When King Charles decided to revoke Andrew Mountbatten Windsor’s final titles and evict him from the Royal Lodge, it sparked a flurry of questions among royal enthusiasts.

One lingering inquiry is whether the once-Duke must now show deference to his daughters, Princesses Eugenie and Beatrice, by bowing to them.

Another question is whether his ‘exile’ from the royal circle means he will need to secure a passport at last.

The fate of his former spouse, Sarah Ferguson, who has continued to reside with Andrew at the Royal Lodge following their 1996 divorce, also remains uncertain.

In light of the announcement from Buckingham Palace, royal biographer Robert Hardman, who penned “Charles III: New King. New Court. The Inside Story,” joined Jo Elvin, host of the Daily Mail’s Palace Confidential, to delve into the ramifications of the King’s extraordinary decision.

Hardman portrayed Charles as the ‘fountain of justice,’ likening the monarch’s action of revoking Andrew’s honours and titles to the treatment typically reserved for war criminals and state adversaries.

Explaining the logistics behind Charles’s decision, Mr Hardman said: ‘The King has exercised his Royal Prerogative with parliamentary and government approval, he’s talked to the Prime Minister about this.’ 

Answering listener questions, he also broke down what Andrew’s future might hold and the fate of the British monarchy in the eye-opening instalment of Palace Confidential. 

1. What exactly has been taken away from Andrew?

According to Buckingham Palace’s statement on October 31, the ex-Duke has now been stripped of his ‘style’ of HRH, his titles as Duke and Prince, alongside two honours – Knight of the Garter and Knight Grand Cross of the Royal Victorian Order. 

It added that ‘Prince Andrew will now be known as Andrew Mountbatten Windsor’ and that he has been exiled from Windsor’s Royal Lodge, with the disgraced ex-Duke now set to ‘move to alternative accommodation’.

Formal notice has also been served for Andrew to vacate Royal Lodge, the 30-bedroom residence he has occupied since 2008, following mounting public pressure over his friendship with paedophile Jeffrey Epstein. 

2. How will Princess Beatrice and Eugenie be affected?

Andrew’s two children, whom he shares with his ex-wife Sarah Ferguson, are likely to remain unaffected by the King’s unprecedented decision. 

Mr Hardman explained: ‘They are still Princesses and HRH because they are the children of the son of a reigning Monarch.

‘All along, the King and other members of the family have been concerned that the sins of the family do not befall them. They are blameless, they have led a pretty upright life and are level-headed and very nice young women.’

However, he added that they are ‘unlikely’ to take on any further duties, instead acting predominantly as ‘essentially private citizens who are related to the King and occasionally turn up at Royal events’. 

While the House of York has now become essentially ‘dormant’, the King has, in essence, created ‘new rules’ which include the protection of Beatrice, 37, and Eugenie, 35 as princesses of York. 

As daughters of the son of a sovereign, the sisters retain their titles in line with King George V’s Letters Patent of 1917.

3. Will Andrew now have to bow to his own daughters?

As Andrew is no longer a Prince, but instead a commoner, Mr Hardman confirmed that, ‘yes, he probably will’ have to bow to his own daughters, given they have retained their Royal titles.

Yet, the royal biographer is convinced that Andrew is unlikely to bow ‘happily’ and is likely dreading the moment that he will be publicly addressed as simply Andrew, rather than Prince Andrew. 

4. Will the former Prince now need to get his own passport?

Andrew will already have a passport, though Mr Hardman estimated he is unlikely to be ‘doing much travelling’. 

Reports had previously speculated that Andrew could be persuaded to set up home in a £10million luxury villa in Abu Dhabi’s royal family’s fortified estate. 

And Mr Hardman has not ‘ruled out’ a form of ‘actual exile’ for the disgraced former Prince, adding: ‘There’s only so long somebody can sit on a farm in Norfolk.’

Speculating where Andrew could choose to base himself away from the eyes of the world and Palace walls, the royal expert said: ‘Saudi Arabia springs to mind, it has a fairly good record on taking on waifs and strays nobody else wants.’

5. Will Andrew lose his position as Counsellor of State, and could the line of succession be modified?

At this present moment, Andrew technically remains a Counsellor of State, meaning that he could be authorised to carry out the Sovereign’s official duties if they were unable to do so.

