Christian Edward; born 19 February 1960) is a member of the British royal family. He is the third child and second son of Queen Elizabeth II and Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh, and a younger brother of King Charles III. Controversy surrounding his association with the sex offender Jeffrey Epstein overshadowed his public role and led to the loss of his official duties and honours.

This approach follows WP:LEAD, which calls for summarizing major aspects of the topic in proportion to their importance, and WP:UNDUE, which cautions against giving one element more prominence than reliable sources do. Unlike Queen Camilla’s decades-old affair, which has receded into historical context, Andrew’s association with Epstein continues to define his public role and current notability, so it warrants mention in the first paragraph--though probably not the first sentence. Utahredrock (talk) 01:32, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

I think this makes sense. As far as I know, this has impacted him far more than the affair ever impacted Camilla, although I am too young to remember any of that so I am not quite sure. I do think that it is a big enough factor in his current notability that it deserves mention perhaps in the first paragraph, although the first sentence is probably inappropriate. I would support your wording over the current one and also what was originally proposed. Cornerstone1949 (talk) 02:10, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

And . . . after actually looking at Camilla's article, her affair with Charles is in the 3rd sentence of her article, which is what I am proposing here. Andrew's association with Epstein seems far more notable than his place as 8th in the line of succession. Utahredrock (talk) 04:38, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

Some thoughts as a long time editor and US/UK citizen who grew up in the UK whilst Prince Andrew was a public figure. Be very aware of WP:RECENT in terms of its application to WP:UNDUE. It's easy for younger readers and editors, or those with a closer relationship to the US than the UK, to assign more weight to recent events in regards to this public figure. Whilst not minimizing the impact of any association with Epstein to his or anyone else's life, it does form an important part of only a section of a 65 year life, during all of which he was already a significantly notable figure. The lead needs to be phrased in proportion with that, as summary of the life/article, and not what is most currently newsworthy. Mfield (Oi!) 04:50, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

Fair enough but he's been dealing with the consequences of his friendship with Epstein since 2011 when he had to give up his job representing the UK. That is 14 years ago. That's a substantial portion of his life and not all that recent. Utahredrock (talk) 04:54, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

Sorry don't get me wrong I am not minimizing his conduct at all or saying it's not a substantial section of his biography. I am saying that maybe in a multi sentence lead of such a significant figure it may not merit mention in the first sentence. The lead should be a brief summary of the article. That is all I am cautioning against in regard to the policies i noted. Mfield (Oi!) 04:58, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

I agree. My proposal is to mention Epstein in the third sentence. Also, Andrew has stated publicly he met Epstein in 1999, at least 26 years ago. Sorry, still on the recentism thing. Utahredrock (talk) 05:01, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

Yeah I wasn't advocating for any specific positioning, i had my admin hat on and was just noting policy for all parties. Mfield (Oi!) 05:04, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

I agree: his association with Epstein is indeed long-standing but it is only recently that it has overshadowed other aspects of Andrew's notability. I also note that he has repeatedly denied any wrongdoing. Cynics would say WP:MRDA, but nevertheless he has not been convicted of any offences. Mentioning Epstein in the first sentence would definitely be WP:UNDUE; I think the current lead with Epstein at the end of the second paragraph has the emphasis about right. Rosbif73 (talk) 08:07, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

I agree with your take on this and that the current positioning re Epstein is spot on. That paragraph, comprising at least one-third of the entire Lead (which someone may challenge), goes into some detail on Andrew's association with Epstein and the resulting controversy Billsmith60 (talk) 11:47, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

Mentioning Epstein in the lead sentence is going too far; not mentioning Epstein in the lead paragraph is stopping too short. Mention his relationship with Epstein in the last sentence of the lead paragraph and then elaborate in the rest of the lead section in a paragraph of its own. Surtsicna (talk) 11:58, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

Regardless of where we mention it, the wording who is known for his association with the sex offender Jeffrey Epstein is wrong. He is and has always been known for being the second son of Elizabeth II. The comments above about WP:RECENTism are correct. We are not a newspaper, and what we write is meant to be encyclopaedic. He was known long before this association. That this is a significant matter that must be covered in the lead is clear, but that is not what he is known for. Rather, the association is big news because of what he is known for. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 12:10, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

Another option is to put it in the first paragraph, 3rd sentence

For more context of this additional option, please see discussion above. Of course the whole lead will need a pretty big rewrite given that he is no longer Prince Andrew. Given that, maybe we should archive this discussion.Utahredrock (talk) 20:11, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

Breaking

Statement from Buckingham Palace, on BBC:

His Majesty has today initiated a formal process to remove the Style, Titles and Honours of Prince Andrew.

His lease on Royal Lodge has, to date, provided him with legal protection to continue in residence. Formal notice has now been served to surrender the lease and he will move to alternative private accommodation. These censures are deemed necessary, notwithstanding the fact that he continues to deny the allegations against him.

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.

-- Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:08, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

Requested move 30 October 2025

Prince Andrew → Andrew Mountbatten Windsor – It's been announced that Prince Andrew has been stripped/given up the formal title and will now simply be known by the name Andrew Mountbatten Windsor[7]. Rambling Rambler (talk) 19:14, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

• Support - As proposer. Annoying in a way that we had the middle step but given the consensus to move based on the announcement previously regardless of the formalities taking place, I believe therefore per that precedent for this issue we should do the same here. Rambling Rambler (talk) 19:17, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

  He is officially stripped of his title and should be referred to what His Majesty has approved. 2600:4041:5DC7:6F00:318C:E3AA:E8D2:302F (talk) 20:25, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose and close — Too soon. Andrew has not been removed of his title yet. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 19:17, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

  Makes no sense. He has a bunch of other titles he's never used and isnt used on wiki. Youre not consistent. 2001:6C8:FF28:B8E9:CE87:59F2:C4E9:6B9C (talk) 19:33, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

  Support. The full statement from the Palace:

  His Majesty has today initiated a formal process to remove the Style, Titles and Honours of Prince Andrew.

  Prince Andrew will now be known as Andrew Mountbatten Windsor. His lease on Royal Lodge has, to date, provided him with legal protection to continue in residence. Formal notice has now been served to surrender the lease and he will move to alternative private accommodation. These censures are deemed necessary, notwithstanding the fact that he continues to deny the allegations against him.

  It's present tense. He will now be known as. Ebm2002 (talk) 19:52, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

  Support: I agree. The announcement says "now." His title is toast. 73.68.199.223 (talk) 19:59, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

  It is immediate upon the King's announcement 86.45.87.167 (talk) 20:15, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

  @ElijahPepe Yes he has. It is "with immediate effect". Strugglehouse (talk) 23:41, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

• Support - I had moved the page unaware of this request, but was reverted. The King has stripped him of his titles, and he is now plain Mr. Windsor. Mjroots (talk) 19:18, 30 October 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose and Speedy close. See the announcement above; the process has started not completed. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:19, 30 October 2025 (UTC)
  • @Pigsonthewing he hasn't been formally stripped off his ducal titles either, yet we had an RM to move the page away from Prince Andrew, Duke of York. Rambling Rambler (talk) 19:21, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

    Also I feel it better to open and keep this RM to coalesce all thoughts rather than see further disruptive moves. Rambling Rambler (talk) 19:28, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

  I strongly oppose the speedy close request. There is a difference between someone’s legal status and someone’s actual name; a difference that is at least debatable. EuroAgurbash (talk) 19:42, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose for now. WP:TOOSOON and WP:COMMONNAME will back retention of the current title. Give it a few months and we'll see what happens. Let's not jump to a knee-jerk decision just because the news came out a few minutes ago. The C of E God Save the King! (talk) 19:20, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

  Oppose per The C of E's comments about WP:TOOSOON and WP:COMMONNAME.

