Jump to content

Talk:Andrew Mountbatten Windsor

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by DeCausa (talk | contribs) at 19:44, 1 November 2025 (→Refer to him as "Andrew" in the text through the article rather than his new surname). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
‹ The template below (Controversial) is being considered for merging with Controversial issues. See templates for discussion to help reach a consensus. ›

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
The mention of Epstein in the very first sentence is not appropriate in any way Billsmith60 (talk) 20:34, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
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.fTalk 22:51, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Requested move 30 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: moved. I'm closing this early because even though it's only been 45 hours since the requested move was proposed, over 200 accounts/IPs have commented and the discussion is soaking up editor time that could be used more productively. Even not counting the IPs/new accounts, over 140 editors support the move and some 40 or thereabouts oppose it. This is more than enough commentary to gauge consensus. Since there is substantive and substantial opposition, this is not anywhere near a snow close, but it is nevertheless clear that the consensus of the community is to move the page. DrKay (talk) 16:57, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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[1]. Rambling Rambler (talk) 19:14, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
The statement from the palace states, "Prince Andrew will now be known as Andrew Mountbatten Windsor.". This seems to indicate that this is of immediate effect. For that reason, while he may not yet have been formally stripped of his titles, I believe it is appropriate that his official name be regarded as "Andrew Mountbatten Windsor" according to the proclamation. NateNate60 (talk) 05:34, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
WP:COMMONNAME is about how people are referred to, not whether the legal paperworks has been completed yet. When someone gets married, when someone transitions, there's no need to hold up renaming their article until the legal paperwork is filed and certified; in fact, we as editors frequently don't have access to that information, you only have access to the public announcement. This has been publicly announced. Many reliable sources have already dropped the "Prince", and started using "Andrew Mountbatten Windsor" instead. There's no reason to believe that others won't follow. — λ (talk | contribs) 16:14, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
Actually, we can, with great confidence. Beyond the current news cycle, a reliable source is not going to refer to someone who they know is not a prince, as a prince. They would definitionally be unreliable if they did. 212.56.116.42 (talk) 04:03, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
Charles became the King the moment the Queen died - not when he was officially crowned months later, not when he was formally proclaimed to be King. So it was appropriate to refer to him as King Charles III immediately it was known his mother had died.M.J.E. (talk) 06:54, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly. The only question was what were to be his regnal name, and from that we automatically get the number. Some decide to continue to go by their "old" name, Charles (III) and Elizabeth (II) for example. But some elect to change their name such as George VI, who used to be Albert. Charles was king in his own right from the moment his predecessor, his mother, died. "The king is dead, long live the king" as the old saying goes.
And in this situation we have a message from the crown of what name Andrew will go by. Not as prince Andrew but as Andrew Mountbatten Windsor, all in accordance with a letters patent made by elizabeth II regarding the name of her non-royal descendants. 31.208.186.132 (talk) 09:10, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Charles was directly to be called king, as that title was never in question. The only question was what his regnal name and thus also number would be. Which was soon cleared up by a message from Buckingham Palace. It was "king Charles, but we dont yet know if he will go by charles or take another name" and became "king Charles III".
With Andrew we got the message of what he was to be called directly. 31.208.186.132 (talk) 09:13, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is not a WP:CRYSTAL situation. The new name has been announced. Reliable sources are already using it. There is no need to wait for the paperwork to all be signed, his name has changed and the paperwork is merely a formality. — λ (talk | contribs) 16:14, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
@Mcc84mcc what about Reza Pahlavi, Crown Prince of Iran Gamerwierdo100 (talk) 20:12, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You can't expect consistency in these matters. Everyone here does as they see fit. That's just how Wikipedia is. StTropez83 (talk) 07:21, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
But that's the beauty of discussions about such matters. You will always find a precedent for your opinion. ;-) StTropez83 (talk) 07:22, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Wilhelm II who abdicated is an example of the opposite (Abdicated). I could also mention Napoleon who actually abdicated twice. But the best evidence of the opposite is Ernest Augustus, Crown Prince of Hanover who was one of the last group of people who lost titles in WW1 but his British titles are lised here. (I honestly don't care which is decided but I merely point out that there doesn't appear to be a consistent Wikipedia-wide policy). 78.149.119.31 (talk) 18:28, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Adolphus Cambridge, 1st Marquess of Cambridge and his son George Cambridge, 2nd Marquess of Cambridge could potenmtially be good examples as well. GrandDukeMarcelo (talk) 13:37, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
To be fair, Khomeini's article does not use Ayatollah, either, despite that being the commonly referred name. - OmegaAOL (talk page, and contribs) 12:17, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Japan's Princess Mako of Akishino's article was renamed to Mako Komuro in 2021, when she lost her title due to marriage. Jona☎ 20:23, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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. <<—— [31 Oct edit: Welp, his page has been deleted permanently from the RF website, so maybe can't go by that.] 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)[reply]
    Agree. The BBC, Guardian, Telegraph, Times, Independent, CNN, ABC, NBC, Washington Post, Reuters and AP all now refer to him as "Andrew" rather than "Prince Andrew". I have no idea why we are waiting on this. Mcc84mcc (talk) 13:44, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • Support he has been stripped of the title. IndrasBet (talk) 19:32, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
So what did you mean when you said "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"? Mcc84mcc (talk) 21:57, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have seen sources referring to him as "Ex-Prince Andrew" GrandDukeMarcelo (talk) 13:38, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
ABC article Note the referring to him as "Andrew" following the first two lines Pencilceaser123 (talk) 19:40, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Having one's royal title stripped is also massively significant, isn't it? -- Brad (talk) 22:13, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
The policies you cite are not clean fits in the way they normally might be with respect to a name change situation. That's not a criticism - it's impossible to do, whether supporting or opposing. We didn't write narrow, specific policies and guidelines that were anticipating this. We are therefore in a sufficiently exceptional situation that higher level policies like BLP, WP:V and so on are the more sensible starting points.
If a source were to refer to a living person by a princely title which they do not hold nor assert that they hold, subsequent to the news cycle communicating the removal of title and change of name, can it be considered a reliable source with respect to the Royal Family? Doubtful at best. Therefore, under BLP and less importantly MOS:IDENTITY, I would suggest that this change is definitely going to happen either now or within the next few months.
The more viable question is whether it should happen within the next week (that's the timeframe in which the discussion is slated for), or whether we should wait a few months (therefore opposing now), and what the advantages and disadvantages of each of these timeframes are.
If we jump too soon with the move, are we misinforming or seeking to set a trend? We're in the clear there. Are we confusing? Given how front-and-centre the news story is, few who are interested in the subject matter would be confused by the name change; the redirect and the first line of the article should cover the rest.
Conversely, if we wait "too long" for the move, are we going against the grain on the prevailing current usage? Yes, unquestionably, because beyond this news cycle any future source calling him "Prince Andrew" would definitionally be of questionable reliability.
So for me, on balance we should do the move within the lifetime of this discussion - i.e. within a week, per BLP. 212.56.116.42 (talk) 06:38, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely perfect analogy. 136.29.78.121 (talk) 16:53, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The announcement from the palace already just calls him "Andrew" Pencilceaser123 (talk) 19:39, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
"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)[reply]
I like "now". It strongly states at what time the change will go into effect. And that time was yesterday (as of writing this) 31.208.186.132 (talk) 09:16, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ther are sources calling him "Ex-Prince Andrew". What shall we do in this case? GrandDukeMarcelo (talk) 13:40, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Seconded The Stratman (talk) 19:46, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
Those are claimants, Andrew is not. You will also notice that, in Margareta's case, she was born after King Michael was forced to abdicate a second (and final) time. - OmegaAOL (talk page, and contribs) 12:32, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The counterargument to this is Mako Komuro whose article removed her princess title when it was taken from her upon marrying a commoner. It strikes me the crucial distinction is whether the individual remains a claimant. Pavlos claims that he has a title and uses it. Andrew and Mako do not. Mcc84mcc (talk) 13:48, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
WP:COMMONNAME doesn't apply to royal titles. ThirdEye96 (talk) 19:53, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have a citation for that? I'm not seeing anything in the policy. GreatCaesarsGhost 20:29, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I would agree with ThirdEye By deduction. It's extremely rare for a living non-monarch's title to be stripped when said title was significant enough for Wikipedia to use it in the article name. But, in such a scenario, a reliable source cannot refer to the man primarily as "Prince Andrew" after this news cycle, because even if they deduced it's the name most of their audience know him by (we don't know this as we can't predict the future but it's not unreasonable to guess they might), if a source used a title he does not hold and which no serious source could claim not to know he holds, their reliability with regards to the Royal Family would come into question for Wikipedia's reliable source purposes. 212.56.116.42 (talk) 06:08, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
a) that has nothing to do with the claim that COMMONNAME doesn't apply to royals. it does. b) You are arguing we should ignore COMMONNAME, which is a policy. If he is commonly known as Prince Andrew, that is what we call him. We are not suggesting he is legally a prince anymore than we are saying Dana Owens is a queen. GreatCaesarsGhost 12:40, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not arguing it, I'm stating outright that it doesn't apply because COMMONNAME is "determined by its prevalence in a significant majority of independent, reliable, English-language sources". One hundred per cent of which, after this cycle ends in the next 24 hours, will do so, because to attach to him a title he neither has nor claims to have, would be disinformation. If you believe that our policies on BLP and reliability don't apply because COMMONNAME is a cute shortcut no matter how inconvenient what it actually says is to your argument... well that's not a reflection on what I'm saying. 212.56.116.42 (talk) 13:50, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Take five seconds to read those policies before you pervert them. And COMMONNAME is a policy. GreatCaesarsGhost 19:32, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
So is NPA. You have outright stated that I haven't read them and instead chosen to pervert them, which is patently false given that I've literally quoted it to develop my argument. Strike the first sentence above and I'll consider it inadvertent. I understand. You're not satisfied with where the discussion is headed, we're all humans, I'm perfectly happy to shake hands and move on, but please retract it as it's plainly untrue. 212.56.116.42 (talk) 22:17, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As to the latter sentence, COMMONNAME is a policy. I called it a cute link because the fact that it's a well fitted shortcut to the argument you're trying to develop, does not in and of itself make it the policy that clinches your argument. As I've literally explained, through direct quotation of the policy and explaining why "Prince Andrew" would be unable to satisfy this policy... to which you chose to accuse me of perverting policies without reading them. 212.56.116.42 (talk) 22:17, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bellefromhelle (talk • contribs) 19:52, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - Pending the decision of the UK Parliament & 14 other Commonwealth realms' Parliaments. GoodDay (talk) 19:53, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
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)[reply]
He's already being referred to as Andrew on the BBC. MattSucci (talk) 20:42, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
  • Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME, as news sources are still referring to him as Prince Andrew. Edge3 (talk) 20:37, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    ...in the specific context of communicating this. Reliable sources won't outside of that context, and I can say that with certainty because to ascribe a title to him that he doesn't have nor claim to have, would render them unreliable. 212.56.116.42 (talk) 07:43, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
"Royalist"? The king stripped his titles, surely the "royalist" stance would be to immediately conform to the whims of the reigning king without waiting to see whether the common name changes... HumbleSolipsist1 (talk) 20:44, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The BBC, Guardian, Telegraph, Times, Independent, CNN, ABC, NBC, Washington Post, Reuters and AP all now refer to him as "Andrew" rather than "Prince Andrew". Do you still stand by this? Mcc84mcc (talk) 13:50, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
The thing here is that basically no one calls him Andrew Mountbatten Windsor. - delta (talk) 22:34, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Think of it this way, Charles was upgraded to a higher title, that he would be known as for the rest of his life. Andrew already is known as “Prince Andrew” for 65 years.
I wonder if the “Edward VIII” case is applicable here. However, and I know I’m contradicting myself here, there is the WW2 precedent. GrandDukeMarcelo (talk) 09:53, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Here's the problem - people take the shorthand "COMMONNAME" literally with no context.
COMMONNAME specifically refers to what reliable sources refer to him as, not the man or woman on the street or on [insert social media platform here]. In a rare exception to the principle of CRYSTALBALL, it can be said with absolute certainty that one hundred per cent of reliable sources will, outside of the cycle of communicating this change, refer to him as Andrew Mountbatten Windsor. To refer to him as "Prince Andrew" would definitionally render them unreliable, as no credible source could fail to be aware of the fact that he is neither a prince nor claims to be one. 212.56.116.42 (talk) 07:41, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The BBC, Guardian, Telegraph, Times, Independent, CNN, ABC, NBC, Washington Post, Reuters and AP all now refer to him as "Andrew" rather than "Prince Andrew". Do you still stand by this? Mcc84mcc (talk) 13:51, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
Firstly, thanks for being one of the few opposes to give a good reason for their position, I respect why you came to this conclusion. For me, WP:V trumps the things you cite here. Ordinarily this would be a nonsense thing to say, as this would be a circular, longform way of citing COMMONNAME and then trying to say "well, it's on my side not yours"... which would just be lazy and childish.
Alas, the subject in question is a living person who is in the highly unusual position of having been stripped of a title which belonged in their biography's article name. Definitionally a reliable source cannot (after this news cycle, obviously to break the news of the change they have to use the before and after) refer to him as "Prince Andrew" without the source's reliability falling into question, therefore citing WP:V directly is appropriate here as a reason to support the move, in a way it would not ordinarily be. 212.56.116.42 (talk) 06:01, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note that "It's unclear why the statement regarding Andrew listed the name without a hyphen." StAnselm (talk) 21:04, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • ...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)[reply]
...also, he is the former Prince Andrew; why not say so. Ajpajpajp1 (talk) 21:04, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • Support - He is no longer a prince but just a man. Andrew Mountbatten Windsor. TrainFan2005 (talk) 21:06, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • Wait, per WP:TOOSOON ShallowC (talk) 21:10, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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.fTalk 21:18, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • Support As per the BBC's [2] 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)[reply]
  • Support per wp:commonname. Reliable sources will now refer to him by his new style. TFD (talk) 21:26, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support As per BBC news report[1] he has been stripped of his prince title — Preceding unsigned comment added by Richardh1976 (talk • contribs) 21:30, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per official change which is guaranteed to be the commonly used form going forward AlbusWulfricDumbledore (talk) 21:37, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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. MesmeilleursSay Hey! 21:39, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • Strong Support - it baffles and bemuses me people are arguing against this. OGBC1992 (talk) 21:44, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
"Prince Andrew will now be known as Andrew Mountbatten Windsor" (emphasis added). Pawnkingthree (talk) 21:56, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"Will now be known" 2001:14BA:A037:CE00:58FA:DFB0:8E02:6E27 (talk) 06:04, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Google has officially changed it 159.196.170.37 (talk) 21:49, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We aren't Google. MWFwiki (talk) 21:50, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
How does Google "officially" change anything...? 2A02:1406:114:9FB0:819B:3260:1AD8:A67B (talk) 22:16, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Additional comment providing newer context in support, since my original comment in support of the name change, I would also like to note that we are starting to see evidence of exactly what I have stated, that the WP:COMMONNAME will now omit the title of "Prince":
I am sure we are seeing many other sources across the world that are reflecting this, and that there will be many more over the next wee while.
All of this is unlike older sources prior to the title stripping, which usually continually state "Prince Andrew". It is clear we are seeing a new WP:COMMONNAME. I would argue that WP:IAR/WP:5P5 also applies here. Not moving the page to reflect the new WP:COMMONNAME, purely because it is to soon or there hasn't been any "legal change" (ignoring that this doesn't actually fall under WP:COMMONNAME prevents the maintenance of a living encyclopaedia, preventing us from improving Wikipedia (WP:BURO). Carolina2k22 • (talk) 07:01, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
Just a reminder that this discussion is slated to take seven days, unless the consensus is so clear and overwhelming that it should happen sooner. This should take care of your concerns. 212.56.116.42 (talk) 07:21, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe we can go with "Andrew Mountbatten Windsor, formerly Prince Andrew..."--ZKang123 (talk · contribs) 02:13, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. His title has been striped away immediately.--ZKang123 (talk · contribs) 02:13, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: I believe the confusion comes from the Buckingham Palace statement itself, where it claims the King is both initiating a change, but Prince Andrew will now be known as Andrew Mountbatten Windsor. The ambiguity leads to confusion. As he is still listed as "Prince Andrew" by the Royal Household at www.royal.uk, I submit that we should wait until those changes have been made before we change the title of the wikipedia article. SaoirseSea (talk) 02:14, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Respectfully, I don't think that equals ambiguity. It's just the reality. Charles is saying, this is his name now and we're working out the paperwork. Utahredrock (talk) 02:19, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's the fact that they're still working out the paperwork that leads to ambiguity. SaoirseSea (talk) 02:29, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The ambiguity you imply in good faith does not exist. The change is the entire process of everything that has been announced - for instance the King can't on decree get soldiers or bailiffs to immediately evict someone with a lawful lease, however unpaletable the continuation of that lease was, therefore that part is something that's in progress. But that he will "now" be known as Andrew Mountbatten Windsor is unambiguous in relation to the specifics of what we're discussing. If the name change were part of a process which is unfinished, the word "thereafter" or "then" would have been used in place of "now". 212.56.116.42 (talk) 07:19, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per other arguments 146.7.15.80 (talk) 02:46, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Andrew is in a period of transition. The end result will be that his prince hood is stripped regardless. To wait to change because it hasn't happened yet would be the same as saying that because a trans person had not legally changed their name yet, we should continue to dead name them since they were still waiting on paperwork. In both situations it's a done deal, and is just a matter of formality. The Palace won't be issuing a statement when the process is complete as the statement issued today is clear- he is to be referred to without the title of Prince effective immediately. 2601:603:A81:6FF0:3563:F3BB:9A5A:51D7 (talk) 02:49, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - His new name, legally, is now no longer Prince Andrew, and therefore should be represented as such on Wikipedia. Wheatley2 (speak to me) (watch me) 03:02, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: The announcement appears to be a Royal Censure, and so does seem to be effective immedietly. Parliment will still have to strip him of the tile of Duke of York as that is a peerage title, but otherwise, it's within the King's power to strip a royal title. ^_^ ^_^ (talk) 02:30, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I've already made my argument, however, I thought it worth knowing that the media's concluding articles following the announcement. The articles following the announcement have been rather explicit in referring to Andrew without titles. The BBC: "Is this finally rock bottom for Mr Andrew Mountbatten Windsor?", "King's statement on Andrew in full". Similiarly the Times, "Andrew stripped of ‘prince’ title and will leave Royal Lodge". However, the Guardian still uses the titles; "Prince Andrew to be stripped of titles and forced to leave Windsor home". The Telegraph seems to be hedging its bets "King strips Prince Andrew [...]", "The disgraced former Duke of York will be known as Andrew Mountbatten Windsor, Buckingham Palace has announced". So maybe it may too soon to call, but it seems to be going in the direction of him being known simply as "Andrew" and thus Andrew Mountbatten Windsor. Forgive me for not providing links, but I am pushed for time. However, I hope the Wayback Machine is keeping up with the lively situation. Kirkworld (talk) 03:21, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. I'm astonished that nobody has yet quoted this bit of WP:NCROY: Do not use hypothetical, dissolved or defunct titles. Since Andrew's title is now defunct, we should not be using it either.
Asamboi (talk) 03:24, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Support per duh! Not going to waste anybody's time restating the obvious argument in favor. Safiel (talk) 04:02, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: Per WP:COMMONNAME and WP:NCROY, the article should reflect the subject’s current and predominant name in reliable sources. Following King Charles III’s October 2025 announcement that Andrew “will now be known as Andrew Mountbatten Windsor,” most major media outlets - including the BBC[3], Reuters[4], CTV[5], CBC[6], and The Times[7] - have adopted the new name or refer to him simply as Andrew or Mr. Mountbatten Windsor. This demonstrates a clear and immediate shift in usage across reliable secondary sources, satisfying the common name criterion.
The King’s declaration carries constitutional authority regarding royal titles, and the phrase “will now be known as” indicates that the change took effect immediately, not at some later stage. Wikipedia’s role is to document reality as it is presently recognized, not as it once was - keeping the page under his former title would misrepresent the subject’s current status.
To ensure clarity for readers, “Prince Andrew” will redirect to Andrew Mountbatten Windsor, maintaining accessibility and avoiding confusion. The previous titles will remain prominently mentioned in the lead for historical context. TimeToFixThis | 🕒 04:15, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You appear to have voted twice. — the Man in Question (in question) 07:39, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wait (oppose for now) - he's still legally a prince until some action is taken, and his princely title is still by far the WP:COMMONNAME. We need to assess how reliable sources refer to him going forward rather than in the immediate aftermath of the announcement. estar8806 (talk) ★ 04:38, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The King decides who holds princely ranks not the Parliament and the statement by the palace says that he will "now be known as Andrew Mountbatten Windsor". On top of that, his name has been removed from the Roll of the Peerage so the dukedom is essentially gone as well though a legislation by the Parliament could further solidify it. Keivan.fTalk 04:51, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
BBC - Prince Andrew will now be known as Andrew Mountbatten Windsor. !!!! "NOW" !! 2600:8801:140E:7500:9CC0:151A:6547:3514 (talk) 04:52, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is one situation where we literally don't need to wait to see what reliable sources call him. Once the cycle is over, they can't reliably call him Prince Andrew. To apply a royal title to someone who doesn't have one would be the least reliable thing a source pertaining to a member of the King's family could do. 212.56.116.42 (talk) 07:05, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - It seems it is already done. With the redirect in place it serves the purpose, and it is no different from Prince Charles becoming King Charles III and so on. Though, if I could have my way I would have the article moved to The Andrew Formerly Known As Prince. Arjie (talk) 06:06, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support as I have yet to see a single reason that carries weight. Some nice sounding links with catchy, "gotcha" style acronyms have been used, but they're lazy generalisations rather than arguments.
Let me give an example - COMMONNAME. Nonsense. "Prince" isn't part of Mr Mountbatten Windsor's name, it's a title. A title which he received as a birthright and was therefore ubiquitous. However the title has been stripped, therefore once the news cycle of this change has completed, no reliable source would use "Prince Andrew" even if they felt it were the succinct identifier. I'm not dismissing the legitimacy of "COMMONNAME" but a more reasonable comparison if we're going to insist on analogies, would be a famous politician getting married and insisting on using her married name moving forwards, the basis of this analogy is that Andrew is definitely NOT going to ask people to use his princely title. The media would conform rapidly and so would Wikipedia. The only question with COMMONNAME is whether in practise he will be known as Andrew Mountbatten Windsor or simply as Andrew + one surname; this however is not a basis to oppose this move as the only thing we know with certainty is that it will not be Prince Andrew and therefore the only current target is Andrew Mountbatten Windsor.
Another example - CRYSTALBALL. Nonsense. We do know with certainty that after this news cycle, all reliable sources will refer to him as Andrew Mountbatten Windsor. They may clarify for the benefit of their readership with something such as King Charles's brother or somesuch (I don't claim to have a crystal ball to know precisely how they'd clarify). But if a source reliable with regards to the British Monarchy were to choose to refer to him as "Prince Andrew" beyond this news cycle, definitionally we would have to question such sources' reliability.
A third example - TOOSOON. I'll be kinder here than my two previous instances of "nonsense", because it's a more reasonable comment, but it's not applicable in this instance. TOOSOON is for two broad categories where a name change is concerned. 1. Cases where we don't know the lay of the land, an example being that someone has married and officially changed their name but we don't know whether they'll adopt this professionally. 2. Where we do know the future lay of the land but it's not official yet. Neither applies here. This has already happened and we already know what he will be known as. I've seen some good faith disputing of this, but to clarify, the process which the King is initiating is ongoing (for example the surrender of the lease and arrangements for Andrew to move to alternative private accomodation, the King doesn't have the unchallenged right to just send his guard in to forcibly evict someone with a valid lease upon decree), but the statement that the man will "now" be known as Andrew Mountbatten Windsor has immediate legal effect (the King can decree with regards to titles, and he decreed "now"). To argue that this is too soon would be to argue that this for some reason does not have immediate practical effect. No-one has persuasively done this.
90% of this has been refutation of the opposes - there is virtually no valid opposition left to refute now - but one positive point for the move I want to make is that the subject is a living, high profile person wishing to be known as Andrew Mountbatten Windsor, without an ability to be known as Prince Andrew as he literally doesn't hold said title. To choose to say Prince Andrew has primacy is a discussion to be had if Wikipedia is still around when he passes, for historicity's sake. But, in the here and now, and for what can reasonably be forseen as a stable amount of time into the future (he is 31 years younger than his mother was at her passing, 34 years younger than his father; Wikipedia is what, 24, 25 years old?), it will continue to be Andrew Mountbatten Windsor. 212.56.116.42 (talk) 04:54, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - FWIW - Editors & IPs having been changing "Prince Andrew" to "Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor", all across the 'pedia. Creating new 'redirects' & 'pipelinks', along the way. GoodDay (talk) 04:58, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The problem is... in a lot of contexts they're doing us a favour, because we're in a situation where once the page is moved, it's not an easy job to automate link correction. Some links should be Prince Andrew because of the context, others refer to the person now, not at a point in the past, and therefore shouldn't. Will they be so enthusiastic to do us the same favour if we revert them "because", and stall the decision a full week? 212.56.116.42 (talk) 10:08, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Support I think no one has pointed out the most obvious thing which is that this is Wikipedia and we can always... change it back. A lot of hand-wringing about the future when the current fact is that he is not a Prince. Perhaps he will become one again! We can... EDIT WIKIPEDIA TO REFLECT THAT. Lol. :^) I think the most obvious solution is to create a redirect from Prince Andrew -> Andrew Mountbatten Windsor or what have you. Strongwranglers (talk) 05:03, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Support Yes, as per the Buckingham Palace statement, "Prince Andrew will now be known as Andrew Mountbatten Windsor". This is in the present tense; therefore, he is no longer a Prince as of the writing of this. ThatNurseLuca (talk) 05:31, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I supported the move above in long form, but for what it's worth I'm very relaxed should this process take the indicated seven days. Allowing it to run seven days will only serve to weaken any basis for opposition to this move (not that there appears to be much, I swatted pretty much all of it away above) as we will see increasing volumes of reliable sources consistently use the appropriate article target, further strengthening a move under MOS:IDENTITY in addition to the other clear reasons. 212.56.116.42 (talk) 05:48, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support (without the hyphen) — reliable sources will refer to him as Andrew Mountbatten Windsor, because he just isn't Prince Andrew anymore. Simple as that. JustARandomSquid (talk) 06:28, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Support. No further act seems to be taken apart from the removal from the roll of the peerage, which legally prevents him from using the titles although he hasn’t been formally stripped of them. Elme12 (talk) 07:08, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak oppose for now. As someone who supported the move of Prince Andrew, Duke of York to Prince Andrew, Wikipedians might be surprised that I am initially opposing this move - although I stress that my oppose is likely to be a very temporary one. However, it still seems to me that many members of the British public are still going to be thinking of this man as "Prince Andrew". If, after a few weeks, there is widespread coverage of him in the media as "Andrew Mountbatten Windsor", I shall be happy to change my mind. YTKJ (talk) 07:16, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Fair comment, but in the context of this discussion I don't think the man or woman on the street is relevant, as the true crux of this debate is reliable sources. Reliable sources have absolutely no choice in the matter - they either refer to him as Andrew Mountbatten Windsor or they are knowingly communicating a title he neither holds nor claims to hold. Though the bow they're in as a result should quickly satisfy your concerns about the common person in the sense that they will get used to calling him what those from whom they get their information call him.
    It's not a perfect comparison as we do have very specific policies on Monarchs... but it took me until early 2023 to avoid slipping into "Prince Charles". So I entirely get where you're coming from. Nonetheless the reliable sources called him King Charles immediately, and in that respect it shall be the same for Andrew. 212.56.116.42 (talk) 07:54, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support There is no need to wait and see whether the media will refer to him in future as Mr Mountbatten Windsor, the former Prince Andrew or The Aristocrat Formerly Known As Pervert (TAFKAP). His name is now Andrew Mountbatten Windsor. StTropez83 (talk) 07:34, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why is there is so much dilly-dallying? Buckingham Palace have issued the statement stating what Charles has done in taking away his royal titles and that he no longer can live at the fancy place. For the love of God, just change it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RyanPLB (talk • contribs) 07:30, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. While it may take time for "the Style, Titles and Honours" to be formally stripped, the statement clearly says he will "now" be known as Andrew Mountbatten Windsor, not that he will "soon" be. WP:COMMONNAME doesn't seem to fit, since it would not merely be colloquialism to call him "Prince Andrew", but a patent error. — the Man in Question (in question) 07:39, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: it has been decided and announced. Let's close this discussion, move the article, and spend Wikieditor time on improving the encyclopedi rather than counting angels on the head of a pin. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PamD (talk • contribs) 07:48, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support regardless of any formality it’s a done deal. 136.29.78.121 (talk) 07:52, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - with immediate effect - per announcement of the King and Buckingham Palace. ProfessorKaiFlai (talk) 07:59, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Support - per nominator's reasons and many more given by other editors in the thread. Resnjari (talk) 08:13, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support For all the same reasons we all already supported the move from "Andrew, Duke of York" to just "Prince Andrew". Thus doesn't need to be discussed again. Just move it.142.165.85.241 (talk) 08:18, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support due to lack of visible reasons to reject and other reasons given to support above PLMandarynka (talk) 08:19, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Per WP:NAMECHANGES it's expected that the new name will become the WP:COMMONNAME. S5A-0043🚎(Talk) 08:34, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose He is, and probably always will be, known as Prince Andrew. It is the most common name.
TheRichic (Messages here) 08:49, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
He isn't currently (that's the whole purpose of the discussion). "Probably always will be" is even less persuasive than usual due to our BLP policy. A reliable source cannot describe him as Prince Andrew outside of the context of communicating this change, as definitionally they would not be reliable. 212.56.116.42 (talk) 08:54, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
He is not currently known as that but even if he was in my view it is very very very possible he will not be known as that in the future. GothicGolem29 (GothicGolem29 Talk) 13:19, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Precisely the point - he's going to be a living person referred to exclusively by this name by reliable sources (because reliable sources can't give him a title he neither holds nor claims to). Perhaps even more to the point, the more I reflect on this the less weight I feel waiting holds. The direction of travel and weight of arguments is obvious, the only purpose to delay is if it is felt that pacifying those who are waiting for what is already known with 100% certainty (that reliable sources will predominantly call him AMW), is worth the hassle of keeping discussion about such a hot button figure as this person live longer than is necessary.
I'm not calling for a closure just yet, let's see if there are any persuasive arguments at all for not doing this as everything above has been clearly rebuffed, but I'm leaning increasingly towards the idea that we move quickly. 212.56.116.42 (talk) 09:55, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support. As Andrew is no longer a prince, his page should be updated to reflect that. Any previous mentions of his title can be part of the article itself (or even `Andrew Mountbatten Windsor`, formerly `Prince Andrew`) --jamie (talk) 19:52, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Rambling Rambler Support - he has given up his title as a royal and should not be considered a prince on Wikipedia. X4VIER.OneTap (talk) 20:21, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support: Per the name changes guideline and the strong disincentive to keep using a formally obsolete honorific. Iskandar323 (talk) 20:24, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • A summary of the main arguments so far (these are not my arguments per se, but just the more salient of those expressed above; my arguments can be read in my previous vote):
Those who support:
  1. King Charles has announced (via a Buckingham Palace statement) that the former Prince Andrew "will now be known as Andrew Mountbatten Windsor". Not that he will soon be or that he may be. These are no uncertain terms. Counterargument: Andrew's titles have not yet been revoked by Parliament.
  2. WP:NCROY says, "Do not use hypothetical, dissolved or defunct titles." Counterargument: Has his title been officially dissolved yet?
  3. The page name is going to change to "Andrew Mountbatten Windsor", whether now or later. There is no point in dragging our feet. "Charles, Prince of Wales" was moved to "Charles III" the day of Queen Elizabeth's death, not the day of his coronation. Counterargument: Wikipedia does not, for example, call a president "President So-and-so" when elected, but when inaugurated.
  4. All this dithering is silly. Obviously it's over—he's not Prince Andrew anymore. Counterargument: Prince Andrew is his common name—people may still call him Prince Andrew.
  5. It reflects poorly on Wikipedia to lag behind the rest of the world in recognizing his new name. Counterargument: Wikipedia is WP:NOTNEWS: "Breaking news should not be emphasized."
  6. Most of the oppositions are getting caught up in Wikipedia "rules" rather than the obvious reality: He is no longer Prince Andrew. That is why Wikipedia has no firm rules—they're only guidelines. Counterargument: It takes time to sort out whether a guideline can situationally be disregarded or not—we shouldn't make snap decisions about such things.
Those who oppose:
  1. Andrew's titles have not yet been formally removed. The announcement says: "His Majesty has today initiated a formal process to remove the Style, Titles and Honours of Prince Andrew." Counterargument: While the formal process has been initiated, according to the same announcement: "Prince Andrew will now be known as Andrew Mountbatten Windsor." Thus, by the king's own words, he is now Andrew Mountbatten Windsor, not Prince Andrew.
  2. "Prince Andrew" is his WP:COMMONNAME, regardless of whether it is his official name. Counterargument: WP:COMMONNAME is not applicable to officially and undisputedly revoked titles. See WP:NCROY. No respectable source is likely to call him "Prince Andrew" once this news story has passed.
  3. Respected sources are currently still calling him "Prince Andrew". Counterargument: In fact, most are not. But as for those that are: Only because it is necessary to explain the name change.
  4. Respected sources may well continue to call him "Prince Andrew". Wikipedia is not a WP:CRYSTALBALL. Counterargument: To speculate that sources may continue to call him something that is not his name is in fact the crystal ball. They are very unlikely to do so except in casual error, such as in interviews.
  5. Other world royalty have had their titles stripped by their governments and yet are still referred to by their titles on Wikipedia. Counterargument: Those titles were forcibly stripped by deposing governments, and their revocation is disputed. Andrew's title revocation is not in dispute.
  6. This is all too hasty. WP:TOOSOON. Counterargument: It would be too hasty were this an evolving situation. It is not—it's a done deal.
  7. The change should be made, but not till it has been stated more clearly whether his name is "Andrew Mountbatten Windsor" or "Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor". Counterargument: The official statement spelled it "Andrew Mountbatten Windsor". If that is changed in the future, the article can be moved again without need for discussion.
