The City of London Corporation has approved a new legal mechanism to revoke Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor's Freedom of the City of London and ordered officers to act "as a matter of urgency", the latest institution to sever ties with the disgraced former prince over his association with convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein.
The Court of Common Council, the Corporation's main decision-making body, voted to adopt an act granting itself the power to strip the honour from individuals, a power it previously lacked. Elected members then directed officers to begin the formal process of removing Andrew's Freedom, with a final decision expected when the matter returns to the court in December.
Chris Hayward, the Corporation's policy chairman, confirmed the vote and left no ambiguity about the target:
"Today, we have approved a lawful and effective process for considering whether the Freedom of the City of London should be removed from an individual. The process will now be followed as a matter of urgency to ensure that a decision is made in relation to Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor's Freedom."
Andrew inherited the Freedom in 2012 through patrimony, an automatic right as the child of Prince Philip, who received the honour in 1948. The Freedom of the City of London dates to 1237, making it one of the oldest civic honours in the English-speaking world. But until the court's vote, no lawful procedure existed to take it back. A legal review had concluded there was no effective way to remove the honour, which forced the Corporation to build one from scratch before it could act.
The Corporation did not move straight to revocation. Earlier this year, it wrote to Andrew inviting him to relinquish his Freedom voluntarily. He never responded. In May, the Court of Common Council passed a formal motion of censure, an official expression of disapproval, after that silence. The motion expressed "profound disappointment" that Andrew had "not surrendered his Freedom despite being asked to do so."
The censure motion laid out the Corporation's reasoning in blunt terms:
"The Court of Common Council notes with the utmost dismay Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor's association with the convicted paedophile, the late Jeffrey Epstein, and his accomplice, Ghislaine Maxwell. Whilst it recognises that Mr Mountbatten-Windsor maintains that he has done nothing wrong, it nevertheless considers that his well-publicised association with Epstein is wholly unacceptable and inconsistent with his status and obligations as a Freeman of the City of London."
The motion also cited solidarity with Epstein's victims and survivors, and noted that the King and "other military and civil bodies" had already stripped Andrew of offices and honours.
Under the newly approved process, Andrew will be informed of the proceedings and given the opportunity to submit written representations before the court makes its final decision. Hayward framed the safeguards as a matter of fairness and legal soundness, saying the process "ensures that future decisions are taken fairly, transparently, and in accordance with the law."
The City of London is far from the first body to act. The King stripped Andrew of his right to be called a prince and revoked his dukedom late last year. Queen Elizabeth II had previously removed his military titles, royal patronages, and barred him from using "His Royal Highness" in any official capacity. And the City of York unanimously voted to revoke Andrew's Freedom of the City of York, an honour he had held since 1987, making him the first person ever stripped of that status. York City Councilor Darryl Smalley said at the time that the council wanted to remove "all links between our city and Prince Andrew," as AP News reported.
Smalley did not mince words about what drove the decision. "The removal of this honorary title sends the right message that we as a city stand with victims of abuse," he told reporters, adding that "the next logical step is now for Prince Andrew to do the right thing and relinquish his Duke of York title," Fox News reported.
At each stage, Andrew has resisted voluntarily giving up what remains of his public standing. Author Andrew Lownie, who spent four years writing a biography of the former prince and submitted hundreds of Freedom of Information requests during his research, described a man defined by the status he has lost. "What most annoys him is his lack of a royal status. That's what really sort of gave him his whole sense of identity," Lownie said, according to the New York Post. "I don't think he has any public future. I would say his private future is pretty limited, too."
Andrew's troubles extend well beyond civic honours. In February, Thames Valley Police arrested him on his 66th birthday on suspicion of misconduct in public office. The arrest followed allegations that he shared sensitive government information with Epstein during his years as the United Kingdom's trade envoy. Those allegations involve official visit reports covering Hong Kong, Vietnam, and Singapore, as well as a confidential briefing about investment opportunities in Helmand province, Afghanistan.
By May, Thames Valley Police announced it was widening its investigation to include sex trafficking. The force said the inquiry was being given the same resources as a major crime probe, with specialist sexual offence investigators assigned to the team.
Files released by the U.S. Department of Justice added another layer. The documents contained messages from 2010 in which Andrew communicated with Epstein about setting him up with a woman. In one email, Epstein described a "friend" as "26, russian, clevere [sic] beautiful, trustworthy." An attorney identified as Mr. Edwards, who has represented more than 200 alleged Epstein victims, now represents a woman referenced in that exchange, though whether she is the same woman Epstein described remains unknown.
Andrew settled a civil lawsuit brought by the late Virginia Giuffre, who alleged she had sex with him at age 17 in London, New York, and on Epstein's Caribbean island. He paid a reported £12 million without admitting liability. An unsigned letter accompanying the settlement acknowledged that Giuffre "suffered both as an established victim of abuse and as a result of unfair public attacks," and stated that Andrew "regrets his association with Epstein," as Just The News reported.
The City of London Corporation said its thoughts "remain firmly with the victims and survivors of Jeffrey Epstein and all victims of sexual abuse and exploitation." The proposal to formally strip Andrew of the Freedom is expected to return to the Court of Common Council in December for a final decision.
Andrew will have the chance to submit written arguments before that vote. Whether he responds this time, after ignoring the Corporation's earlier invitation, remains an open question. His track record suggests he will cling to whatever remains rather than let go voluntarily.
The Freedom of the City of London has been awarded to figures ranging from actress Cate Blanchett and footballer Harry Kane to boxer Frank Bruno and musician Ronnie Wood. It is a ceremonial distinction, recipients are famously entitled to walk sheep over London Bridge, but it carries real civic weight. Stripping it requires the kind of formal legal process the Corporation just built from the ground up, specifically because no one had ever needed to revoke one before.
When institutions have to invent new procedures just to distance themselves from you, the problem is not the procedure.