  We cannot know without a WP:CRYSTALBALL whether he will be referred to by reliable sources as Andrew Mountbatten Windsor DartsF4 (talk) 19:33, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

  so once queen elizabeth ii died, prince charles shouldn't had been referred as "king charles III" immediately? thats what your logic implies, cause charles has been known as prince for a MUCH longer time than he has been called king. doesn't make sense at all Mavericksones (talk) 20:10, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

• Support Andrew no longer holds royal titles. Per Buckingham Palace (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/cnveqgj957dt), Prince Andrew will now be known as Andrew Mountbatten Windsor. Chessrat ^{(talk, contributions)} 19:21, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

  The source does not say that he no longer holds the titles. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:28, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

  Yes, it does: "Prince Andrew will now be known as Andrew Mountbatten Windsor" is unambiguous Billsmith60 (talk) 19:35, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

  That is exactly what it says. "Prince Andrew will now be known as Andrew Mountbatten Windsor." Now means now. 73.68.199.223 (talk) 20:02, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

• Strongest possible support (save for a typo, Andrew Mountbatten Windsor with no hyphen). For the well-rehearsed reasons above from 17 October. Please can we aim to have a decision within the next few days and not repeat the previous embarrassing delay. EuroAgurbash (talk) 19:22, 30 October 2025 (UTC)
• Support – He's not going to use it anymore, and they're implementing a formal process to remove the title; this goes further than simply putting the title 'Duke of York' into abeyance.—Ineffablebookkeeper (talk) ({{ping}} me!) 19:23, 30 October 2025 (UTC)
• Support Strong Support Andrew has been stripped of his titles and will now be known as Andrew so I support the move. GothicGolem29 (GothicGolem29 Talk) 19:23, 30 October 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose until it actually happens. Robin S. Taylor (talk) 19:24, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

  It has. Strugglehouse (talk) 23:46, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

Support I agree with all points made by others in support of this proposal. The page was moved prematurely while this discussion is ongoing (a change subsequently reverted) but it should not take an entire week as with the one to drop "Duke of York" Billsmith60 (talk) 19:26, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

What is the standard for deposed royals or those stripped of titles on Wikipedia? There are people listed as Prince whose government stripped them of such title, which is what happened here. He lived most of his life as a prince. I think it should remain. The Stratman (talk) 19:29, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

Mohammad Reza Pahlavi is a good example. Despite being much better known as "the Shah" and that he claimed to be the rightful Shah of Iran until his death, his wikipedia page simply uses his name. The case for Andrew is much stronger since he does not even dispute or intend to challege the stripping. Mcc84mcc (talk) 20:09, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

@Mcc84mcc what about Reza Pahlavi, Crown Prince of Iran Gamerwierdo100 (talk) 20:12, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

• Support, starting at whichever point reputable media also refer to him by this name. Edit: Or perhaps the RF's official webpage for Andrew should be the guide. My understanding is that it is effective immediately, and thus I don't see any rationale to delay the naming change for any substantial period. What purpose does it serve to have Wikipedia be a lagging indicator of reality? Moncrief (talk) 19:30, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

  Support, there is no point in having Wikipedia lag behind on something already announced conclusively by Buckingham Palace. If, for whatever reason, the title is further changed, there would involve another moving of the page to accurately reflect what is the present accurate information at the time. There will not likely be a better indication of his exact title that the one officially named by Buckingham Palace. EwAbIaN (talk) 21:00, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

Support he has been stripped of the title. IndrasBet (talk) 19:32, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose This is where WP:COMMONNAME / WP:OFFICIAL comes to the fore in my view. Prince Andrew remains the common name until such time as it isn't, which depends on how secondary sources respond to this change in official title. Even in that event, there would be a valid discussion to be had around the weight to give a recent shift against 65 years of coverage, and the likely historical significance after his lifetime. Wait. U-Mos (talk) 19:31, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

  I don't understand the logic of "65 years of coverage" dictating how we refer to someone. Extending that train of thought to its furthest sense, we wouldn't be allowed to edit articles to indicate that someone aged 65 had died, which we obviously do. Moncrief (talk) 19:39, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

  It would also indicate that we should call the current monarch "The Prince of Wales" or "Prince Charles" because that's what he was known as for most of his life. Clearly nonsense. Mcc84mcc (talk) 20:11, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

  You are misunderstanding the point. RS may adopt the new name or may keep the old one, and we will follow them. RS referred to Chuck under his new name immediately; they are still calling Andrew prince for now. This topic could be revisited in a matter of days, but it is too early now. GreatCaesarsGhost 20:36, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

  ABC article Note the referring to him as "Andrew" following the first two lines Pencilceaser123 (talk) 19:40, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

  This makes absolutely no sense. The current king was known as "Prince Charles" until he was 73. Should we refuse to update the title to "King Charles III" because that is how he was known for a long time? Or should we have the title reflect his current title? 90.248.175.39 (talk) 19:50, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

  This is indeed the perfect comparison, far better than my own. 19:58, 30 October 2025 (UTC) Moncrief (talk) 19:58, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

  Becoming King is massively significant and would also be common name by default as all media everywhere would call him King. I think most media outlets will still refer to Andrew as Prince Andrew as that's all people know him as. 2A00:23C6:2ABF:801:8939:A1A3:3037:E841 (talk) 20:25, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

  Having one's royal title stripped is also massively significant, isn't it? -- Brad (talk) 22:13, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

  The King is not an appropriate comparison, because he belongs in the specific exceptional set of people where aspects of his official title are part of his article's title, per WP:NCROY. And it's very different to ascend to a more senior title, than to have a title/status removed. For Andrew, I believe given today's news WP:COMMONNAME now takes primacy. Right now, we don't know if the common name will shift, and even if it does there is still a valid discussion around the fact that his notability comes from his status as a prince, and he held that title for the majority of his lifetime. U-Mos (talk) 22:15, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

• Strong support, per nomination.

ThirdEye96 (talk) 19:33, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

• Wait - I support this, but not until the formal legal process is completed. 142.214.115.97 (talk) 19:34, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

  The announcement from the palace already just calls him "Andrew" Pencilceaser123 (talk) 19:39, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

He is known as Prince Andrew until legislation is passed and royal assent given to such bill which removes his princely titles. 2A02:C7C:F66C:C400:2DA1:943C:DF14:DAAC (talk) 19:35, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

"Prince Andrew will now be known as Andrew Mountbatten Windsor" is what Buckingham Palace says. 2A02:C7C:9B36:7D00:251C:190E:4762:A63 (talk) 21:48, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

Strong support, per nomination. Buckingham officially put out a statement. Solise (talk) 19:36, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

Support per Moncrief. ToeSchmoker (talk) 19:37, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

Support per nominator. Killuminator (talk) 19:38, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

SUPPORT Not sure what the argument is bigpad (talk) 19:38, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

Speedy support as per nom. --Zimbabweed (talk) 19:39, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

• Support It's the King's call and as far as I'm aware, according to British law regarding this specific matter his word's the final say, as good as law, consider it done... I'm just wondering, why are people leaving out the hyphen? Should the article not be titled Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor? 2601:58A:8486:2490:447:2F0D:50AF:FBDE (talk) 19:40, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