Hope this helps. — the Man in Question (in question) 10:22, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I do feel compelled to add that no-one at all has countered the argument that no reliable source will refer to him as Prince Andrew moving forwards, because to do so would be a falsehood. And that's not because said argument has been tucked away in some niche corner. I.e. given the lack of a good policy for such a weird situation, WP:V and WP:BLP (despite being general) are actually the best we've got here. 212.56.116.42 (talk) 10:32, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding your counterpoint to "support 2" - WP:NCROY does not suppalant COMMONNAME, nor does it attempt to. On the contrary, it repeatedly says that the common name should be used, and that it (NCROY) only exists to help address the unique challenges of applying COMMONNAME to royals. GreatCaesarsGhost 13:05, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You're right in saying that "Charles, Prince of Wales" ended up at "Charles III" the day of Queen Elizabeth II's death, but because nearly half an hour separated the announcement of Elizabeth's death and that of the new King's regnal name, the article went via "Charles, King of the United Kingdom" on the way. Avenues2009 (talk) 23:26, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - As it is his legal name, the decision is clear. A redirect from Prince Andrew queries to the new title would solve any issues. JMcElhaney10 (talk) 10:38, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - once official. This should be a no-brainer. He will no longer be a Prince, so obviously there is no argument for us to call him that. The only two options here are whether to change immediately (which I do not think we should) or wait until it is official (at which stage it is the only correct option). Jeppiz (talk) 10:41, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support and speedy close, officially his titles have been stripped, no reason left to keep referring to him in such a way. – GlowstoneUnknown (Talk) 10:48, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support and SNOW close. Serious allegations, stripped of his royal titles, and I would even suggest closing this RM right now because it would just bloat up this talk page with how long it is right now. Kaito-san (talk/contribs) 11:36, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong support: Update the name here now. I don’t understand the delay.
Buckingham Palace announced that “Prince Andrew will now be known as Andrew Mountbatten Windsor” 16 hours ago. Media are already referring to him as “Mr Andrew Mountbatten Windsor” and “the former Prince Andrew” as of a couple hours ago.
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c62elnjnqqxo Cathy Ruddy (talk) 11:39, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Support - He has been stripped of his titles. NinjaWeeb (talk) 11:41, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Support He's been stripped of his titles with immediate effect. Several news articles refer to this being his first day as a private citizen. The title is in the gift of the monarch and can be revoked by the monarch which is what has happened. There might be a process to follow to complete the legal side of things but he is no longer a prince. 82.8.243.241 (talk) 11:52, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: He's lost his titles, and is now being referred to in the media as Andrew Mountbatten Windsor. I should imagine that will be the norm going forward. This is Paul (talk) 12:23, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Support I also support changing the article name to "Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor". – Sullay (Let's talk about it) 12:21, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments:
    • For another case where the person in charge changed the name and Wikipedia did not immediately follow, see Talk:Twitter#Old moves
    • The argument "any source which persists in calling him Prince Andrew is ipso facto unreliable and so can be discounted" is a No true Scotsman fallacy. Let's just make a list of which sources have changed and which have not. As I write (from Ireland — content varies by client location), TheGuardian.com europe has changed its front page from "Prince Andrew" to "Ex-Prince Andrew", whereas BBC is going with plain "Andrew".
jnestorius(talk) 12:26, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: The evidence and sources seem to be overwhelming. Therefore, I am supporting a change to "Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor" with an hyphen. Whether it was a typo from the palace or intentional, the official name created by QEII includes the hyphen and I think this should be considered.
I also want to respectfully suggest that when considering the eventual renaming of the page following his death, the significant historical context of his 65 years as Prince Andrew be given due consideration. GrandDukeMarcelo (talk) 12:28, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Here are some prominent sources using Prince Andrew today: ABC [8] Al Jazeera[9] Fox News [10] NPR [11] These are obviously all stories about the name change, and they still call him Prince. It would be CRYSTALBALL to suggest that the COMMONNAME would change or stay the same. We need to wait. GreatCaesarsGhost 12:55, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
ABC News has this article referring to him as simply Andrew. Kaito-san (talk/contribs) 13:09, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No, it wouldn't, and therefore no, we don't. The argument you're deploying which might ordinarily hold weight literally holds precisely zero here, because from Wikipedia's perspective the future is actually known with certainty. Some sources might refer to him as Andrew in the future after this news cycle is done in the next 24 hours; these would not be reliable sources as they would be attaching to him a title which he neither holds nor claims to hold. Thus, it can be said with complete and utter certainty, 100% of reliable sources will call him Andrew Mountbatten Windsor. 212.56.116.42 (talk) 13:32, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No matter how many times you repeat this same sentiment, it's still wrong. If sources call him Prince Andrew, it is because they feel that is the best way to convey to whom they are referring. If that behavior is persistent, Prince Andrew will remain his common name and the title of this article. They are not "wrong" to do this, as they are not suggesting he is legally a prince or holds that title. They are just using the name they think readers will recognize. GreatCaesarsGhost 15:19, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If sources choose to be wrong, they don't qualify as reliable because they are communicating something which is not true. I regret that this simple fact upsets you. 212.56.116.42 (talk) 15:39, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We have guidelines for determining what a reliable source is, and you do not get to unilaterally reject what thousands of volunteers built here over decades. GreatCaesarsGhost 19:28, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
None of the sources you referred are British. Non-British media use British styles and titles very loosely. The Duchess of Sussex is still often referred to as Meghan Markle. British media like BBC are starting to use Andrew Mountbatten Windsor. [12] [13] 123.203.171.141 (talk) 14:39, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is a rare occasion where this argument does not hold weight, because we can say with certainty that any media outlets who ascribe him a title that neither he nor his country consider him to hold, are not reliable. 212.56.116.42 (talk) 13:25, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
And the "oh but he is better known as Prince Andrew" argument is insane. Give me a break. It's not like people searching "Prince Andrew" won't redirect to this page. As others have said, by that same logic Charles' Wiki page should still be called "Charles, Prince of Wales". And Wikipedia also doesn't deadname trans individuals just because they have been known by their dead name for longer. He's not a prince anymore. The page shouldn't be called Prince Andrew. GuitarHeroAero (talk) 16:21, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support to quote the articles introduction:
Andrew Mountbatten Windsor (Andrew Albert Christian Edward; born 19 February 1960), formerly known as Prince Andrew, is a member of the British royal family.
The introduction and indeed the majority of the article refers to him as and recognises him as "Andrew Mountbatten Windsor". Hence, to me, it only makes sense to formally adopt that wording into the articles name. Camillz (talk) 16:42, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - As we all know, Wikipedia is strongly monarchist and not only that, we are all staunch defenders of the kings' divine right. There are hundreds and hundreds of pages in Wikipedia about all kinds of former kings, princes and grand dukes of Europe. These men and women, who comprise the "first Quality" of Wikipedia biographies, were deprived of their dominions by some ochlocracies or through bolshevik terror. As we can all see on Wikipedia, George Mikhailovich is still the tsarevich of Russia and Maria-Olympia is still a princess of the Hellenic Republic. However, Mr Mountbatten-Windsor lost his titles by means of Royal Warrants issued by HM The King. Who are we to contest such a decision? We must all see the peril in the impiety of allowing such statements about "how people refer to him," &c. to take stand. Finally, I suggest we move his article to "Citizen Mountbatten-Windsor". Dimboukas (talk) 16:52, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Notwithstanding WP:CRYSTALBALL, this is a formal legal process that - realistically - will not be rolled back. As the subject has been removed from the roll of peerage and has no place in the order of precedence, he will be referred to only as Andrew Mountbatten Windsor in all official documents. We can also read the room here that Reliable media are not going to carry on using "Prince". That would be factually incorrect and - by definition - make them unreliable. Moreover, no outlet wants to look sympathetic to him - given the circumstances and the nature of the allegations. I would generally be in favour of waiting a period on this for new reliable sources to prove the new COMMONNAME (as I have been on the whole Denali/McKinley debate), but I don't think there's any sense of dispute on this one. You haven't got the Commons arguing to strip the title and the Lords backing Andrew or anything. The titles are stripped, his name is changed. QED.Hemmers (talk) 17:07, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Just make this so. Stop your dithering and make the change now. He is Mr Andrew Mountbatten Windsor as of now. His brother, the King who has the authority to do it has proclaimed it, and the prime minister has welcomed the change. CHANGE IT NOW! 217.155.106.175 (talk) 17:47, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - WP:TOOSOON as it hasn’t happened yet and WP:COMMONNAME, because people will still call him Prince Andrew even after this. Maxx1222 (talk) 13:30, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • TOOSOON refers to whether to write an article. I believe there is consensus that this man should have a Wikipedia article. Your mileage may differ.
COMMONNAME is "determined by its prevalence in a significant majority of independent, reliable, English-language sources". In this instance it can be said with complete and utter certainty that 100% of reliable sources are going to meet that criteria, because to call a commoner a prince, when no-one is arguing that he's a prince, would manifestly render the source unreliable. 212.56.116.42 (talk) 13:45, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that's ridiculous. A respectable newspaper doesn't lose its status as a reliable source just because it uses a common name even if it's technically incorrect. "Princess Diana" is technically incorrect but it's a common name. I'm not arguing against the proposed move, just your argument. Mclay1 (talk) 14:57, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Reliability is contextual and relative. For example the BBC is widely considered reliable for news - the potential for British bias notwithstanding many would regard it as a gold standard for non-political news. It would not be considered a gold standard on a highly scientific article, its reliability would be considered lesser than academic sources in a lot of contexts.
Equally, a source ordinarily reporting on the royals would plainly be less reliable on the topic if it chose to refer to the King's oldest brother improperly, and as we should strive for high-quality sources, the lower quality ones would be replaced. Given the abundance of sources available on this topic, all our reliable sources would be of the higher standard. 212.56.116.42 (talk) 15:35, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That news makes this debate even sillier. There may be remaining formalities but Andrew isn't going to be able to overrule the word of the King, even if he wanted to. If people who didn't bother to read your article claim it backs the oppose argument via WP:COMMONNAME annoyingly the webpage title calls him Prince Andrew while the actual headline does not. HootyTheOwlTube (talk) 14:18, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That's a silly comment. WP:COMMONNAME does take precedence. The key is what the common name is in sources written after the name change. Mclay1 (talk) 15:00, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Which, in 99.9% of circumstances, we would need to wait to find out, no matter how confident we were. This is a legitimate exception because we do know with certainty. 212.56.116.42 (talk) 15:49, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wait – Wikipedia is not a crystal ball and it's too soon to determine what his common name will be (even if we think we know what it is). Currently sources are calling him various things because all the articles are about the name change. The official change also hasn't even happened yet so we don't know if the missing hyphen is a mistake or not. Wikipedia editors are always desperate to rush through changes as soon as things happen. Waiting a few days with the article at Prince Andrew – a perfectly clear title – is not a problem. Mclay1 (talk) 15:03, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As stated above this argument, which would ordinarily hold strongly in a name change scenario, doesn't hold here. Beyond the life cycle of the "his name has changed" story (i.e. beyond today), if a source were to call a man without a title who regards himself as holding none, "Prince Andrew", they would be communicating a material falsehood therefore wouldn't be a reliable source. In that respect, this situation is different to, for instance, a musician changing their stage name, a woman taking a married name, or someone in the process of transitioning. It's not crystal balling to state that reliable sources will refer to him as Andrew Mountbatten Windsor, because while some sources might, they won't be reliable, and COMMONNAME only takes into account reliable sources. 212.56.116.42 (talk) 15:20, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Read your news. It has happened. 217.155.106.175 (talk) 17:48, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. GreatCaesarsGhost 15:19, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. Though this does actually make the argument to close stronger. 212.56.116.42 (talk) 15:21, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It is not a vote but in my view the strength of the arguments for is strong so that would not prevent a snow close the only thing in my view to consider on that is if enough time has passed. GothicGolem29 (GothicGolem29 Talk) 15:23, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What is the strong argument for? All I'm seeing are things like " "the king gets to decide" which is not how we do things here. The arguments against are that it clearly violates two wikipedia policies. GreatCaesarsGhost 19:28, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We have obviously both been pushing our arguments, but I do think it's at a minimum a mischaracterisation to suggest that only the oppose side has made policy based arguments.
"The King gets to decide" is true with respect to his brother's titles within the United Kingdom, and not true with respect to what Wikipedia should call his brother. On that I'm sure we completely agree. This is a global encyclopaedia, not a British-centric one. We can of course fix that error in judgement later (joke).
It's the fact that the King's decision puts reputable sources in a bind where there isn't really a choice, that leads to the shorthand (which I agree, is so terrible that you have to ask whether they're making the argument at all). King's decree leads to sources having only one reliable option leads to Wikipedia having only one reliable option.
Bias aside, my reading of the debate is whether those whose view was wait, with words clearly indicating that they know this move will happen but felt it was too soon, will still be relevant, or will be deemed dated, when an uninvolved admin reviews this; this would likely determine whether there's consensus to move at that time, or whether further discussion were required. 212.56.116.42 (talk) 21:58, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The strong argument for is simply that reliable sources have begun referring to him as "Andrew Mountbatten Windsor" following the news. This was perhaps slightly amibiguous last night (when most were saying some variation of "Prince Andrew to no longer be prince") but it is crystal clear today. Wikipedia policy in such cases is that we adopt the changed name. This has been clearly stated by dozens of supporting editors above, although I appreciate that the RfC has become excessively long and so you might have only seen the silly comments when skimming (because they stick out) Quantum Burrito (talk) 22:09, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A it has been announced he will no longer use the titles and is now known as this name and B multiple reliable sources have now used the new name now. As for the arguments against I am not convinced by them that it would violate polcies. GothicGolem29 (GothicGolem29 Talk) 23:19, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's been open less than 24 hours. I don't think that's appropriate. Mclay1 (talk) 15:11, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This news came out evening time in the UK, early afternoon in the new world. News cycles are generally D+0 and D+1. So IMO, the earliest reasonable time to consider whether there is consensus would be in about 15 hours time (i.e. when most people in the western hemisphere are in or going to bed). Because at this point, the name change is done being news, therefore the point about what reliable sources will call him - which is known with certainty unlike most situations where this would be WP:CRYSTAL - will come to be. At this point, a lot of the wait rationales would be outdated. 212.56.116.42 (talk) 15:24, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I concur that it's time for WP:SNOW. The palace said "Prince Andrew will now be known as Andrew Mountbatten Windsor." That is both clear and definitive. And no hyphen, at least for now. Utahredrock (talk) 16:02, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
TOOSOON... You think he shouldn't have a Wikipedia article and that we should move this to the wikispace or userspace? Bold. 212.56.116.42 (talk) 16:29, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't say that. I mean changing the article name. Right now most will just refer to him as Prince Andrew so it's too soon to do a page move. Inpops (talk) 19:42, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Well I don't know about that. I shall certainly not be referring to him as "Prince" Andrew any more, and I believe that a great many people think that his downfall from royalty has come far too late and should have been done years ago. I don't think all that many people will call him "Prince" any more. There is a general view that he is unworthy of such a title, anyway. It's even (quite obviously) shared by the King. Kelisi (talk) 16:37, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wait – WP:CRYSTAL applies here. There are no plans that he will be removed from the line of succession, so it is quite possible that people will still refer to him as a prince. Of course, if this does not happen, the move will be obvious (with redirect). Please call me Blue (talk) 16:48, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Support The BBC has already started referring to him as Mr Andrew Mountbatten Windsor, and it's clear in the statement from the Palace that it was to take effect more or less immediately. The Roll of the Peerage also no longer reflects his name at all. I think it's not too soon. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.211.212.23 (talk) 17:00, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong support, with recognition in the lede that he spent most of his biological life as Prince Andrew and many people around the world wiil continue to identify him as such.Bigturtle (talk) 17:19, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Born Prince Andrew in brackets and then "was Duke of York" from X date to Y date, seems to be the most coherent option to me. GrandDukeMarcelo (talk) 17:50, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, per the Most High, Most Mighty and Most Excellent Monarch, our Sovereign Lord, Charles III. And, by the Grace of God, without a hyphen, until that matter is clarified. Moscow Mule (talk) 17:48, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support immediate move. This is no longer WP:CRYSTALBALL. Citizen Andrew is a fact. Argentsky (talk) 17:59, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support The King has the absolute right to issue letters patent to grant or remove titles. The press statement directly from the Palace makes clear he is going through with that process. "Prince Andrew will now be known as Andrew Mountbatten Windsor." BBC and other reputable sources are already using Andrew Mountbatten Windsor. The "Prince Andrew" site on royal.uk has been removed. I would also point to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mako_Komuro where Princess Mako's page title was changed to Mako Komuro once she married as per Japanese Imperial Law, Japanese female royals lose their titles upon marriage outside the royal family. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:d71:df5f:999d:35b8:6edc:de48 (talk) 18:41, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support! It has been changed immediately, he is now Andrew Mountbatten Windsor. Surprised Wiki hasn't been quicker with this! Pragnell1957 (talk)
Pragnell1957 (talk) 18:39, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose due to recognition that he spent most of his biological life as Prince Andrew and many people around the world will continue to identify him as such. LionTank (talk) 20:28, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    If he were dead, I'd agree. Given that he's alive (and given the longevity of his parents, probably has quite some time left) and that the circumstances that led to this name change discussion taking place mean he remains high-profile and at the centre of a story we've put on the main page before, the repercussions of which are still ongoing and which touch some of the best known people in the world to various degrees, the present takes precedence. Reliable sources are not going to call him a prince in the present tense. Extremely unreliable ones might. 212.56.116.42 (talk) 20:46, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support The Guardian is now simply calling him Andrew and styling him "the former prince". The statement from Buckingham Palace was as clear as can be for such royal proclamations. Don't see what can be gaining by waiting. Khuft (talk) 20:51, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support The College of Arms has now struck Andrew from the Roll of the Peerage, so officially he's no longer entitled to be referred to as a peer, and the status of prince can be removed at the monarch's discretion anyway under the 1917 letters patent. Because the dukedom wasn't disestablished by parliamentary act and this is a rarely tested area of constitutional law, he may be able to sue to say that he's still Andrew, Duke of York. But there's no leg to stand on now for Prince Andrew, whose page was deleted even from the royal family's website. It's not too soon to make the change, it's happened. Unus Multorum (talk) 21:03, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support As Andrew has now been removed from both the Roll of the Peerage and the royal family website, this appears to have already happened. There is nothing further to wait for at this point. It is unlikely the royal family will ever refer to him in an official capacity again. Dash77 (talk) 21:23, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. He has been stripped of his title in an official capacity. There is nothing more to wait for. SavagePanda845 (talk) 21:44, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - I think it's pretty much a done deal and steps have been taken to remove the titles. The BRF have made it clear and a lot of news sources are now calling him "Andrew" rather than "Prince Andrew" now. Omnis Scientia (talk) 22:04, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - It has been declared immediately effective. I don't see any reason to retain the "Prince" title, this is an indefinite and concrete decision unlikely to be revoked. Informaldejekyll (talk) 22:30, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - all news sources I have read, from all angles, have announced it as affecting the man immediately, even if it might take a while to "do all the paperwork" so to speak. Therefore I suggest the article be moved right away to reflect his new status as plain old Mr Andrew Mountbatten Windsor - and in case people wonder why I phrase it like that, I remember reading about when Sir Fred Goodwin was stripped of his knighthood, and the media were awash with the phrase, "Arise plain old Fred Goodwin," as can be seen at https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-16822977. Avenues2009 (talk) 22:36, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    For sure. I find it odd that people consider that sources which are considered reliable would report the change, but that we must wait to see if they remember what they reported to decide whether reliable sources are still using "Prince Andrew". Internal inconsistency is at minimum a yellow flag with regards to a source's reliability. But apparently these hypothetical, unshown, erroroneous sources, are the very sources we should be waiting for. Apparently the internally consistent sources we already have that have developed a system for how they describe him post-announcement (see Talk:Prince Andrew#Should_the_article_still_refer_to_him_as_"Andrew"?) are not enough? Where are the counter sources demonstrating that Andrew Mountbatten Windsor is not the prevailing usage post-announcement? And on what basis are these non-produced sources considered reliable for this topic? 212.56.116.42 (talk) 22:54, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, it's not his COMMONNAME yet. TOOSOON. Ortizesp (talk) 23:07, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    There is consensus both that we discuss what COMMONNAME actually means with respect to this scenario, and with regards to TOOSOON that the man is eligible for a Wikipedia article. 212.56.116.42 (talk) 23:20, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wait and see the media's reaction. WP:COMMONNAME does take precedence, and just a day or two may not be enough to determine if the media is going to call on his full name. There might be headlines like "Prince Andrew is now called Andrew Mountbatten Windsor" all over the place, but I'd see them merely as factual statements, not that they will start to not call Prince Andrew "Prince." Wait a few days, and give sources that the media have changed or have not changed before making a decision. 1F616EMO (talk) 23:28, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    COMMONNAME matters, sure. It's a strong argument for supporting the move, as no reliable source could possibly report that he's not a prince and then be internally inconsistent about it, without its reliability being challenged. Thus, 100% of reliable sources will use Andrew Mountbatten Windsor. You want evidence that the reliable outlets are already doing it? BBC already doing it Channel 4 already doing it CNN already doing it. They have even reached a consensus on the manual of style in this highly unusual situation (AMW at first, "Andrew" rather than "Mountbatten Windsor" for subsequent mentions. The trend from post-breaking-the-news sources is clear, unless there's evidence of a contrary trend from reliable sources? 212.56.116.42 (talk) 23:41, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Then that's fine, and I support renaming. I am still curious about the "manual of style" — is it publicly accessible? If yes, proving a link to it would further solidify this stance. 1F616EMO (talk) 23:47, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry I may have stated that point too strongly - the point I'm making is that all of the sources I've quoted above, who are all independent from one another, have all reached the decision that calling him Andrew Mountbatten Windsor first, and then Andrew later, is how they want to do it. The fact that they are treating this topic consistently with one another despite being free to write as they feel appropriate (and being based in two different countries), is evidence that reliable sources are converging on that way of doing things. 212.56.116.42 (talk) 23:50, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for your clarification. I am fine to declare support without the "manual of style." 1F616EMO (talk) 23:55, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Though, I have to point out that "per official statement" is probably not a "proper concern" regarding this rename. When WP:COMMONNAME is enough, there is no point to seek advice from official documents, even if the conclusions are the same. 1F616EMO (talk) 23:58, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Media source have already changed.[14][15][16] DigitalPanda (talk) 23:48, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per official statement by Buckingham Palace, "Prince Andrew will now be known as Andrew Mountbatten Windsor." The BBC is already referring to him simply as Andrew Mountbatten Windsor.[17] DigitalPanda (talk) 23:40, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Support because his titles have already been stripped, and news outlets are already referring to him as Andrew Mountbatten Windsor. This should be changed immediately. Sentimental Dork (talk) 23:53, 31 October 2025 (UTC) Sentimental_Dork[reply]
Support - per nom. MrGreen105 (talk) 00:02, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Now that there's a substantive body of sourcing within this debate demonstrating that reliable sources are using the proposed article target, I'd ask if an admin would at least take a look at this. If in that admin's judgement these sources don't yet sufficiently neutralise the wait for these sources type concerns, then fine, we respect that admin's call and go either a specified distance or the full distance, but with that sourcing from the likes of the BBC, Channel 4, CNN, Guardian, Times, ABC in place within this discussion showing that, outside of the context of communicating this news, they're omitting prince, it feels like we're sufficiently advanced for it to be worthwhile to have that look. 212.56.116.42 (talk) 00:47, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Definite Yes - Media is now ceasing to call him Prince. Rexophile (talk) 02:22, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support - This individual is no longer known as "Prince Andrew", and media are beginning to cease referring to him as such. TheInevitables (talk) 02:48, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support — The removal of Mr. Mountbatten Windsor's princely title is supposed to take effect at once, as in now. It is thus inappropriate to call him "Prince" Andrew. I further suggest that all occurrences of the name "Andrew" by itself be changed to "Mountbatten Windsor". Kelisi (talk) 04:10, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support. His old title is no longer being used by reputable sources. 120.155.80.14 (talk) 04:13, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I think readers would expect to see his full name without his former titles as the first thing you see when you search for this article. Reliable sources are using his full name at present. A redirect is still very appropriate for those who don't know his full name without his former titles. Qwerty123M (talk) 04:15, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support, as this is effectively a name change. It's no longer fitting to have 'Prince' in the title when he very much isn't anymore. Also support what Kelisi said about changing references to 'Andrew' to 'Mountbatten Windsor' (at the very least for the present tense and past tense after the name change, I'm not sure if the title revocation is retroactive or not). jan Janko (talk) 06:07, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's not. I think the palace briefed to the media that documents like his birth certificate would not be changed. Keivan.fTalk 06:29, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support. WP:COMMONNAME is satisfied: reputable British media (the Times, Telegraph, Guardian, BBC) have consistently switched to calling him "Andrew Mountbatten Windsor" or simply "Andrew"—but definitely not "Prince Andrew"—within the last 48 hours. I don't think there's any need to wait for the letters patent that will legally strip him of the style. Polonius (talk) 08:53, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, move immediately, I honestly do not understand the need for a vote. There is nothing more official from the announcement. We use sources as support to material in Wikipedia. All newspapers are using his new name. Even the delay due this discussion is unacceptable. Sources are clear. We must use the name used in the numerous sources, Andrew Mountbatten Windsor as a title for this article. --FocalPoint (talk) 08:56, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I 100% agree, and I also find it extremely difficult to understand the need to delay the move by the "authorities" in charge. Is there some kind of agenda hindering the obvious outcome to this discussion? MattSucci (talk) 09:04, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Inability to make a decision perhaps. Oh the irony given the backstory of why this person came to need to have a page move request. 212.56.116.42 (talk) 09:24, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support as Andrew's name has already been formally removed from the official roll of the peerage, marking the definitive stripping of his royal titles, see news report by the Independent from 31 October 2025. The article continues: Buckingham Palace confirmed his name was struck from the roll. There is no need to delay this any longer. --AFBorchert (talk) 09:21, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support After thought, and given the time for a WP:COMMONNAME to demonstrably shift (only over a couple of days, but given the significance of the media coverage that feels like enough), I now support this move. While a discussion around historical significance of his time as Prince Andrew is valid, he comes under BLP during his lifetime, so I feel on balance that that's a discussion for another day. I do not, however, agree with any calls for a snow/immediate closure; the community is not unanimously in favour at this time on the basis of the above votes, so this request should play out in full. There's no immediate rush to move the page. U-Mos (talk) 09:50, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I think the silence is more troublesome than this approach? There is a feeling from others that we're at the point of consensus. Something to the effect of why this feeling is considered premature would at least provide clarity? 212.56.116.42 (talk) 10:04, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    See WP:RMEC. U-Mos (talk) 10:10, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Aware of it and truly believe we're at the "is this snowball or not?stage, given that the basis to say there is still substantive opposition is predicated on considering "waits" or "oppose pending sources showing the common name" to be current; sourcing provided in the latter part of this discussion seems to overcome these to the point of a snowball (stories subsequent to sources' announcement of the change, the reliable sourcing overwhelmingly omit "prince" and numerous examples provided in discussion). If there remains substantive reasoning to continue the discussion then by all means let's have it and let's respect it and let's continue it, I'm just saying I'm genuinely unaware of any.
    The extent to which there is harm in this discussion dragging out unnecessarily, is that a delay in this page move delays the needed discussion on the contexts in which links and references to the man should say "Prince Andrew" or "Andrew Mountbatten Windsor". As @GoodDay among others have pointed out, a lot of wiki wide links are being changed, some helpfully, some unhelpfully, and some with helpfulness dependent on this RM. Now, if it is necessary for the discussion to continue, fine, that would take priority I'm just saying let's establish that. 212.56.116.42 (talk) 10:29, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    It's valid for editors to have the view to wait until it is not a current/changing news story. Some are also of the view that we should wait until the formal process of removing the titles is concluded. I don't agree with either of those in this case – especially the latter – but it's absolutely correct that this request should be assessed in full by an admin closer after a week, especially as it's such a high profile matter. That will ensure any move made is the correct one, and reduce the chance of the discussion recurring. U-Mos (talk) 11:18, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    But if the discussion is not a vote, then the question is the weight of said arguments. There has been substantive demonstration of the situation subsequent to the news itself. There has been absolutely none, subsequent to the providing of what current reliable sources say, to suggest we shouldn't do this. 212.56.116.42 (talk) 11:58, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    And that will be assessed at the time of closure. U-Mos (talk) 12:22, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Of course. We simply need one pragmatic person to determine whether that's now or in five days. Does wikipedia have this? 212.56.116.42 (talk) 13:37, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Hello @U-Mos. I fully appreciate your change of opinion. I know that you do not necessarily answer to me, as I am not the only one calling for moving the article without delay, however, out of respect for your well presented opinion, my view is that there should not have been a discussion in the first place, as we, editors, follow simple but strict principles: We write whatever reputable etc. sources are saying. In this case there is no question of reputability of sources and it is obvious that nobody will ever use this former titles again in a way that might be conceived that they are still valid. FocalPoint (talk) 10:34, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nomination, no longer has titles barring enduring use of titles in WP:COMMONNAME. Sushidude21! (talk) 10:34, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The fact this is still ongoing is entirely absurd. There is a clear consensus in favour. 2A02:C7C:9B36:7D00:56F8:D9BF:FD16:D446 (talk) 10:34, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Palace statement took immediate effect and reputable sources are already using his new name. This also implies that any legal maneuvers are only technicalities, that the change is already in practice. No need to wait, especially considering the broad support here. Minorstab (talk) 10:41, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Minorstab Can we close this discussion now. His name has been officially changed. This is confirmed in almost every single place including by the Royal Family and HM the King. We need to update the Wiki page NOWThekickingmule (talk) 12:14, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support. The title has been officially stripped by King Charles III. ChaoticVermillion (talk) 12:20, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support. For reasons above, but also: If this RM fails now, it probably won't be passed again soon due to editor bickering. See Twitter. - OmegaAOL (talk page, and contribs) 12:20, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support. While the King's statement states that the formal process has been started to remove Andrew's titles (I believe it will require an act of Parliament) it also states that from now he will be known as Andrew Mountbatten Windsor. So that should be the title of the article, the lede should still give his titles but say he is known as Andrew Mountbatten Windsor. Today the Sky News and BBC News websites refer to him as Andrew Mountbatten Windsor so reliable sources are already calling him this. They are still referring to him as Andrew for short, not as (Mr) Mountbatten Windsor, so I don't think there needs to be a rush to change this in the Article, although it is unusual to refer to Western people by first name. Saxmund (talk) 13:25, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support While there is the question of when the "formal process" will be complete, he has already confirmed himself that he will stop using the titles, the crown has announced that it has begun the formal process, and news sources have already started referring to him without the "Prince", so this has already become his WP:COMMONNAME. Some examples: Sky News, BBC, The Guardian, The Times, Evening Standard, NBC, ABC. Per WP:NAMECHANGES, "If the reliable sources written after the change is announced routinely use the new name, Wikipedia should follow suit and change relevant titles to match," and that bar seems to be met with the above list of sources. While there are still some sources that use his old name at first for familiarity, we can see that most sources have already stopped dropping it outside of maybe a single reference to disambiguate. And despite the objections about hyphenation, the official statement and nearly every source I've found refers to him without hyphenation. — λ (talk | contribs) 15:00, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Follow up to add, I think this should be an early close due to WP:SNOW. This has been announced by the King. Andrew Mountbatten Windsor has agreed. And reliable sources have already moved over to the new name. Like many cases in which people change names, the name change can happen before the official paperwork has been completed and accepted, and that's the case here. This decision is the King's perogative, Andrew Mountbatten Windsor has already agreed to it, and the formal procedure only involves presenting the decision, it doesn't require a vote (it would require a vote to remove him from the line of succession, but that's not what we're discussin here). So there is no chance that this won't happen, it's merely a formality. Just because a few people might be slow in updating how they refer to him doesn't mean that his common name hasn't changed. While there might have been some question yesterday, due to trying to interpret what the formal process consists of, and many news articles using his former name in their original headlines, the sources I've linked show that as of today, many reliable news organizations have already adopted this change. There no question, this change has already happened in common usage. — λ (talk | contribs) 16:35, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support with caveat. The King hasn't performed any of the formal processes yet to strip Andrew of his titles or honors (per the London Gazette this morning), so until (or if) that happens we should leave the page as is. Zerbey (talk) 15:02, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Is this germane to what the sources are calling the subject? Official and reliable external sources all call the subject Andrew Mountbatten Windsor. That there is some debate over whether the former should would seem to fall outside the scope of this? 212.56.116.42 (talk) 15:25, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Name changes can go into common usage before the official paperwork has been completed. For instance, during a marriage, the name change is effective as of the marriage ceremony, but the official civil paperwork may be submitted later. The King has announced this, Andrew Mountbatten Windsor has agreed, and there's nothing in the process that would allow anyone else to object or stop this, all that's left is merely a formality. So his name has changed, he has lost the title, there's merely a paperwork formality left. And Wikipedia doesn't rely on whether paperwork has been submitted in other cases, like marriage, but based on common usage, which as of today, is "Andrew Mountbatten Windsor." — λ (talk | contribs) 16:46, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per COMMONNAME. Going forward, all reliable sources will be calling him this, as it is now his name. By the same token, the article should no longer call him "Andrew" but by his surname after first mention. John (talk) 15:15, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Nevertheless he is a royal like Donald Trump. --2A02:810D:A206:2B00:A7C6:5AE5:2595:BFB6 (talk) 15:18, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose with a question. What will this page be titled in 100 years' time? Surely he will be referred to as Prince Andrew, as he spent most of his life with that title? Seems pointless changing it now due to current royal whims, only to have to change it back later. 87.196.75.52 (talk) 15:49, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    We are not concerned with 100 years time. Wikipedia treats pages of living subjects differently than pages of deceased subjects. It could be that in 100 years time everyone speaks Chinese, that is for them to deal with. 2A02:C7C:9B36:7D00:7E81:9B6B:9439:87D (talk) 15:55, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Awesome reasoning. Fortunately, it's consensus that decides, and not "editors" like you. MattSucci (talk) 16:08, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    This does make the rather bold assumption that Wikipedia possesses a single administrator capable of making a decision. 212.56.116.42 (talk) 16:14, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per WP:COMMONNAME which it has rapidly become: BBC new bulletins today (1 Nov) are using the new name. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 16:04, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support for the smae reason as Shhhnotsoloud Cooluncle55 (talk) 16:28, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support The evidence above indicates pretty clearly that the media have very quickly stopped referring to him as a prince. There's no reason we should be the outlier here. It's also clear that official usage has been similarly quick to move, with Andrew removed from the Roll of the Peerage AusLondonder (talk) 16:32, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
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.

