King Charles ‘doesn’t want to humiliate’ says Palmer

We use your sign-up to provide content in ways you’ve consented to and to improve our understanding of you. This may include adverts from us and 3rd parties based on our understanding. You can unsubscribe at any time. More info

King Charles III “does not want to humiliate further” his younger brother Prince Andrew and youngest son Prince Harry by removing their titles, an expert has claimed. Richard Palmer, royal correspondent for the Daily Express, claimed a Private Member’s Bill set to be discussed in Parliament in December to afford the monarch powers to remove royal titles will gain little momentum because neither the Government nor the King are behind it. He said “there is no sign” King Charles wants to further strip the two royals of their titles despite neither of them carrying out duties on behalf of the Royal Family and, in the case of Prince Andrew, constituents in York “making it clear” they do not want their city associated with him. 

Mr Palmer said: “The interesting thing about the titles is the monarch has no power to remove them. So, it would need a change in the law. 

“Rachael Maskell, the MP for York, is bringing a Private Members Bill to Parliament in early December that would do that. 

“She is particularly concerned about the Duke of York and she thinks her constituents do not want Prince Andrew to be the Duke of York any longer. 

“So, she wants to create the facility for the King to take the title away from him. But, a Private Member’s Bill has very little chance of making it into law unless the Government takes it up and supports it. 

“At the moment, there is no sign that the Government is going to do that, perhaps because the King does not want to do that. 

“The King does not want to humiliate any further his brother or his youngest son, Prince Harry. That would be my guess.” 

Speaking about the reasoning behind her proposition of the Removal of Titles Bill, which will enter a second reading in the House of Commons on December 9, Ms Maskell claimed her constituents had “made it clear” to her they no longer wanted Prince Andrew to be associated with their city. 

She said: “Residents made it clear to me in February that they wanted the Duke of York’s title to be removed from Andrew, the Queen’s second son, in the aftermath of revelations about his personal affairs.

“I have heard the city and sought to explore ways that such a title can be removed, however without new legislation this will not be possible. 

“This legislation will therefore enable either the monarch or a Committee of Parliament to remove titles from disgraced owners of those titles.”

The proposed bill is undergoing consideration following the King’s formal request for an amendment to the Regency Act. 

King Charles is hoping to install Princess Anne and Prince Edward as Counsellors of State. Under the current guidelines, Prince Harry and Prince Andrew have remained Counsellors of State, although neither royal figure has been involved with official royal duties for some time.

DON’T MISS: Fergie warned against sharing pics of Andrew with Queen’s corgis [REPORT] 
Beatrice was ‘rainmaker’ in negotiations over Prince Andrew interview [REVEAL] 
Royal duties Harry and Andrew can carry out- but Anne and Edward can’t [INSIGHT] 

Meanwhile, sources close to Prince Andrew said he felt “ambushed” into giving up his other royal titles in light of the civil case against him made by Virginia Guiffre. 

A source told The Sun on Sunday that Prince Andrew did not “understand the consequences” of his legal case with Ms Guiffre at the time as the judge in New York rejected his application to have the case thrown out in January. 

The source said: “It was like a pressure cooker. There was no room to breathe. He didn’t understand the consequences. He was essentially forced to step down. He felt ambushed.” 

Prince Andrew was forced to give up his military titles, his HRH title in any official capacity and the remainder of his royal patronages – many of the charities he supported had already distanced themselves from him following his BBC interview in 2019 – while the case was ongoing. 

But he reportedly claims he was led to believe his titles and patronages would be put on hold “under the protection of his mother” until his legal affairs were in order, which appears increasingly unlikely. 

READ NEXT: King Charles’ snub of Andrew on his birthday is ‘no coincidence’
‘No going back!’ King praised for blocking Andrew’s royal return
Who do you think should deputise for King Charles? POLL
Harry and Meghan ‘mistook popularity for position’ in key moment
Charles’s plan to sideline Andrew and Harry being rushed through

Source: Read Full Article