  Absolutely needs a hyphen. I was just going to mention that. I may not be right about this. Moncrief (talk) 19:41, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

  The official statement is without a hyphen therefore he will be known as Andrew Mountbatten Windsor Seb P-D (talk) 19:43, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

  You are indeed correct. The legal surname is Mountbatten-Windsor as published in the London Gazette. https://www.thegazette.co.uk/London/issue/41948/supplement/1003/data.pdf LeComte1789 (talk) 20:55, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

  Under British law, it requires an Act of Parliament (and then Royal Assent). So although this is British law still guided by the King, no, it's not official yet. 78.149.119.31 (talk) 20:01, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

  royal titles are up to the king/monarch. it's his place in the succession which is up to the parliament and to commonwealth realms.

  but his status as a prince, duke, baron and other titles he formally held are the prerogative of the monarch. 2A02:C7C:9B36:7D00:251C:190E:4762:A63 (talk) 23:54, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose for now. (a) What's reported is the process has been started not that it's happened. (b) We need to see what the RS do with it per WP:COMMONNAME. Premature. Just wait a few days. DeCausa (talk) 19:42, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

Oppose per the precedent of other non-reigning royals stripped of their titles (e.g. Pavlos, Crown Prince of Greece and Margareta of Romania) Glide08 (talk) 19:42, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

Seconded The Stratman (talk) 19:46, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

Comment: I would argue they are claimants and claim those titles. It seems Andrew isn’t contesting this decision. GrandDukeMarcelo (talk) 22:27, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

Wait It's only been around an hour since the announcement. Hujogo (talk) 19:43, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

• Wait I think it's still WP:TOOSOON Agnieszka653 (talk) 19:43, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

• Support - formerly known as Prince. Wellington Bay (talk) 19:45, 30 October 2025 (UTC)
• Support. This was announced before, as I said above. Now it has been clarified again, in very clear terms, that he will not be called a prince henceforth. There is no need to "wait" for any kind of formal process, he goes by Mr. Mountbatten Windsor now. --Tataral (talk) 19:45, 30 October 2025 (UTC)
• Wait as WP:TOOSOON. It's a process that has been started, not yet finished. I'm sure there will be an official announcement when it's complete, at which point we can move the article once we have consensus per policy. — The Anome (talk) 19:48, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

Support in the strongest way possible Jp33442 (talk) 19:48, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

Support - the palace confirmed he would be known as Andrew Mountbatten Windsor with the removal of his titles Wafflefraud (talk) 19:49, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

• Wait The formal process has been "initiated" according to the statement. It's unclear when the changes will take effect. Also, the statement doesn't hyphenate the double-barrelled surname, so the new page the article would be moved to also shouldn't. Baldwin de Toeni (talk) 19:50, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME. GamerKiller2347 (talk) 19:52, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

WP:COMMONNAME doesn't apply to royal titles. ThirdEye96 (talk) 19:53, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

Do you have a citation for that? I'm not seeing anything in the policy. GreatCaesarsGhost 20:29, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

Support - If he no longer has the title of Prince then we shouldn't be calling him prince 2204happy (talk) 19:52, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

• Support. The King said he is now Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor and that's how he will be known. The title of "Prince" is not a statutory entitlement but a privilege granted by Letters Patent, which the monarch can modify or revoke directly, without the need of Parliament, the King has now revoked the "Prince" title. That's it, period.
• Oppose - Pending the decision of the UK Parliament & 14 other Commonwealth realms' Parliaments. GoodDay (talk) 19:53, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

• Wait - I don't think any oppose can be anything other than wait. It's a case of now, or wait for whatever process the King Charles has initiated to complete or do it now. But it's definately happening. Rankersbo (talk) 19:53, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

Support with amendment. All the sources I see (including the official announcement) say he will be known as "Andrew Mountbatten Windsor". This proposal introduces a hyphen that I can't see sourced anywhere. Mcc84mcc (talk) 19:54, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

@Mcc84mcc I've left the hyphen in as that's traditionally been how it's used (including by Prince Andrew at his wedding). If continued coverage leaves it out I'll leave it to the closer to decide which variation is best. Hadn't actually inserted the hyphen Rambling Rambler (talk) 20:00, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

I think absent overwhelming use of the hyphen we should default to the form used in the announcement by the palace Mcc84mcc (talk) 20:14, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

@Mcc84mcc correction. I hadn't actually added the hyphen when I opened this, someone else just changed the RM request. I've reverted. Rambling Rambler (talk) 20:19, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME, at least for now ✦ squawk conspicuity (talk) 19:54, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

Wait. We don't have a clear idea of how Andrew will be referred to in the future. As of now he's also still a prince, as whatever steps Charles is going to take have not been carried out. A.D.Hope (talk) 19:55, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

Support but move to Andrew Mountbatten Windsor, I'm not sure why nom hyphenated it like a double barrelled last name. Coleisforeditor (talk) 19:55, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

• Support Buckingham Palace statement says "Prince Andrew will now be known as Andrew Mountbatten Windsor".Pawnkingthree (talk) 19:55, 30 October 2025 (UTC)
• Support per nomination. As well Buckingham Palace announcement. SpartanMazda (talk) 19:59, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

Oppose for now: It has commenced yet not completed. Arivq0 (talk) 20:01, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

@Rambling Rambler oppose started the process, not completed Gamerwierdo100 (talk) 20:06, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

Oppose - the Palace and BBC referring to him as Andrew does not imply that he can no longer be called Prince Andrew by anybody. It reads as a statement of intent rather than something with per se meaning. 2A00:1E:B182:9D01:EF67:588:AB3D:44E2 (talk) 20:15, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

We should wait and see how he will be referred to in trusted sources, as well as when the actual change is formalized.

If "Prince Andrew" sees continued usage, it may be relevant to keep this as the title of the page itself, while phrasing the article to state "Andrew Mountbatten Windsor, formerly titled as Prince of…" Platttenbau (talk) 20:13, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

He's already being referred to as Andrew on the BBC. MattSucci (talk) 20:42, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

As much as I despise the BBC, the fact that they have stopped using "Prince", could be considered significant. MattSucci (talk) 20:47, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

Oppose. He is still "known" as Prince Andrew in common parlance, at least for now. If that changes, the title of the article should change. 104.243.49.124 (talk) 20:15, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

Support, probably Wait for now - He will no longer legally called "Prince Andrew" soon. Wikipedia should conform to that, and the title should be changed as such, at least when the time is appropriate. Beach ball (OSC) (talk) 20:16, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

Support Buckingham Palace is clear: "Prince Andrew will now be known as Andrew Mountbatten Windsor." Yes there are still technical details to work out. We can keep up to date on those in the article as needed. "Now" makes this clear. Utahredrock (talk) 20:16, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

Comment - Turns out I had opened this RM without a hyphen but someone had added it unannounced. Have undone this. Rambling Rambler (talk) 20:18, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

Oppose Prince Andrew is still the WP:COMMONNAME for him, and for at least the immediate future discussion of him in RS will also be as Prince or former Prince and not first name last name since he's not currently well known by that name. Maybe that changes in the future, but right now that's still WP:CRYSTAL and has to wait. FunIsOptional (talk) (please use ping!) 20:20, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