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
Not true, realms that become republics do not keep the UK head of state as their soverign. As a recent example, Barbados was previously a Commonwealth realm and became a republic in 2021. At that point, they made the previous Governor-General the (ceremonial) president and kept the Westminster parliamentary system (see Republicanism in Barbados). The same happened with other realms that became republics in the past. Alpaca92 (talk) 04:26, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I TFD was saying the other realms who keep the UK head of state even if the UK became a republic. So the president or whatever of the UK would be King of Grenada similar to the situation in Andorra and the president of France. 2A02:C7C:3EE0:2400:3C96:8CF9:4005:BE0F (talk) 11:33, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am fairly sure it would not be the Uk president if the Uk became a republic it would be the monarch or they would change. GothicGolem29 (GothicGolem29 Talk) 13:12, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What? —Tamfang (talk) 19:56, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That might apply to some of the realms, until they changed it. The other option is if the UK became a republic the family might turn up in Ottowa, Canberra, or Wellington looking for new digs. Jaxsonjo (talk) 22:27, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Even though many of the smaller realms do not have formal succession laws the UK Parliament still has to formally seek their permission for any change to the succession. Canada has passed a law linking their succession to that of the UK, in a reversal of their constitutional separation under the Canada Act. Jaxsonjo (talk) 22:25, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah he is still in the line of succession. GothicGolem29 (GothicGolem29 Talk) 22:17, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