However, Andrew cannot technically fulfil the role due to a 2022 legislative amendment which mandates that they must be active members of the Royal Family.

This change therefore, prevents Andrew, alongside his nephew, Prince Harry, from fulfilling such a responsibility if the situation were to arise. 

Mr Hardman estimated there is a slim chance Andrew will no longer be considered a Counsellor of State as it ‘doesn’t need to happen’ and is ‘not something that matters’.

And while he stressed that one should ‘never say never’ given the unprecedented nature of Andrew’s titles being relinquished, he noted that it would be rather unlikely that the line of succession would be modified in this instance, given Andrew is eighth in line to the throne. 

He poignantly added: ‘If the point came where the only choice was to have Andrew on the throne, I think that would be the end of the Monarchy.’ 

6. What will happen to Sarah Ferguson, and could her and Andrew now live apart?

Sarah Ferguson, also known as Fergie, only received her royal title through her marriage to Andrew in 1986 and will now be known as plain Sarah Ferguson in any official capacities. 

Her Duchess of York title was the only connection to the Royal Family Fergie had retained after she divorced Andrew in 1996 and ceased being a Royal Highness.

Despite their divorce in 1996, the couple continued to live together at the lavish 30-bedroom Royal Lodge at Windsor.

But unlike Andrew, who will move onto a property on the private Sandringham estate, Fergie will make her own arrangements, it is understood.

It marks a bitter end for Andrew and Sarah – the former duchess who once told the Daily Mail: ‘We’re the happiest divorced couple in the world. We’re divorced to each other, not from each other.’

But Mr Hardman is not convinced we have seen the last of Fergie, explaining that we could see the former Duchess ‘reinvent herself’ and perhaps ‘come back’ and re-enter into a form of charity work.

However, given the email revelations by the Mail on Sunday which exposed her close friendship with paedophile Epstein, the royal expert made it clear that she will ‘not be going back’ into the field of children’s books. 

The former Duchess apologised to prolific paedophile financier Epstein in April 2011, less than two months after telling journalists: ‘I will never have anything to do with (Epstein) again.’

Addressing her ‘supreme friend’ in an email ‘from the truth of my heart’, she ‘humbly apologised’ to the convicted sex offender for letting him down, adding that she had been told to speak out if she wanted to save her career as a children’s author.

Before the scandalous revelations, Fergie was due to release her latest children’s book, titled ‘Flora And Fern: Kindness Along The Way’ on October 9. It has since been delayed. 

7. Can Andrew now vote? 

While a highly unprecedented move, Andrew could choose to shift from Palace to politics as he is indeed able to vote. 

Mr Hardman stressed that though it is unlikely he would vote, ‘he could stand for the local council in Norfolk’ and ‘do something useful’. 

Making light of a scenario in which a former Prince could stand for a role in public office, he added: ‘I’m not sure he’d get many votes’.

8. What will happen to Andrew’s Royal protection, and how will it be funded? 

Since being stripped of his Royal titles, it remains unclear how Andrew will be protected as he no longer remains a part of the Firm.

However, Mr Hardman stresses that given his non-existent role as a working Royal undertaking any public engagements, he ‘doesn’t really have any security’.

He added that in the unlikely scenario that he was going into any so-called ‘public-facing interactions’, there would likely be somebody there to ‘keep an eye on him’, given that there would be a ‘heightened risk’.

‘He is pretty well insulated from the outside world, and I wouldn’t imagine that is going to change,’ he explained.

9. Did the late Queen protect Andrew?

Despite her beloved son being gradually embroiled by the Epstein scandal in the final years of her life and reign, the late Queen was perceived by some to have protected the former Duke.

With many describing him as her ‘favourite’, Mr Hardman explained that the late Monarch saw he was ‘the most vulnerable of all the children’ and took pity on Andrew as he is ‘your classic spare’.

He added: ‘The Queen was very sympathetic to spares. She could see that being number one came with all sorts of privileges that she herself enjoyed, and being a runner-up leaves you more exposed. 

‘If you’re the sort of slightly gullible, impressionable – in his case feckless – individual, that makes you prey for the likes of Jeffrey Epstein’.

The royal expert described how it had been ‘very painful’ for the late Queen to effectively strip Andrew of all of his honorary military titles in 2022, adding: ‘The Queen had to do some very tough things, but clearly things had to go further, and now they have.’