Wait. Let the formal process of stripping his title be completed first. King Charles has initiated the process, but Parliament must pass an act before this can be completed. OCNative (talk) 20:21, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose for now: We should wait until it is truly clear on how things will play out. Note: comment made by an unregistered user Billsmith60 (talk) 20:35, 30 October 2025 (UTC)
• Support but without hyphen - King Charles III has made it clear that he is removing all his titles and he is to be known as "Andrew Mountbatten Windsor". The actual implementation of this may need to be delayed until the royal warrant has actually been implemented. Peterkingiron (talk) 20:14, 30 October 2025 (UTC)
• Support Buckingham Palace has made its postition very clear regarding Andrew -- Vicomte Guiy de Montfort L'Amaury 20:22, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

Strong support - Buckingham Palace has said that this is now, per Utahredrock. SandSerpentHiss (talk) 20:23, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

Oppose He's still formally a prince and still holds his other titles. We should hold off until the process of removing them has taken effect, become official. Rwni (talk) 20:28, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

Oppose per COMMONNAME. GreatCaesarsGhost 20:29, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

Support but needs the hyphen, as its inclusion is well supported since Queen Elizabeth's Privy Council declaration on the family surname in 1960; see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mountbatten-Windsor. Scott Kern (talk) 20:35, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

It's not Wikipedia's place to second-guess or do original research on an official press release from the Palace. Moncrief (talk) 20:36, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME, as news sources are still referring to him as Prince Andrew. Edge3 (talk) 20:37, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

Support Buckingham Palace came out with an official statement using the present tense and stripping him off his titles. "Prince" is a royal title, and keeping the title in an article for somebody who doesn't possess the title anymore does not make sense. Suggestion for the WP:COMMONNAME issue could be to put (formerly known as) in the beginning of the article. TwistedAxe [contact] 20:41, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

Oppose Can we just, like, give it a minute? The common name is, and will likely stay, "Prince Andrew". I don't understand why we have to rush and move the article within minutes of any announcement RachelTensions (talk) 20:41, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

The man has been stripped of his titles. If this was any other page it would have been changed and it needs to be changed immediately. Royalist hangers-on do not get to delay facts. 86.87.191.180 (talk) 20:48, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME and while definitely WP:TOOSOON at the moment, I just don't see common name changing any time soon, he's been known as Prince Andrew for the past six decades after all. Also echo the points raised about the precedent established with other deposed royals around the world. LateNightRonnie (talk) 20:49, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

So we should perhaps still be calling the King 'Prince Charles' and Sarah Ferguson 'The Duchess Of York'? That's what your erroneous logic states. Daisne (talk) 20:52, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

The thing here is that basically no one calls him Andrew Mountbatten Windsor. - delta (talk) 22:34, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

Support - Media articles are now referring to him as Andrew, the statement given by The Royals referred to him by his full name with no titles.

It is now a fact that he is not a prince. It would be inaccurate to continue to refer to him as such. Verxicon (talk) 20:52, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

Oppose per User:RachelTensions, it's WP:TOOSOON. Also, per WP:NCSUBSTANTIVE which clearly we must use extant princely titles in article titles. Even if WP:NCROY didn't exist, we'd follow WP:UCRN (the principal policy of WP:AT). Whilst this may change, at this moment, "Prince Andrew" is clearly his only commonly recognizable name. Llew Mawr (talk) 20:54, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

• Strong oppose. I could possibly support a move to the name with a hyphen, but not as it stands. StAnselm (talk) 20:54, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

Note that "It's unclear why the statement regarding Andrew listed the name without a hyphen." StAnselm (talk) 21:04, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

• Wait: Andrew can be "known as" whatever, but the real question is how he will be referred to in general so WP:COMMONNAME could change or it could not change. Let's wait until things settle and find out then what he is referred to in general. In terms of titles like Duke of York, reading the news, it seems as though the process is only starting. It hasn't officially been removed yet. This is again the same thing where Andrew can be "known as" whatever, but officially things are only beginning to change. -boldblazer 20:55, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

...letters patent issued 05 February 1960 (London Gazette, supplement 41948) specifically state the use of the hyphen in the family name, regardless of the typographical error made by Buckingham Palace. Ajpajpajp1 (talk) 21:00, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

Strong Support: The statement in full notes that it is happening today, as in now. Several news outlets have already begun referring to him as "Andrew" or "King Charles' brother Andrew", negating WP:COMMONNAME as many folks have argued. Dmhll (talk) 21:01, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

...also, he is the former Prince Andrew; why not say so. Ajpajpajp1 (talk) 21:04, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

Support - He is no longer a prince but just a man. Andrew Mountbatten Windsor. TrainFan2005 (talk) 21:06, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

Support - Not only has it been announced officially, to continue to use Prince Andrew (after the change has taken effect) is misleading. If someone doesn't know about him and looks him up they may believe he is still a Prince. It would be better to have 'former Prince' in the article and then Prince Andrew redirects to Andrew Mountbatten Windsor. The change is historically significant in multiple ways and should be recorded clearly and not just in the body of the article. Sharktale2000 (talk) 21:06, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

• Wait, per WP:TOOSOON

ShallowC (talk) 21:10, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

Support He has been officially stripped of his title by His Majesty. 2806:268:483:8063:A982:543A:66DB:EABF (talk) 21:08, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

As a rough guide I feel it should be

Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor (Born Andrew A B C) is The second else child of QEII, and Prince Philip. Although a Prince by birth, this title was removed by KCIII. I feel this covers the fact that he is no longer known as a prince in an official capacity, but obviously will always be a prince by birth. 2A02:C7E:2084:4200:11F1:6B06:7C88:5651 (talk) 21:11, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

• Support per WP:NAMECHANGES and MOS:IDENTITY. It is extremely unlikely that the palace will be backtracking on what they have already said, which Andrew himself has agreed to. He will "now" be known as Andrew Mountbatten Windsor (not hyphenated incidentally). Not moving the page would just be delaying the inevitable. Keivan.f^Talk 21:18, 30 October 2025 (UTC)
• Wait, it is too soon to determine what his commonname will be. I would guess that having been known as "Prince Andrew" for decades, many will continue to refer to him in that way for sometime. There is no rush to change this, and we do not need to abide by announcements from the palace when writing articles here.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 21:22, 30 October 2025 (UTC)
• Support -- Charles is the King. Any Prince or Princess or Duke or whatever maintains that title solely at his pleasure. Today's announcement by Charles means Andrew is no longer a Prince and should not be referred to as such until or unless Charles or a succeeding monarch restores it (unlikely at best). Certainly a "Prince Andrew" redirect can be kept. Raider Duck (talk) 21:26, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

Support As per the BBC's [8] quotation of Buckingham Palace's statement: "His Majesty has today initiated a formal process to remove the Style, Titles and Honours of Prince Andrew.