  • Comment offered as a hypothetical ONLY, NOT for mention in article King Charles could excommunicate him from the Church of England. Under the Act of Settlement of 1701, the moment an individual falls out of communion with the Church of England, he immediately becomes ineligible for succession to the throne, same as if he converted to Catholicism. This may or may not happen and again is offered as a pure hypothetical ONLY. Safiel (talk) 04:11, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    That's not correct. The Act of Settlement 1701only excludes Catholics (people in Communion with the Pope) from being able to inherit the throne. Separately, on accession, it requires the heir to join Communion with the Church of England, but it's not a requirement to be in the Church of England to inherit. Many people in the line of succession are not members of the Church of England (mainly member of other protestant churches, but there are presumably also atheists and members of non-Christian religions) and some of those actually inherited the throne in the past (eg George I who was Lutheran). 90.244.145.156 (talk) 09:19, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Of course it was enacted, that's why it is called an Act. You mean it has not recently been applied. —Tamfang (talk) 19:58, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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".[2] He continued to use the title "prince";[2] however, on 30 October 2025, it was announced that he had been formally stripped of hall his titles and honours, including that of "prince." [3] Dylaneditorr (talk) 19:55, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done the text will be amended when the page is finally renamed Billsmith60 (talk) 20:30, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
I don't think the renaming is relevant for what is the content of this section. The title of the page will be the commonly used name and this section will discuss which titles he formally holds, what the names are that he is uses and or would be allowed to use, which titles he had in the past and how this has developed. (And there are still many questions open on this, e.g. it seems the plan so far is to not formally remove his Dukedom, but just remove him from the peerage roll, which would mean he isn't allowed to use the title Duke any more, but still formally is a Duke, and any hypothetical sons could still inherit the Dukedom.) Again we'll have to wait and see what will actually be happening, but this section should reflect what the current status is (which is that the King announced a formal process has started to remove the titles.), but this is largely independent from what the correct title of the page is. 90.244.145.156 (talk) 09:27, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/cnveqgj957dt
  2. ^ a b Rawlinson, Kevin (2025-10-18). "Why Prince Andrew is giving up his titles now – and what it means for the royal family". The Guardian. ISSN 0261-3077. Retrieved 2025-10-19.
  3. ^ Amos, Owen; Spivey, Matt, eds. (30 October 2025). "Prince Andrew to lose 'prince' title and move out of Royal Lodge".

