Ex-Prince Andrew Asked To Forfeit City Of London Honour As King Charles Allegedly Cuts All Ties

The City of London Corporation has formally invited Ex-Prince Andrew to relinquish his prestigious freedom of the city honour amid explosive claims that King Charles has permanently cut all personal ties with his brother.

Elected members of the Square Mile's governing body agreed on Thursday, 16 April 2026, to write to the man now increasingly referred to in official documents as Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor, following a series of reputational blows that have left the monarchy in crisis.

Unlike honours granted through merit, the Duke of York received his freedom by 'patrimony' in 2012, an inherited right as the son of a freeman. This technicality has created a significant legal brick wall for the Corporation, which lacks the statutory power to strip the award once it has been conferred.

Instead, councillors have opted for a high-stakes political manoeuvre, forcing the disgraced royal to choose between a voluntary forfeit or further public embarrassment. This civic snub comes as Palace sources describe the silence between the King and his younger brother as 'deafening', with Charles reportedly convinced he was lied to regarding the extent of Andrew's links to the late sex offender Jeffrey Epstein.

As of now, the King has allegedly made it clear that there is no path back to public or private life for Andrew, citing both moral concerns and a complex constitutional risk involving any potential legal proceedings brought in the sovereign's name.

City Of London Honour Puts Fresh Focus On Ex-Prince Andrew

The City of London Corporation confirmed that the disgraced ex-prince remains a freeman of the Square Mile, but stressed that his award was not something its councillors had ever actively endorsed.

In a carefully worded statement, a spokesperson for the local authority said Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor had received the Freedom of the City 'by virtue of patrimony, which is inherited as the child of a freeman and constitutes a legal right.'

They added that applications granted in this way 'are not considered or endorsed by our elected members, and there is no effective legal mechanism to remove this type of freedom.' In other words, the Corporation cannot simply strip Andrew of the honour, even if its members are uncomfortable with his continued association with it.

Faced with that legal brick wall, councillors opted for a political solution. 'Elected members have today agreed to write to Mr Mountbatten-Windsor, inviting him to formally relinquish the freedom,' the spokesperson said. 'They will consider the response received, if any, at a future meeting and determine what action may be taken.'

The move pushes the matter back into Andrew's lap. He can quietly surrender the distinction and spare the City further embarrassment, or he can refuse and test how far the Corporation is prepared to go to distance itself from him.

King Charles' Reported Cold Shoulder To Ex-Prince Andrew

While civic leaders hunt for a way to uncouple themselves from the ex-prince, palace insiders claim the King has already done so in all but name. Andrew, once styled His Royal Highness the Duke of York and a familiar figure on the royal rota, has been frozen out of frontline duties since 2019 and stepped back permanently in 2020. Private reconciliation, some had hoped, might come sooner than public rehabilitation.

Recent weeks saw a flicker of speculation that a family thaw was underway. Prince Edward was reported to have made a discreet visit to see Andrew at Sandringham, where the former prince has kept a low profile. That was followed by claims that Princess Anne had telephoned her brother after his arrest in February on suspicion of misconduct in public office, reportedly to check on his well-being.

Those gestures prompted commentary that the King could, in time, follow his siblings' lead. Sources quoted by the Daily Mail insist the opposite. One insider described the silence between the brothers as 'deafening' and said, 'The hard reality is that the King may never speak to Andrew again.'

According to that account, Charles believes he was 'lied to' by Andrew over the extent and nature of his links to Epstein, and whatever fraternal loyalty remained has been badly eroded. The same source suggested that it would take 'an enormous shift in the King's thinking for them even to be in the same room,' dismissing talk of any rapprochement as wishful thinking. These claims are based on unnamed sources rather than on-the-record palace statements and therefore cannot be independently verified.

Beyond the personal breach lies a constitutional headache that royal advisers, by all accounts, are determined to avoid. Any criminal proceedings involving Andrew would be brought in the King's name. If it emerged that the defendant had been privately discussing his case with the monarch, defence lawyers could argue that those conversations were central to their client's position.

Because the sovereign cannot be called to give evidence in court, such a scenario risks entangling the legal process in knots and could be used to challenge the legitimacy of any prosecution. That, insiders say, is one of the key reasons the King has been urged to keep his brother at arm's length both publicly and privately.

Former titles gone, public role extinguished, and now even the ceremonial freedoms inherited from his status as a freeman's son are under pressure. How far Andrew is prepared to retreat, and how much more the institutions around him are prepared to strip away, remains unresolved.

The City of London Corporation is expected to provide an update on the Duke's response later this month. Until then, the institutions that once celebrated the Prince continue to dismantle his legacy piece by piece.