Prince Andrew will now be known as Andrew Mountbatten Windsor.". So, despite the fact the King has only formally initiated the process, it reads as if the use of Andrew Mountbatten Windsor as his formal name is immediate. Kirkworld (talk) Kirkworld (talk) 21:24, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

• Support per wp:commonname. Reliable sources will now refer to him by his new style. TFD (talk) 21:26, 30 October 2025 (UTC)
• Support As per BBC news report he has been stripped of his prince title
• Support per official change which is guaranteed to be the commonly used form going forward AlbusWulfricDumbledore (talk) 21:37, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

• Support The statement said "will now be known as Andrew Mountbatten Windsor", indicating he has immediately ceased use the princely title, regardless of whether it's been legally stripped yet. Mesmeilleurs^{Say Hey!} 21:39, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

Support as per the Press Release from Buckingham Palace that he is now known as Andrew Mountbatten Windsor. I have also a correspondence with Alastair Bruce, noted Royal Commentator and Advisor to productions such as Downton Abbey etc, that the titles etc are now expunged and he is, quite simply, Mr Andrew Mountbatten Windsor from today. Letters Patent will be issued in due course and appear in the Gazette, but he is just Mr Mountbatten Windsor, FROM TODAY. Sophies mommy1988 (talk) 21:39, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

•Support: I think at this point he's technically a prince, but referring to him without the title is the most logical course of action. I agree with @Kirkworld reading of the press release as saying that the King wishes for people to stop using the title immediately, even while the formal process is underway. HootyTheOwlTube (talk) 21:40, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

•Strong Support - it baffles and bemuses me people are arguing against this. OGBC1992 (talk) 21:44, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose — moderate — probably support a speedy close, as well. TOOSOON. Not to split hairs, either, but the palace notification clearly states that they have "initiated proceedings" to remove the title. Royal assent is needed to remove it. Additionally, it states "Prince Andrew will now be known as Andrew Mountbatten Windsor" [emphasis added]. IMO, they are saying unofficially his princely title is de facto removed, but not yet de jure. I don't understand why we can't wait a few days. MWFwiki (talk) 21:48, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

  "Prince Andrew will now be known as Andrew Mountbatten Windsor" (emphasis added). Pawnkingthree (talk) 21:56, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

Google has officially changed it 159.196.170.37 (talk) 21:49, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

We aren't Google. MWFwiki (talk) 21:50, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

Is Wikipedia still reporting that Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor is living in the Royal Lodge? Or have the editors managed that factual change yet? Daisne (talk) 22:22, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

Google has officially changed it 159.196.170.37 (talk) 21:50, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

How does Google "officially" change anything...? 2A02:1406:114:9FB0:819B:3260:1AD8:A67B (talk) 22:16, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

• Support move to Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor per https://www.thetimes.com/uk/royal-family/article/prince-andrew-to-leave-royal-lodge-2gwwdrcqb and https://www.thegazette.co.uk/London/issue/41948/supplement/1003/data.pdf SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:49, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

• Support Buckingham Palace is clear that he will now be known as Andrew Mountbatten Windsor. 2A02:C7C:9B36:7D00:251C:190E:4762:A63 (talk) 21:51, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

• Wait It has just been announced that the process to remove his titles has been started but it's not yet in effect. The move should only take place when and if it actually happens. So, people, please be patient! --Maxl (talk) 21:53, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

• Support: The Palace's statement clearly says he "will now be known as Andrew Mountbatten Windsor." The statement also doesn't use a hyphen. Khronicle I (talk) 21:54, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

  Support, same reasonIng as provided by @Khronicle I CommandAShepard (talk) 22:01, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose He can announce that he's going to be known as The Hamburglar for now on or Captain Pickles McGillicuddy, Lord of all Fermented Things, for all I care, but until WP:SECONDARY sources start referring to him in that way, he's Prince Andrew. Since when do we care what titles the world's largest cosplay society call each other? We care about WP:COMMONNAME. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 22:06, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

• Support the unhypenated version of his name, stripped of all royal titles. – GnocchiFan (talk) 22:05, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

• Support: This change is taking place and wikipedia should have the accurate name. The previous name and style being retained as a redirect is sufficient to satisfy historical usage (and of course the matter will be explained within the article, as the renaming itself is Notable). Furthermore, renaming is in line with WP:NPOVNAME. Espatie (talk) 22:05, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

• Strong support, as the title's revocation seems to be immediate. -- Brad (talk) 22:11, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

Support: To wait too long on this matter would be absurd. If the formal process has already been started, then it is not likely to suddenly stop. Wikipedia has a responsibility to remain up-to-date and reliable, and since the Head of State himself has already initiated the process to relinquish his title, it would be misleading not to rename the article. Castlemore7 (talk) 22:13, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

@Rambling Rambler as per the official Privy Council declaration, 8 February 1960, Mountbatten-Windsor is hyphenated. Utter Donkey (talk) 22:23, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

Unfortunately as per WP:PRIMARY we don't get to analyse sources ourselves, so when the official announcement today doesn't include the hyphen we don't decide it's incorrect. Rambling Rambler (talk) 22:28, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

@Rambling Rambler but the official announcement is just that, an announcement, not an official enactment, the announcement made by the palace is simply a communication to the public. Utter Donkey (talk) 22:30, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

Doesn't matter. We don't get to choose to use something else because we deem that to be correct. That's analyse of a primary source which we don't do. Rambling Rambler (talk) 22:32, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

• Support, clearly Prince AndrewPrince Andrew will need to redirect there per WP:COMMONAME, but it is clear that the king is cutting Andrew off from the family and all styles, honours and titles. "Prince Andrew" is no longer correct. Per WP:COMMONNAME, Ambiguous or inaccurate names for the article subject, as determined in reliable sources, are often avoided even though they may be more frequently used by reliable sources. — 

• Support As per above. TimeToFixThis | 🕒 23:04, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

• Support, while also acknowledging that a future technical change could be required given the hyphenation was not provided for Mountbatten-Windsor.
• Support for a speedy change. All the titles have now been removed. I'm not sure on what basis anyone can argue otherwise Anvib (talk) 22:32, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

It is quite clear that this is supported by WP:NAMECHANGES (common sense argument) and MOS:IDENTITY (we will see these name changes take effect promptly, and thus this will then apply). There is official announcements from Charles III, and Andrew, he has accepted these changes consensually.

Furthermore, all we are removing is his title of Prince, and adding in the last name that has been recognised for several decades now. We have seen media coverage start to omit the previous titles that we removed, and that move request was also successful. I think it is quite clear that, those arguing the WP:COMMONNAME argument; it will achieve common name status pretty shortly after the couple news cycles, and subsequent articles will likely no longer refer to him as Prince Andrew but Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor (whether hyphenated or not).

Again, referring to the technical issue earlier. I do agree with moving to the non-hyphenated “Andrew Mountbatten Windsor” as this has what has been directly communicated, but we should certainly be aware of the need for any future technical change, as historically this has been “Mountbatten-Windsor” as far as I am aware, and there is likely some form of letters patent or some other thing from the previous Sovereign of the UK on that matter.

Those who are arguing the legal process; we will absolutely see over the next year or so a legal process likely to start to remove all of these titles. But I can guarantee that the WP:COMMONNAME will have changed by then, furthermore WP:NAMECHANGES and MOS:IDENTITY; they do not require legal name changes.