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
It should be Mountbatten Windsor per HM The King and Mr Mountbatten Windsor himself. EuroAgurbash (talk) 20:14, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
We have a communication from the Palace. EuroAgurbash (talk) 20:22, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
This is not how name changes work in England & Wales. There is, legally, no formal process beyond your name being whichever names you genuinely use non-fraudulently. That businesses impose further, mistaken, restrictions on recognising name changes, has no baring on the reality of it. Deed Polls, unenrolled or otherwise, exist merely to document, not enact. 82.11.214.233 (talk) 12:04, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I can't help but remember this valuable post from some years back: https://www.kalzumeus.com/2010/06/17/falsehoods-programmers-believe-about-names/. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 01:40, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Shouldn't we be using 'Mountbatten-Windsor' with the hyphen here, since it's the formal compound surname and most other royal pages include it? ItsShandog (talk) 09:54, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Dang, this hyphen debate is intense. I am somewhere between agnostic and no hyphen given the statement from the palace yesterday. I am also confident that this will become clear soon enough. Utahredrock (talk) 15:42, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think this is a similar case to how the Bowes-Lyons and (I think) Parker-Bowleses tend to omit the hyphen within their family but it remains hyphenated on legal documents? Rexophile (talk) 18:07, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
The Palace also states on their official website that the surename of members of the royal family is "Mountbatten-Windsor", and many other members of the royal family (e.g. Lady Louise Windsor) use this surename. For now we just don't know why the press release does not contain a hyphen, it might be that there will actually be a formal change of the name, it might be that Andrew prefers the name without hyphen, but formally, the hyphen will remain part of his name, it might be that it was just an error in the press release. Sources have also started to report on this issue. We need to wait until there is clarification. 90.244.145.156 (talk) 09:36, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Why would we be "nearly certain" they didn't make an error? I'd say we're nearly certain they did. The name has always had a hyphen and now it has been omitted in a single document, with no explanation whatsoever. If they wished to create some distance, they picked an awfully subtle way to do it. GreatCaesarsGhost 15:30, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

