The Liberal Democrats are considering alternatives to push for a parliamentary debate on Prince Andrew's conduct, despite the government's reluctance to allocate time in the House of Commons. This comes as Andrew is reportedly negotiating his move from the Royal Lodge at Windsor, where he holds a “cast-iron” lease until 2078. Calls are also growing for the removal of his Duke of York title, which requires legislative action.

 

The government has declined to initiate discussions, emphasizing that parliament should concentrate on more critical issues. However, a Lib Dem source stated that the party is exploring options, including an opposition day debate, to ensure scrutiny of Andrew's residence and dukedom. The Lib Dems stress the need for transparency, expressing a desire for accountability regarding crown estate management and royal finances.

 

The Lib Dems aim to approach the matter as a public accountability issue rather than a personal scandal, highlighting a push for modern scrutiny standards for publicly funded estates. The intervention increases pressure on ministers and Buckingham Palace to clarify Andrew’s future at the Royal Lodge. Although discussing royal family matters in the Commons is traditionally avoided, the Lib Dems believe the issue warrants parliamentary examination.

 

Commons rules limit such discussions unless based on a substantive motion, complicating direct criticism of the royal family. Following controversies linked to Jeffrey Epstein, Andrew announced he would relinquish his titles, adding complexity to his residency at the Royal Lodge. The matter gains sensitivity with the recent posthumous release of Virginia Giuffre’s memoir, who had accused Andrew of sexual misconduct, allegations he has denied.

 

Key Takeaways

• Lib Dems seek a parliamentary debate on Prince Andrew's situation.
• Discussions include Andrew's residency and the Duke of York title.
• The debate proposal aligns with calls for transparency on royal finances.

 

  Adapted by ASEAN Now from The Guardian 2025-10-26

 

 

They should remove all his titles.

 

Strip Fergie, Eugenie, Beatrice, Harry, Rachel Markle and Merchie/Lillibucks at the same time. That way there can be none of the predictable cries of racism from the Duchess of Delusion and the bloke with a worn out ginger brillo pad on his head. 

 

 

No fan by any stretch......but there must be more important matters parliament could be debating than raking over these old coals.

22 hours ago, JonnyF said:

They should remove all his titles.

 

Strip Fergie, Eugenie, Beatrice, Harry, Rachel Markle and Merchie/Lillibucks at the same time. That way there can be none of the predictable cries of racism from the Duchess of Delusion and the bloke with a worn out ginger brillo pad on his head. 

Give them a small average semi detached house and send them to work 40 hrs/week. Let them earn their living. Lots to clean up in UK.

23 hours ago, Will B Good said:

 

 

No fan by any stretch......but there must be more important matters parliament could be debating than raking over these old coals.

Totally agree.  I heard a political correspondent on the BBC say that if this did come in front of Parliament then it'd be a very quick piece of work with learn unanimous approval.  So, "shouldn't" delay all of the other obfuscation, gerrymandering and lying (my words, not the correspondents...)

Setting aside the current hostility towards the Prince, he has a contract of occupation for the publicly owned Royal Lodge. It is reported that he paid for significant refurbishment of the lodge, albeit to suit his lifestyle, but that must have been with the agreement of the administration. It's not unreasonable that any arguement he is living there 'rent-free' should be offset by the added value of the refurbishment which was at no cost to the public.

 

Personally, I don't understand why a single man requires such a large property unless he houses his entire entourage of  servants and syncophants on site. Frogmore House is where he could be and should be.