Much of my arguments reinforce themselves, even if set forth in a weird structure, so I will conclude that I believe in some way or another, as stated, WP:NAMECHANGES, MOS:IDENTITY, and WP:COMMONNAME reinforce the decision to change the name, and I am in favour of it being changed on this basis. I also believe many others who are in support of this move have set forth eloquently written arguments as well. Carolina2k22 • (talk) 22:29, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

Support all points mentioned above plus it makes wikipedia look out of touch. even if it isn't law (yet), HM The King has the final say. 2A00:23C7:CEF:AD01:486E:4947:DA1B:1C48 (talk) 22:37, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

• Support per WP:YOGURT. There is no timeline where this page does not eventually get moved, and Wikipedia has no firm rules. There isn't any good reason not to just get it done now other than simply wanting to pick battles about it for a while before finally doing the thing that, eventually but with 100% certainty, is going to happen. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 22:33, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

Support: The requested move directly reflects the factual, official name of this individual. Filegeist (talk) 22:42, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

Support. Brianetta ^{Brian Ronald, UK. Talk here} 22:50, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

SUPPORT (Personal attack removed) Change it immediately. 76.71.72.89 (talk) 22:51, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

I would also note that "Sarah, Duchess of York" moved to Sarah Ferguson almost two weeks ago. 76.71.72.89 (talk) 22:54, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

I would also note that "Sarah, Duchess of York" moved to Sarah Ferguson almost two weeks ago. 76.71.72.89 (talk) 22:54, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

I highly suggest you strike this remark suggesting editors against this will be known as that word is not Wikipedia:Civility. GothicGolem29 (GothicGolem29 Talk) 22:57, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

• Support but resolve the mystifying issue of the hyphen first --April Arcus (talk) 22:52, 30 October 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose. It seems this change will happen quite soon, but it hasn't yet, and we operate in the present, not with a WP:CRYSTALBALL. For now, sources are still calling him Prince Andrew, and the news stories are all stating that he will be known as Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor, not that the is already. So the conditions for WP:NAMECHANGES hasn't been met.  — Amakuru (talk) 23:03, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

  false, look it up 2A00:23C7:CEF:AD01:486E:4947:DA1B:1C48 (talk) 23:12, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

• Support - the Palace statement is official as it gets. We don't need more than that. He is no longer a prince, he is now some guy. There's no plausible reason for a delay - David Gerard (talk) 23:05, 30 October 2025 (UTC)
• Strong Support it is blatantly untrue to state that reliable sources have not changed how they refer to the man. The front page of BBC news currently mentions him three times, all all three as just "Andrew", no prince. CNN's article just refers to him as "King Charles' brother Andrew". Sky news front page, again multiple mentions of him all as simply "Andrew". I have to say that I am baffled at the editors who are opposing. We do not wait for it to be "official", we wait for it to be reported by reliable sources. And frankly, the editors who are calling for a speedy close need to take a step back and consider the situation. If anything, this RfC should be speedy closed with an Immediate Move. It is borderline wikilawyering to go through a seven-day waiting period when multiple reliable sources have already changed how they refer to the man. Quantum Burrito (talk) 23:11, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

  agreed, some oppose editors are being disgraceful. The King isn't above the law, he is the law at the end of the day. 2A00:23C7:CEF:AD01:486E:4947:DA1B:1C48 (talk) 23:15, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

Wait for reliable secondary sources. There's a good chance this will happen before the move request is closed, but there is no harm in waiting a few days. StuartH (talk) 23:13, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

Oppose now, but Support when the relevant Act of Parliament has received royal assent. Keepsmiling92 (talk) 23:59, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

There might not be an act of parliament could be some other method(I do also disagree on opposing this per my above !vote) GothicGolem29 (GothicGolem29 Talk) 00:01, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

Support - Strong support as he has been stripped off his titles. We need to have the usual redirects and explanation on the article so that people know we are talking about the same individual, but keeping “Prince Andrew” as the title would make no sense, as he will no longer be addressed by that style, nor is it technically accurate to describe him that way today. Julipero (talk) 23:52, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose, or more accurately, wait. There is no precedent for this sort of title stripping in recent British history, and I think there is no harm in waiting a couple of days to see what the WP:COMMONNAME becomes. The Guardian, Sydney Morning Herald, and ABC News use Prince Andrew. Even in a matter of hours this is changing, as more articles appear to be using "Andrew" or "Andrew Mountbatten Windsor", and so I am certainly not prejudicial against opening another discussion soon (one week would probably be more than appropriate), but I think it's worth waiting at least a little bit to see what the common name becomes. The only harm done by waiting is not using the exact title of the British royal family, in my view. --LivelyRatification (talk) 23:54, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

  At least watch BBC's official announcement - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VB2eRwOp_Ck . 2600:8801:140E:7500:9CC0:151A:6547:3514 (talk) 00:37, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

Support - While there is an argument against changing due to prince being a common name, but there now no longer exists anyone called "Prince Andrew", there is only Andrew Windsor. Whatever the precise article we're putting to, the fact is this is now an inapropriate article name. We allay any potential issues of moving by maintaining the redirect, and by mentioning that he was formerly known by the title. The present article title is highly inapropriate Bejakyo (talk) 23:56, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

• Strong support - If there exists a sensible reason for such vehement opposition to this move as some here have expressed, I have yet to read it on this page. Montgomery15 (talk) 00:07, 31 October 2025 (UTC)
• Support it's his name now. If he is no longer officially a Prince then why are we calling him one? Chorchapu (talk | edits) 00:08, 31 October 2025 (UTC)
• Support He's no longer a "Prince", and reliable sources won't be calling him a "Prince" anymore, that's for sure. Some1 (talk) 00:11, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

Support - I mildly support as per WP:NAMECHANGES, as it is extremely likely that reputable secondary sources shall use the new name going forward as seen in the The Age. There is however, no harm in waiting a few days. Notconnor (talk) 00:15, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

• Support He's already been stripped of his titles as referred in the statement and in the BBC's article Coquimbo58 (talk) 00:25, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

• Support Strong Support as per GothicGolem29 - we can not call him prince anymore. 2600:8801:140E:7500:9CC0:151A:6547:3514 (talk) 00:28, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

@Rambling Rambler

Oppose - he's still commonly known as Prince Andrew recentlyryan RecentlyRyan 00:48, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

• ^ Support and Modest Proposal -- The King has spoken, and Andrew is not a prince any more. However, to split the difference, how about we call him "The Andrew Fromerly Known as Prince"? 47.154.123.198 (talk) 00:46, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

  The casing seems out of whack on your proposal here and it would be an unwieldy long page title DartsF4 (talk) 01:10, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

• Support, really goes without saying. If it's from a statement from the King himself, who has the authority to strip him of his titles, then the article needs to reflect as much. — That Coptic Guy^{ping me!} (talk) (contribs) 01:07, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

• Strong Support - It's over. The King has spoken. He is indeed "the Andrew formerly known as Prince." Catherineyronwode (talk) 01:14, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

• Support as per nomination. Autarch (talk) 01:18, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

Succession to the British throne, etc.

There's a lot of mis-informed changes being made to this article. Prince Andrew is still in the line of succession to the British throne & the other Commonwealth realms' thrones. Only the UK Parliament & the 14 other Commonwealth realm Parliaments, can remove him. GoodDay (talk) 19:46, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

I think it's only the UK, Australia and NZ that have succession laws. In the other realms, whoever is head of state of the UK (even if it became a republic) would be their sovereign. TFD (talk) 21:30, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

Yeah he is still in the line of succession. GothicGolem29 (GothicGolem29 Talk) 22:17, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

He hasn't turned into a Catholic & so far, the Titles Deprivation Act, hasn't been enacted. GoodDay (talk) 19:58, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 October 2025

Change the bottom paragraph regarding his titles and honours to the one below, which clarifies the order of events and formal language more properly.