I just want to state my reaction to the King's statement saying Mountbatten Windsor with no hyphen. Yes, Elizabeth II's 1960 declaration said Mountbatten-Windsor and Charles III's statement contradicted that. Royalty and palaces aren't immune to typos and grammatical errors. Furthermore, I consider the 1960 declaration which in addition to the Queen involved the Privy Council to be more authoritative than a newer statement that ultimately kind of derives its own authority from and can ultimately be traced to it. One couldn't happen without the other. The King's statement is ultimately a product and direct consequence of the 1960 declaration.2601:58A:8486:2490:447:2F0D:50AF:FBDE (talk) 6:30, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

According to the Royal Family official website, the 1960 proclamation "is not statutory; unlike an Act of Parliament, it does not pass into the law of the land. Such a proclamation is not binding on succeeding reigning sovereigns, nor does it set a precedent which must be followed by reigning sovereigns who come after". A plain reading of the text shows that the King does not need to issue a new proclamation to replace the 1960 version if he does not wish to follow it. It is not binding on him. He could simply ignore it at any time. To me, the latest announcement should be referred to, as it sounds awkward to assume that an important official announcement like this is wrong. Of course, we could wait a few more days to see if the Palace will issue any clarifications. --Clithering (talk) 17:39, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I took up to the College of Arms the question (but not sure if they will be able to answer) and I also took up them the question if Andrew is still legally entitled to use his coat of arms, albeit without the ribbon of the Garter. Rexophile (talk) 20:29, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