Explaining why King Charles decided to go one step further than his mother, he said: ‘I think this has been a long time coming, its been brought to a head by the news in the Mail on Sunday and subsequent revelations. 

‘I think that accelerated things, but the main issue is that this is gaining momentum, I think you have MPS in parliament saying it’s time we look at the whole issue of the monarchy. When you’ve got that febrile atmosphere, you’ve got to move fast, and that’s what he’s done.’

10. Was Charles’s delay in taking action due to a possible fear of hurting his brother?

For Mr Hardman, there is no doubt that Charles banishing Andrew from Royal life will have been the ‘hardest decision of his reign’.

However, he added: ‘When you are Monarch, your loyalty to the institution outweighs your loyalty to individuals. The late Queen found it incredibly difficult to essentially force him to leave public life. 

‘For her, she was a Princess of York, her father was Duke of York, it was such a precious thing to her, and she was so pleased to give it to him on his wedding day.’ 

‘Suddenly, it became tainted. Andrew took on a lot of the things Philip had relinquished during his retirement and then his death. For the Queen to have to watch all that being unravelled was very painful. 

‘As far as she was concerned, things had reached rock bottom. Of course, there’s now been a much longer, deeper drop’.

He added that while Charles and Andrew undoubtedly had a close relationship in their ‘early days of marriage’, explaining that the late Princess Diana brought them together over a lunch at Windsor where they happily enjoyed chocolate profiteroles, the King is a ‘wise guy’ and ‘hears what’s going on’. 

‘He would have picked up on the grapevine when these ambassadors were rolling their eyes and tearing their hair out because Andrew was doing something stupid,’ Mr Hardman explained. 

11. Could the King give the Duke of York title to anybody else?

While the King is technically free to do so, Mr Hardman stressed that it is ‘highly unlikely’ the York title will be given to anybody else while other descendants of the last Dukedom remain alive.

‘I think it’s going into the title cupboard and will stay there a very long time,’ he added.

Explaining how the title will likely remain ‘dormant for this generation’, the royal biographer stated that it could make a comeback at some point in the future – particularly given it belonged to some honourable Royals, including the late Queen’s father, King George V. 

12. Was Andrew persuaded to leave Royal Lodge, or did he vacate happily?

While mere speculation about what truly occurred behind the scenes, Mr Hardman argued that Andrew may likely have been ‘persuaded’ to leave the Royal mansion, having been ‘left with no alternative’.

He added: ‘The King had offered him a very good deal which was to move out of Royal Lodge, retain his allowance and live in Frogmore Cottage quietly. But Andrew turned it down.

‘I think what he has realised now is that those bills are beyond payment. Whatever residual prospects he had of a business career has gone in the last few weeks.

‘It was just long-term; it was completely unfeasible for him to stay there. He had this offer a year ago and turned it down. What’s changed now is public opinion and the latest revelations that he hadn’t been telling the whole truth have materially changed the King’s view and everybody else’s point of view.’

Describing Sandringham as akin to the ‘shed at the bottom of your garden’, he explained that Andrew has now become a mere ‘tenant’, rather than a Prince bestowed with the luxurious confines of a Palace. 

13. What happens next for Andrew?

It remains unknown how Andrew is feeling towards his brother’s decision to publicly strip him of his Royal titles, but the royal biographer suggested it would have been a bitter pill to swallow. 

In a particularly acute sign of his unwavering love for his position in the Firm, the former Prince was even said to have ‘flown his Royal Standard above the house’.

Now, this has all irrevocably changed for Andrew. 

‘I don’t think he’ll be flying any standard above the tenant property in Norfolk if indeed it even has a flag poll. Maybe in the privacy of his own home, he’ll still put on his Garter robes and walk around the garden,’ the royal expert added.

‘When you are within the Royal world, things like honours really matter. That mantlepiece is going to be very bare.’

As Andrew is set to begin his new life at Sandringham, it remains unclear how exactly the monarchy will be subsequently transformed.

Yet, the writing is seemingly on the wall with where King Charles stands – as the Monarch appears unafraid to put principle and duty over brotherly ties.

Ultimately, as Mr Hardman explains, the King’s decision enacted last week indicates a rather clear precedent: ‘If you seriously let down the Royal side then these things that over the years members of the family took for granted can be taken away.’