Initially following the controversy regarding Andrew's relationship with Epstein his peerages and honours had not been formally stripped, but had "essentially become dormant"; Andrew continued to possess them, as well as the right to the style "Royal Highness". He continued to use the title "prince"; however, on 30 October 2025, it was announced that he had been formally stripped of hall his titles and honours, including that of "prince." Dylaneditorr (talk) 19:55, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

 Not done the text will be amended when the page is finally renamed Billsmith60 (talk) 20:30, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

In fairness, it's not clear that the page will be renamed (yet). Consensus certainly hasn't been reached in the above discussion. That doesn't justify delaying factual, properly-cited edits. –Erakura^(talk) 21:22, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

Agreed, but its "final" name will at least be resolved and then the focus will be on the text Billsmith60 (talk) 21:25, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

References

Mountbatten Windsor or Mountbatten-Windsor

All privy council declarations and official uses by the Palace use Mountbatten-Windsor. However, Prince Andrew seems to now be using Mountbatten Windsor (with a space) and the dash was omitted in the communication today? Is there a correct form of the surname? Rexophile (talk) 19:56, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

It shoudld be Mountbatten-Windsor per the Royal Family (https://www.royal.uk/royal-family-name) Very strange they ommited the hyphen. Some news sources already use the hyphen as they did previously with Prince Archie, Princess Lillibet, James Earl of Wessex and Lady Louise Mountbatten-Windsor. Gualtherus (talk) 20:10, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

It should be Mountbatten Windsor per HM The King and Mr Mountbatten Windsor himself. EuroAgurbash (talk) 20:14, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

Well, his family name IS written with a hyphen and was used as such in his marriage license. We must wait and see how it will be written in the future and official notices in the Gazette and crown communications. But changing a family name needs a declaration in the Privy Council and publication the The Gazette. I don’t think Andrew himself has a say in this anymore… Gualtherus (talk) 20:21, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

We have a communication from the Palace. EuroAgurbash (talk) 20:22, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

Yes, but the day after his accession HM announced his will and intent to create William Prince of Wales but it took some months for it to appear in The Gazette. So for know it is still officialy: (HRH) (The Prince) Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor [official family name] (Duke of York), known as “Andrew Mountbatten Windsor”, per Palace communication. I’m sure clarification will come in the near future, perhaps days. Gualtherus (talk) 20:28, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

No one in the UK has an official name. His name is what his name is, which is what the king has said it is. There is no ‘official’ name. EuroAgurbash (talk) 20:32, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

Yes there is. It is declared via The London Gazette. https://www.thegazette.co.uk/London/issue/41948/supplement/1003

Not gazetted, means not put under seal, means not official. As simple as that.

But as said: I’m sure there will be ample clarification in the following hours, days and weeks. Gualtherus (talk) 20:40, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

No the Gazette is an announcement of change not an enactment. It is well established in the common law that there is no such thing as an "official name" and people are free to call themselves what they wish so long as it isn't for fraudulent purposes. A person decides their name, not some little jobsworth in a government office.

Double barrelled surnames are notoriously often misspelled (I had a letter today getting my own one wrong) and it's far from unknown for different members of the same family to differ on whether they use a hyphen or not. It's clear the Royal Family and Palace officials have been all over the place on this over the years with "Windsor", "Mountbatten Windsor" and "Mountbatten-Windsor" all popping up in places either where forms encourage/require someone to write in a surname even if one isn't used or when various children have been given non-Royal styles - look how the Wessex/Edinburgh children have been "Windsor" without any "Mountbatten" in day to day use. To date Princess Lilibet is the only male line member descendant of Elizabeth & Phillip who's been born without either a Royal style or a courtesy title but the Sussexes are the last port of call for correct form on just about anything Royal so her surname at birth isn't persuasive guidance. Timrollpickering (talk) 20:54, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

His official legal surname is “Mountbatten-Windsor”, written as such, declared by HM QEII and published, mentioned on the official website, and used in his marriage license, no matter how he calls himself or which errors other people make. Changing that name needs deed poll (https://www.gov.uk/change-name-deed-poll) and subsequent publication.

Until there is ample clarification concerning his name from official sources in the foreseeable time I suggest, and will myself, suspending this discussion. Gualtherus (talk) 21:09, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

You misunderstand the nature of a deed poll. It is a record of a past decision by someone to change their own name, not the instrument giving effect to the change. Timrollpickering is correct on the law. EuroAgurbash (talk) 22:02, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

We must go with the Palace's announcement. Anything else is pure WP:OR. It's possible they intentionally omitted the hyphen to distance him from the usual name. One thing we can be nearly certain of is that they didn't make a casual mistake or typo on this. Moncrief (talk) 21:23, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

@Moncrief the official name should surely take precedent over the style published by the palace. Buckingham Palace has been known to use different styles rather than correct names in the past. Utter Donkey (talk) 22:28, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

@Utter Donkey nope. The Palace are the ones who have announced this, and we don't get to decide something else takes precedence. That's Original Research. Rambling Rambler (talk) 22:30, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

Mountbatten Windsor as the press release from Buckingham Palace -- Vicomte Guiy de Montfort L'Amaury 23:49, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

Request for semi-protection

"Helpful" editors keep on changing the name in the article. They are right, that will be his name; but it isn't right now, and making the change prematurely is a mistake. Can someone semi-protect this page, or it will oscillate forever until the change is official? — The Anome (talk) 19:57, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

I've now edited it to "soon to be known as Andrew Mountbatten Windsor". Hopefully that will stick until the change goes through officially, presumably in a few days. — The Anome (talk) 20:01, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

This has been  Done Mjroots (talk) 20:02, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

While he is still technically legally Prince Andrew until the official moment letters patent are released stripping his titles, there is precedent that he is known by the name used in palace communications, eg. Andrew Mountbatten Windsor.

For example, Prince Edward, Duke of Edinburgh was announced as the new Duke of Edinburgh on March 10 2023, and he was known by this in the palace communications and even his Wikipedia page as the Duke since that date. Despite this, his letters patent formally giving him the title weren't released until April 3rd, nearly a month after.

It seems Wikipedia follows the palace's title guidance, not the official legal one. Dylaneditorr (talk) 20:03, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

Coat of Arms

Could someone edit the description of the coat of arms until we temporarily have a new one? As he is no longer a knight of the Garter he no longer retains permission to use the Garter circlet. Also correct me if I'm wrong, but the coronet used comes from his relation as the son of a monarch, and therefore that would not be removed however. The letters patent describe the use stemming from familial relations, not the use of official titles.

https://www.heraldica.org/topics/britain/prince_highness_docs.htm#Warrant_of_Nov_19_1917 Dylaneditorr (talk) 20:22, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

He is presently still legally a knight of the garter. EuroAgurbash (talk) 20:30, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

See above to my paragraph about the removal of the 'prince' from this article. Wikipedia in the past has used the palace's guidance on titles, not the official legal sentiment. Furthermore the article lists him as having lost his Garter, ( 23 April 2006 - 30 October 2025: Royal Knight Companion of the Most Noble Order of the Garter (KG) ) Dylaneditorr (talk) 20:36, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

See the nuanced position set out at List of current knights and ladies of the Garter. EuroAgurbash (talk) 21:04, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

That position is also wrong following today's announcement. The King has began the process to remove all of Andrew's titles and honours, including his orders and decorations. Past precedence shows that Wikipedia, when discussing titles and honours uses the title given by the palace's announcement, eg. the creation of the Dukedom of Edinburgh, even before the formal legal documentation is created. Furthermore, while the title of 'prince' can only be revoked in a lengthy process, any British honour can be revoked by HM The King, and such has been done tonight in regards to his honours. Therefore he is no longer a Knight of the Garter following this evening, or any other order such as the Royal Victorian Order. Dylaneditorr (talk) 21:57, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 October 2025 (2)

Was royal 213.233.110.119 (talk) 20:39, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Skynxnex (talk) 21:05, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 October 2025 (3)

Remove Andrew Mountbatten Windsor's name as being Prince Andrew, apart from at birth.