According to this article the official reason there is no hyphen is “Andrew Mountbatten Windsor was the name agreed.” That should settle it. In any case I don't think there is any great reason other than personal stylistic preference. Maybe he just doesn't like hyphens? Wellington Bay (talk) 01:02, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If this is a reliable source and the surname is written without a hyphen in the future this looks like a conclusion to the matter I’d say, although he will remain legally Mountbatten-Windsor I guess? Gualtherus (talk) 04:24, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Other sources, such as Town & Country and The independent, also mention that the name is spelled with no hyphen. We should go with "Andrew Mountbatten Windsor" with no hyphen, following the reliable sources. --saebou (talk) 09:15, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I feel the relevant point has been slightly missed here. Plenty of examples of the hyphenated form have been provided with respect to other people. But all we can do is work with regards to the sourcing for this person subsequent to the announcement of what he is now known as (or at least, known as by everyone other than Wikipedia). The punctuation of the Palace statement is not the be-all-and-end-all, but were it felt that a clear and obvious error had been made, there would by now be a body of reliable sourcing for the correction. Our reliable sources overwhelmingly use the non-hyphenated form; our opinions that it should be hyphenated (it's my opinion too) are irrelevant without contemporary sources to back it up. 212.56.116.42 (talk) 10:01, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

I agree. Sophies mommy1988 (talk) 23:58, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I strongly agree, see my explanation above under "Mountbatten Windsor or Mountbatten-Windsor" Gualtherus (talk) 01:34, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Just for general clarification and sourcing, the spelling is stated here. Puisque (talk) 01:35, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that's what the Queen in Council said in 1960 about the family as a whole. However, it directly contradicts what we were told by the palace this morning with specific reference to Andrew. For all we know, Charles and Andrew negotiated long and hard about the hyphen, and our article is now second-guessing them. Per Moncrief, supra. Moscow Mule (talk) 02:25, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps, but COMMONNAME should apply here if there is an issue. --Super Goku V (talk) 04:04, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Palace spokeswoman: "Andrew Mountbatten Windsor was the name agreed." Andrew Mountbatten Windsor: What is the history of the former duke's new name? (The Standard) Moscow Mule (talk) 02:02, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

He is presently still legally a knight of the garter. EuroAgurbash (talk) 20:30, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
See the nuanced position set out at List of current knights and ladies of the Garter. EuroAgurbash (talk) 21:04, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]

I think he does not have any Arms now. The section about his Arms should be removed. 2600:8801:140E:7500:B01C:9CA0:2A77:FC56 (talk) 08:59, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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.fTalk 21:12, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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.fTalk 21:20, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Well his honours are not listed has having been forfeited as of yet by the committee [18]. Nford24 (PE121 Personnel Request Form) 21:24, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I guess we have to wait for all the relevant websites to get updated, including the royal family's website. Keivan.fTalk 21:35, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Just an update (at least on one website). His name has been officially removed from the Roll of the Peerage. https://www.college-of-arms.gov.uk/images/downloads/Roll_of_the_Peerage.pdf Keivan.fTalk 04:17, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
And his profile has been removed from the royal website. Keivan.fTalk 19:31, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Isn't the Royal Victorian Order in the personal gift of the monarch? Nothing to do with Parliament. —Tamfang (talk) 20:01, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Yeah, I reverted that close, as discussion is ongoing. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 23:28, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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.fTalk 23:41, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Aha! Appreciate the clarification. 2A00:23C7:E88E:B101:FDF7:E214:6E88:ADA2 (talk) 23:57, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Aha! Appreciate the clarification. Sophies mommy1988 (talk) 23:57, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The article was move-protected per a request at ANI. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 23:37, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@SarekOfVulcan very glad I made that request now, foresaw these shenanigans a mile off. Rambling Rambler (talk) 23:40, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@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)[reply]
Bad Non-admin Closure. Rambling Rambler (talk) 23:48, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
I disagree personally vpab15 has done the right thing 2A00:23C7:CEF:AD01:486E:4947:DA1B:1C48 (talk) 23:23, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

information Note: A close has been requested here, it's been reverted twice already it seems. CNC (talk) 12:06, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

On whether he is actually a member of the BRF

He has been stripped of all his titles, styles, and honors and is no longer a working royal. And I think his only royal tie is Counsellor of State at the present. I think we should change the lead to maybe "former member" of the BRF of a "member of the House of Windsor"?? Thoughts? Rexophile (talk) 02:02, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

He is still a member of the family, but lost all of his titles and such. Eric (talk) 02:16, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
He is still a member of the british royal family and he still has his place in the order of succession even if that place will be even farther back for every descendant that king Charles III gets. He is a member of the royal family by a matter of being born into it. And i dont think there is a process to remove him from the family. 31.208.186.132 (talk) 09:18, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We should describe him as a "relative of the British royal family" rather than "member", which strongly implies or has connotations suggesting that he himself is a royal, when he is a commoner with no title of any kind. Being far down in the line of succession doesn't confer royal status. Theoretically that list includes a ton of non-royal and even non-aristocratic people who could theoretically become royal if something extraordinary happened. It's entirely separate from what status/titles you actually hold today. --Tataral (talk) 14:39, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I don't think the term "member" quite fits the scope of his role whatsoever. Rexophile (talk) 16:02, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
relative of the British royal family" is quite an absurd phrasing for someone who is the brother of the reigning monarch. If people really don't like the British royal family phrasing (though I think it would be fine), we should just right directly "is the brother of King Charles III" in the first sentence. 90.244.145.156 (talk) 01:30, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sadly he will always be a member, however, in the lead I advocate calling him "a disgraced member of" the BRF. Utahredrock (talk) 16:07, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
royal.uk: Andrew no longer appears on www.royal.uk/royal-family. His page, www.royal.uk/prince-andrew, was there yesterday but is now 404. And no, I'm not suggesting we should use that as a source for "no longer a member of the royal family", pending further announcements. "Disgraced" would be a nice addition, but it'd need rock-solid sourcing. Moscow Mule (talk) 16:23, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
His removal from the royal family's own definition of the "royal family" makes it clear, at the very least, that we cannot describe him as a "member of the British royal family" in an unqualified manner. While it's perhaps not enough to write "former member of the British royal family" outright, it's at the very least enough reason for consider another phrasing than the old one. "relative of the British royal family" avoids the whole "former vs. current member" issue; he is still one of their relatives, regardless of whether they define him as a "member" of the "royal family". --Tataral (talk) 17:57, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
“Relative of the family” is such clunky wording and raises more questions than it solves. We don’t actually need to mention either in the opening sentence - we already go on to describe him as the son of QEII and the brother of The King. This suffices without being clunky or original research. EuroAgurbash (talk) 18:42, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Keivan.fTalk 19:32, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I said "estranged member" but apparently this was deemed unpopular... Castlemore7 (talk) 11:07, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
He's the brother of the King, how can he not be a part of his family? Are there any reliable sources that are describing him as not being part of the family any more? Also worth noting that the King will be providing him with accommodation in one of his properties, so it's not that he is completely ending all dealings with him. 90.244.145.156 (talk) 01:26, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:People stripped of honorary degrees

He's been stripped of all his titles. 209.93.85.118 (talk) 08:50, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a source for this? sjones23 (talk - contributions) 12:27, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Is there reliable sources saying he has been stripped of honorary degrees? GothicGolem29 (GothicGolem29 Talk) 13:12, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Any honorary degrees are up to the universities that issued them. Revoking them is likely to take time; the King cannot do it with one decree (though perhaps he can retroactively forbid his brother to accept them??). Likewise with any foreign honours. —Tamfang (talk) 20:06, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Should the article still refer to him as "Andrew"?

Generally articles on commoners refer to them by last name. To take a random example, Jeffrey Epstein refers to its subject throughout as "Epstein", not "Jeffery". The counterargument is that reliable sources still seem to be referring to him as Andrew. And although this might seem unusual we have the example of eg Adele who is refered to by her given first name. I personally think we should keep calling him Andrew, but I wanted to open a discussion so that it does not turn into another disruptive edit war (we seem to have two or three of those ongoing at the moment). Quantum Burrito (talk) 10:45, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It seems sensible to follow reliable sources. If they keep referring to him as 'Andrew' then we will, as it's what readers will expect, but if they shift to 'Mountbatten Windsor' then we can follow. The lay of the land should become obvious over the next few weeks. A.D.Hope (talk) 11:03, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, BBC News continues to call him "Andrew". Castlemore7 (talk) 11:18, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It should be made clear that until October 2025 he was known as Prince Andrew until he was stripped of his titles by the King, Prince Charles. 2A02:C7C:9444:AF00:FFF7:DD85:21E4:E162 (talk) 11:26, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
> the King, Prince Charles.
Just call him King Charles at this point. - OmegaAOL (talk page, and contribs) 12:26, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not going to lazily cite IAR and simply leave it at that... but I'm not sure if there's a coherent way to consistently refer to him other than "Andrew", given that in some contexts related to his early life, Mountbatten Windsor could be confusing, as would switching between the two. "Andrew" does not in and of itself imply some sort of particular dignity (if I felt it did I might object), it would just be highly unusual in comparison to how we normally stylise. Perhaps weird is better than inconsistent or confusing, in the absence of anyone being able to demonstrate that we can have perfect conformity? 212.56.116.42 (talk) 22:26, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Follow-up - the trend from the few sources I've looked at would seem to be that it's "Andrew Mountbatten Windsor" on first mention and "Andrew" thereafter BBC Channel 4 CNN. Now obviously the media aren't bound by Wikipedia's Manual of Style but equally, they would generally refer to a commonor as full name on first mention and then surname afterwards, and they're choosing this deviation. It makes sense that we consider the logic behind why they're doing this. 212.56.116.42 (talk) 22:45, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The Guardian uses "Mountbatten Windsor" in their article (even though the headline has just "Andrew"). 90.244.145.156 (talk) 01:43, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
When I search for 'Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor (the person's name this article is about) I keep getting redirected to an article called 'Prince Andrew' yet no such person exists.It's most curious. 86.87.191.180 (talk) 01:44, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

First mention

There is a bit of revert war going on regarding the first mention. MOS:FULLNAME indicates that "While the article title should generally be the name by which the subject is most commonly known, the subject's full name, if known, should usually be given in the lead sentence (including middle names, if known, or middle initials)" giving as an example "Fidel Alejandro Castro Ruz" for Fidel Castro.

It is convention with royals to list the title without middle names on first mention, then follow with the first and middle names in parenthesis. Consider Andrew's brother Prince Edward, Duke of Edinburgh (Edward Antony Richard Louis). Andrew's name no longer includes "prince" (or "duke"). He is simply Andrew Mountbatten Windsor. Consequently, it is no longer necessary to set off his middle names into the parenthetical - he should just be "Andrew Albert Christian Edward Mountbatten Windsor" And we certainly do not include "prince" there. @Utahredrock @ItsShandog@Castlemore7@DrKay GreatCaesarsGhost 13:51, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Charles Edward, Duke of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha was born a prince, styled His Royal Highness Prince Charles Edward Duke of Albany, but that is not stated in the lead — it's only reflected in the infobox. The lead says he "was at various points in his life a British prince and royal duke", but it does not include "Prince" alongside his full name or given names. His title of prince was later removed under the Titles Deprivation Act 1917.
This sets a clear editorial precedent: even when someone is born a prince, the lead may omit the title if it is no longer used or was formally removed. Applying the same logic to Andrew — who was also born a prince but no longer uses the title actively — the lead can begin with his full name and given names, without "Prince", while the infobox preserves his birth styling.
That said, we could consider adding a modular phrase similar to Charles Edward's lead — for example, "was born a prince and is a member of the British royal family" — to acknowledge Andrew's birth status without overstating current usage. This would maintain consistency while reflecting both origin and present context. ItsShandog (talk) 14:19, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@ItsShandog Charles Edward was not born "Prince Charles Edward Duke of Albany", he was the Duke of Albany from birth. That being said, his title as a prince doesn't need to be mentioned in the lead like Andrew's because he's referred to by his regnal name as Duke of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha. It's not a good comparison. A more accurate comparison would be Carl Bernadotte, another prince who was deprived of his titles and reverted to using a commoner name format. estar8806 (talk) ★ 14:57, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I meant to say Duke of Albany, and Carl wasn’t born a British prince, so I’m not sure how that’s a good comparison. ItsShandog (talk) 15:04, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion is contingent on the outcome of the move request above. The simplest thing to do would be to stop editing the lead sentence, accept whatever its current form is as a temporary 'good enough' measure, and then resume the discussion once the article title has been determined.
I do understand the urge to sort things out as quickly as possible, but trying to come to a settled agreement before the article name is settled seems futile. A.D.Hope (talk) 14:30, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The article name should reflect the WP:COMMONNAME and the first mention should reflect the MOS:FULLNAME. The dispute is about the application of common name given the recency of the change. There is no such dispute regarding the full name. GreatCaesarsGhost 15:01, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Although it may be possible to come to some sort of consensus on the form of the lead sentence now, it will be easier to do so once the title of the article has been decided as this will inform the wording of the sentence. A.D.Hope (talk) 17:06, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for starting this discussion. No more edits from me at this point. Please see: WP:CommonName which is quite clear. It includes these examples:
Use--Mahatma Gandhi (not: Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi)
Use--Bill Clinton (not: William Jefferson Clinton)
In addition see Prince William, Prince of Wales, Prince Harry, Duke of Sussex, etc. These keep all of the long given names in parenthesis. There is no reliable sourcing (or any sourcing that I have seen) where Andrew Mountbatten Windsor is referred to by all of his given names. The article should follow established usage and policy. Respectfully, Utahredrock (talk) 15:07, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
OK . . . looks like I am wrong when you look at Clinton and Gandhi. However, in those cases the main article does have the shorter/more common usage as the article names. Meanwhile, Harry and William follow the naming convention I am advocating for Andrew. Mr. Mountbatten Windsor's main article name is, of course, still under discussion to catch up with his new name. A.D.Hope makes this same point above. Again, no more edits of this from me. Utahredrock (talk) 15:25, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
My thoughts are quite clear on my recent edits that MOS:FULLNAME should apply here. Castlemore7 (talk) 21:40, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dukedom