BBC News - https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/cnveqgj957dt Prince Andrew stripped of 'prince' title and will move out of Royal Lodge - BBC News 38.52.195.8 (talk) 20:46, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

There is a requested move concerning this issue. The community as a whole will make a decision. Keivan.f^Talk 21:09, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

Lead Scentence

This morning's announcement is obviously majorly historical, and a very fluid event, however, assuming Andrew has now been stripped of his Princely title, and until he has his KG and GCVO removed by parliment, is he not infact now Sir Andrew Mountbatten Windsor? Nford24 (PE121 Personnel Request Form) 21:04, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

No. His princely rank, his titles and his honours are being stripped together. Otherwise the palace would have indicated that he'd be known as "Sir Andrew" which is not the case. Keivan.f^Talk 21:12, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

technically that's an assumption, until the honours forfeiture committee take action, he's automatically reverted to being a knight. Nford24 (PE121 Personnel Request Form) 21:17, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

True but we need a source to confirm this. Otherwise it would be WP:SYNTHESIS. And let's be real, it is highly unlikely for them to call the man "Sir Andrew" now that they are stripping him of everything. Keivan.f^Talk 21:20, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

Well his honours are not listed has having been forfeited as of yet by the committee [9]. Nford24 (PE121 Personnel Request Form) 21:24, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

I guess we have to wait for all the relevant websites to get updated, including the royal family's website. Keivan.f^Talk 21:35, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

The lead (and infobox) is kinda messed up :( GoodDay (talk) 00:50, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

Edit request

Please add a hatnote for the new form of address.

{{other people|Andrew Windsor}}

For other people named Andrew Windsor, see Andrew Windsor (disambiguation).

As Andrew Mountbatten Windsor already redirects here.

-- 65.92.246.12 (talk) 21:39, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

 Done IAmChaos 22:24, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

Reverted. Andrew Windsor does not even redirect here. There is no point in having that hatnote. Keivan.f^Talk 22:55, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 October 2025 (4)

change the title to Andrew Mountbatten Windsor, he is not a prince anymore and doesnt deserve it Garryiscool123 (talk) 22:14, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

agreed, it paints wikipedia in a bad light as well considering everyone else has already followed The King, he may not be above the law, but he is the final say when it comes to it. 2A00:23C7:CEF:AD01:486E:4947:DA1B:1C48 (talk) 22:21, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

Not done for now: There is currently a requested move on changing the title, please comment there. link Yerlo (talk) 22:27, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

Agree on the Prince part (though that will be decided in the request for move) but Wiki does not decide if someone deserves to have a title in the name. GothicGolem29 (GothicGolem29 Talk) 22:59, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

Incoming redirects for the new official name Andrew Mountbatten Windsor

Prince Andrew Mountbatten Windsor / Prince Andrew Windsor / Prince Andrew Mount Batten Windsor / Prince Andrew Mountbatten / Prince Andrew Mount Batten / Andrew Mount Batten Windsor / Andrew Mount Batten -- should exist, per the existing rediercts Andrew Mountbatten / Andrew Mountbatten Windsor and his entry at Andrew Windsor -- 65.92.246.12 (talk) 22:26, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

None of these are valid names and all are unlikely search terms. We don't create redirects just for the sake of making them. Keivan.f^Talk 22:52, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

He's no longer a prince or HRH any more! https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/cnveqgj957dt 38.9.9.200 (talk) 23:04, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

Requested move 30 October 2025 closed as moved

"The result of the move request was: moved. Clear consensus to move per WP:NAMECHANGES."

@Vpab15 are you sure, I didn’t gather from reading the comments made there was a clear consensus to move per WP:NAMECHANGES, and given this is a controversial topic on a controversial article I think this was done too soon and especially due to it being decided to be closed in favour of the move. DartsF4 (talk) 23:21, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

@DartsF4 I think the consensus was quite strong. Plenty of sources using the new name just a few hours after the announcement. No reason to believe other sources won't do the same. Vpab15 (talk) 23:22, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

It's only been 4 hours though immediately after the event, seems a bit quick to override WP:COMMONNAME to me. I note the move hasn’t been done yet but I presume you’re still figuring out whether to include the hyphen or not before moving? DartsF4 (talk) 23:26, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

Yeah, I reverted that close, as discussion is ongoing. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 23:28, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

If you disagree with the close, you can take it to WP:MR. I have raised a request to move the article at Wikipedia:Requested moves/Technical requests, since it is move protected. Vpab15 (talk) 23:29, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

Can the name at the top, where it currently says Prince Andrew, be changed to Andrew Mountbatten Windsor, as per the article? Just seems misleading. Apologies if wrong place to ask. Sophies mommy1988 (talk) 23:33, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

If you're taking about the hatnote, the answer is no. Because the current title of the article is "Prince Andrew" and the name will most likely remain a redirect to this article, so disambiguation is necessary. Keivan.f^Talk 23:41, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

Aha! Appreciate the clarification. 2A00:23C7:E88E:B101:FDF7:E214:6E88:ADA2 (talk) 23:57, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

Aha! Appreciate the clarification. Sophies mommy1988 (talk) 23:57, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

The article was move-protected per a request at ANI. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 23:37, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

@SarekOfVulcan very glad I made that request now, foresaw these shenanigans a mile off. Rambling Rambler (talk) 23:40, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

@SarekOfVulcan As I do not know what a BADNAC is and you’ve used it in an edit summary here could you explain it? DartsF4 (talk) 23:46, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

Bad Non-admin Closure. Rambling Rambler (talk) 23:48, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

Thank you, I agree. Thank you for having the foresight to request the move protection @Rambling Rambler. I hope Vpab15 stops edit warring now DartsF4 (talk) 23:50, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

Specifically, A non-admin closure may not be appropriate in any of the following situations: 1)The discussion is contentious (especially if it falls within a Contentious Topic), and your close is likely to be controversial.... 3)The result will require action by an administrator, or are expected to be done by an administrator SarekOfVulcan (talk) 23:50, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

Given the article is labelled as a controversial topic, I think criteria 1 is undoubtedly met here. And given it was going to be a move on technical request, 3 is as well DartsF4 (talk) 23:52, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

I disagree personally vpab15 has done the right thing 2A00:23C7:CEF:AD01:486E:4947:DA1B:1C48 (talk) 23:23, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

I don't have a stake in this, but it's worth bearing in mind that there's no rush and that slowing down a bit tends to calm things down. We're all here in good faith to improve the article, and, while I do understand the urge to move quickly, in a month's time it won't matter if this move discussion took four hour or a couple of days. A.D.Hope (talk) 00:11, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

TBH, the page should've been restored to before the latest news & protected. That way, editors could iron out the details 'here'. GoodDay (talk) 00:53, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

I'd support that. Utahredrock (talk) 01:03, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

The last name is hyphenated

Hi! If the page gets redirected, the new should be "Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor". See the article Mountbatten-Windsor. Puisque (talk) 23:42, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

I agree. Sophies mommy1988 (talk) 23:58, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

Removal of title from this page

Please remove the Prince from this page. He is henceforth to be known as Mr Andrew Mountbatten Windsor. End of story. This needs to updated urgently. The only thing that the commonwealth might still discuss is his place in the order of succession. 217.155.106.175 (talk) 23:46, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

There is a request for move above that will decide this. GothicGolem29 (GothicGolem29 Talk) 23:53, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

I agree! Sophies mommy1988 (talk) 23:58, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

Chaos

The editing for his article has become chaotic. It really needs a higher level of protection. I'd do it, but I'm also editing it and !voting. Help? Moncrief (talk) 00:10, 31 October 2025 (UTC)