To formally remove a peerage from someone, an Act of Parliament is needed. Although he may no longer use the title and enjoy privileges of holding it, he still formally is Duke of York. It should be noted somewhere. Kowalmistrz (talk) 17:16, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I strong support this motion. It is even clarified here: https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-10370/ LeComte1789 (talk) 17:44, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Andrew's titles and their status are covered at Prince Andrew#Titles and styles. A.D.Hope (talk) 18:00, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Lord Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor

Andrew remains the younger son of a Duke which, obviously, cannot change. He is therefore entitled to the courtesy title Lord Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor. That would need to be removed by Royal Warrant. If it isn't then he might choose not to use the title but it remains a courtesy title and he can if he wants to. 81.108.9.124 (talk) 19:06, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Harry's son Archie was also born the son of a Duke but was not known as "Lord Archie" before his grandfather's ascension. We'll go by what the sources say not by what we think should be the case. Keivan.fTalk 19:29, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
He would have been known by Harry's second title - Earl of Dumbarton. Apparently they didn't like the idea of it being shortened to Earl of Dumb. They decided that for their children. A M-W is an adult… 81.108.9.124 (talk) 20:02, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm aware of the whole Dumbarton fiasco. What I am saying is that even putting that title aside, he could have still been called "Lord Archie" at the very least but his parents decided against it at the time. It's just a sign that what matters is whatever members of the royal family choose to be known by in certain circumstances, not what the law or customs necessarily demand. Keivan.fTalk 06:35, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Archie's parents decided to not style their children as the children of duke, but they very well could have if they wanted to. Andrew likely won't use this courtesy title given the statement he made a couple of weeks ago, but the OP's point was that he might be entitled to it, and if yes, and there's a reliable source for it, this should be included somewhere in the article (but not mentioned as part of his name). 90.244.145.156 (talk) 00:55, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The statement by the King says: "His Majesty has today initiated a formal process to remove the style, titles and honours of Prince Andrew." This should include the courtesy title he'd be able to use as a son of a Duke. Not quite clear how exactly this will be done, but - unless they forget about it - this option of using a title will also be removed. 90.244.145.156 (talk) 01:08, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You said it - it's a courtesy title so it is only used by convention. A person can choose not to use it and the Palace statement says that Andrew will be known as Andrew Mountbatten Windsor going forwards. Saxmund (talk) 12:58, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mention of title removal in article

Not doing the edit request template as clearly this needs a light-touch sense check given the requested move of the article itself.

The section currently reads

"His Majesty has today initiated a formal process to remove the Style, Titles and Honours of Prince Andrew" and that he would subsequently be known as Andrew Mountbatten Windsor.

But should surely be

"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."

Reference for the statement to attribute the full quote here

I get that perhaps whoever edited decided that the rapid repetition of "Prince Andrew" was undesirable, but given the semantics being quibbled over (not to mention some brilliant arguments above such as that it's WP:TOOSOON to give this man a Wikipedia article), until we've decided whether he has ceased to be Prince Andrew at article level it would make sense to use as little latitude as possible. "Subsequently" in the context of a process entails a substantially different meaning to "now" in the context of a specific element of said process. 212.56.116.42 (talk) 20:31, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"Henceforth" instead of "subsequently"? Moscow Mule (talk) 20:46, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Not opposed, I just feel the quote to the extent I suggests removes any reason for the meaning to be changed? The issue we are having right now with this person overall is disputes over precision (for instance people removing "Prince Andrew" in historical contexts where clearly that actually is the appropriate term - I say this as someone pushing hard for the page move), so having something precise (a quote), seems better? 212.56.116.42 (talk) 21:21, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
OK, full quote inserted (except for the line break, leaving us with the rapid repetition of "Prince Andrew" problem). Maybe it'll stick. It is kind of historic... Moscow Mule (talk) 21:47, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks 212.56.116.42 (talk) 22:03, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Once things settle down it will be safe to change to something that reads better... but given the literal change of meaning from not quoting before, I think for the time being this is the best way. 212.56.116.42 (talk) 22:06, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox

Shouldn't Duke of York remain in the infobox, with beginning & end dates? GoodDay (talk) 20:11, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree with this. Sophies mommy1988 (talk) 22:58, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Not necessarily. Duke of Albany is not mentioned at the infobox for Charles Edward. Keivan.fTalk 04:33, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Surname

Setting aside the article title move discussed above, if he's now named 'Andrew Mountbatten Windsor', the proper reference throughout the article should be his surname, Mountbatten Windsor, rather than simply 'Andrew'. The Manual of Style states, "After the initial mention, a person should generally be referred to by surname only" (MOS:SURNAME). -- Hazhk (talk) 20:53, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to lazily cite IAR and simply leave it at that... but I'm not sure if there's a coherent way to consistently refer to him other than "Andrew", given that in some contexts related to his early life, Mountbatten Windsor could be confusing, as would switching between the two. "Andrew" does not in and of itself imply some sort of particular dignity (if I felt it did I might object), it would just be highly unusual in comparison to how we normally stylise. Perhaps weird is better than inconsistent or confusing? 212.56.116.42 (talk) 21:32, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Talk:Prince_Andrew#Should_the_article_still_refer_to_him_as_"Andrew"? Quantum Burrito (talk) 22:11, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Also, is the correct spelling "Mountbatten-Windsor" with a hyphen? That is the spelling used by Andrew's niece and nephew, Louise Mountbatten-Windsor and James Mountbatten-Windsor. Peter G Werner (talk) 03:49, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Talk:Prince_Andrew#Mountbatten Windsor or Mountbatten-Windsor Quantum Burrito (talk) 10:13, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Today the BBC News and Sky News website are referring to him as Andrew Mountbatten Windsor but still referring to him as Andrew in short. He should of course be referred to as (Mr) Mountbatten Windsor but I suspect this will be a while coming. So I don't think there is any reason for Wiki to rush to change it. In any case, it is not unheard of for people to be referred to by their first name, eg Madonna, although that is more of a stage name or mononame it is also her official first name Saxmund (talk) 13:03, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that we should probably stick with calling him "Andrew" after the first mention - this seems to be what the sources are doing now. If this consensus among news orgs changes, we can change later. GnocchiFan (talk) 15:20, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Is he not entitled to call himself, and be called as a matter of courtesy, "Commander" M-W? Liscaraig

New category?

Should we perhaps have a new categpry Category:People stripped of royal titles to cover this and other similar cases? Also perhaps Category:People who have renounced royal titles? — The Anome (talk) 20:58, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Have at it. SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 22:47, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I would find more people beforehand. If we're going to make a new category, there should be 3 or more articles in it. Mikeycdiamond (talk) 23:50, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Also, we should call it Category:People renounced of their royal titles. Your first suggestion sounds less official than your second, but your second suggestion implies that they still own the title/owned it at the time of their death. My suggestion combines the better parts of your suggestions. Mikeycdiamond (talk) 23:56, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"People renounced of their royal titles" is not good English. Renouncing is a voluntary surrendering of something, and only involves the holder; when it's taken away from them by someone else, that's called being "deprived of" or "stripped of". -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 15:30, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Not hard to do. A lot of Japanese royalty after the Second World War, Prince Joachim of Denmark's children, plenty of abolished monarchies. Killuminator (talk) 10:38, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There's also the Category:Disinherited European royalty. Killuminator (talk) 10:42, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The Andrew formerly known as Prince has not been disinherited. - OmegaAOL (talk page, and contribs) 12:27, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You should read the description of the category first. Killuminator (talk) 13:57, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Also those deprived under the Titles Deprivation Act 1917. There is scope, although I fear the Category may be overly broad. GnocchiFan (talk) 15:22, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've added the article to Category:People stripped of a British Commonwealth honour, but this doesn't preclude a more specific category. Mitch Ames (talk) 23:54, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

FYI: Andrew booted from the Royal Family page on the official site of the monarchy

They yanked him from the page: https://www.royal.uk/royal-family Utahredrock (talk) 00:39, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It must have happened around six hours ago, or maybe more. More at the Daily Mail. Utahredrock (talk) 00:43, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Also, here's the official statement from the Palace: https://www.royal.uk/news-and-activity/2025-10-31/a-statement-from-buckingham-palace
I think it took them a day to get it online and even now it doesn't appear to be on any of the main pages. It is dated 31 Oct., but the statement was released 30 Oct.Utahredrock (talk) 00:49, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Strike that, it is on the press page now. And, it has a typo, but it doesn't involve a hyphen. Utahredrock (talk) 01:02, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
And per this article he was struck from the Roll of the Peerage. Utahredrock (talk) 00:55, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Still The Duke of York: https://www.royal.uk/encyclopedia/succession Mike Rohsopht (talk) 06:22, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That page is not regularly updated. Last time it took them like a month to change the titles for Harry's children. Keivan.fTalk 06:31, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Minor amendments

If there were an edit function for the article I would write "in" for every time it says "on" a ship. It might also be better to say "in command" of a ship, rather than "captain", which is a rank. Liscaraig185.225.45.10 (talk) 13:14, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

birth_name

Should |birth_name=Prince Andrew be removed, as this parameter is for birth names, not titles? J3133 (talk) 17:23, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not necessarily. See Elizabeth II and Charles III as other examples. Keivan.fTalk 18:16, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Refer to him as "Andrew" in the text through the article rather than his new surname

I was strongly supportive of moving the title of this page to "Andrew Mountbatten Windsor". However the article as a whole now reads strangely where the text refers to him as "Mountbatten Windsor" for times in his life where he would absolutely not have been known as such.

For instance "Mountbatten Windsor was born in the Belgian Suite at Buckingham Palace" I feel is quite clumsy given this was not the way that anyone would have referred to him at the time.

Would we not be better served referring to him as "Andrew" throughout most of this article? I recognise the general approach in articles for non-royals is to use surnames but I do feel this is a special case given his surname has effectively been invented in the last 48 hours.

I am absolutely not looking to reopen the debate on the page title but I do think that this article reads awkwardly now and would be better served by using "Andrew" more generally in the text.

The article on Mako Komuro is a good analogous example of one that I think reads well by maintaining the use of her given name (for which she was best known) but omitting the princess title. (eg: "In August 2025, Mako and her husband were invited to attend her brother's coming of age ceremony") Mcc84mcc (talk) 19:15, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, in particular because reliable sources such as the BBC follow this practice and call him "Andrew" (and not his surname) throughout their articles. Aoi (青い) (talk) 19:21, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I changed a lot of it because another editor had changed quite a bit already as well but I have no opinion either way I think Andrew or Mountbatten Windsor is fine. ItsShandog (talk) 19:24, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A consensus is required. I'm personally not really in favor of retrospective deleting. It happened to this article and Virginia Giuffre v. Prince Andrew. Keivan.fTalk 19:27, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No. Why should he get special treatment? Genuine question. Unless someone goes by a mononym, practice on Wikipedia (we are not the BBC!) is to refer to people by their surnames. It should also be the case for royals and nobility; for some reason, it isn't. In this case, TPFNAPA is not longer royal, or a noble, and so should be referred to by his surname. The BBC will eventually catch up. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 19:32, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Isn't it more common in an encyclopedia to refer to people by their surnames? Using a first name is overly casual. I think when Andrew was his main name it made sense, but since he's being treated like the rest of us, the surname seems more appropriate. Utahredrock (talk) 19:37, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We should follow RS. At the moment it's a bit of a mess with different publications using "Andrew", "Mountbatten Windsor", and various constructions like "the former Prince". This situation doesn't really have a precedent. Let's cool our jets and follow the herd when the herd knows what they're doing. That's what we're supposed to be doing anyway. DeCausa (talk) 19:44, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Andrew_Mountbatten_Windsor&oldid=1319927708"