The long-standing tension between Prince William and his uncle, Prince Andrew, recently came to light during a notably icy interaction at the Duchess of Kent’s funeral a few weeks ago.

Prince Andrew, now 65, was compelled to surrender his remaining titles and honors earlier this month after revelations surfaced about his false claims regarding severing ties with convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein.

Although it was King Charles who urged his brother to step down from his dukedom, with a veiled threat of officially removing his titles, historian Andrew Lownie told the Daily Mail that Prince William was the decisive force behind the scenes.

Prior to Andrew’s official fall from grace, William’s frosty demeanor towards his uncle at the funeral quietly signaled his disapproval of the disgraced royal.

Following the loss of his titles, Andrew is now under pressure to vacate the Royal Lodge, a residence he has shared with his ex-wife Sarah Ferguson since securing a 75-year lease in August 2003.

To secure the property, Prince Andrew initially paid £1 million and invested £7.5 million in critical renovations, allowing him to bypass the property’s nominal annual rent of £260,000.

Prince Andrew’s tenancy is contingent on him maintaining the 30-room mansion and although new images show signs of wear and tear, legal experts have insisted that his lease is watertight and wil remain in the family until 2078.

To add to his woes, it was revealed yesterday that Andrew could be hauled before Parliament to answer questions about his living arrangements after Sir Keir Starmer backed the idea. 

Meanwhile, he is also set to be called to speak about his links to Jeffrey Epstein in front of a US committee which is ‘extremely interested’ in hearing from him.

Just a month ago, things were very different for Andrew, who was still making his presence felt at Royal family occasions, despite giving up his HRH title and being made to step down from public duties in 2022.

At the Duchess of Kent’s funeral, he was seen grinning and trying to strike up a conversation with Prince William on the steps of Westminster Abbey, despite the solemnity of the occasion.

Moments after the duchess’s coffin was carried into the state hearse, Andrew jovially attempted to engage his clearly embarrassed nephew.

According to a lip reader, Andrew attempted to reminisce, saying: ‘We had a lovely time, didn’t we, then?’

William’s silence spoke volumes; he made no reply and simply glanced at Andrew before looking ahead, thin-lipped, rubbing his nose, and rocking on his heels.

After a tense pause, the Duke attempted to continue the conversation. ‘And spending time with us,’ he added, to which William did not respond, instead simply nodding his head in silence.

In another moment during the solemn occasion, the future King seemingly attempted to bring Andrew’s profuse grinning to a stop by covering his mouth and appearing to say something, which resulted in Andrew abruptly dropping the smile.

Meanwhile, body language expert Judi James told the Daily Mail that William’s ‘non-verbal responses’ suggest a degree of ‘awkwardness’ between the pair.

The exchange appeared to give context to Lownie’s claims that a ‘ruthless’ William is the driving force behind the Royal Family’s decision to ostracise Andrew.

William acted decisively to protect his cancer-stricken father – and the Crown – by cutting off his errant uncle and taking away his dukedom and other honours, the historian said.

Mr Lownie said King Charles is battling cancer, ‘and now William is beginning to call the shots’.

He added: ‘He’s much more ruthless than his father, and I think he can see the huge reputational damage that’s been done.

‘One of the reasons for the timing is that people are starting to criticise the King for being too weak. I think they realised they needed to do something’.

Mr Lownie’s book, ‘Entitled, the Rise and Fall of the House of York’, was exclusively serialised in the Daily Mail and is considered the most explosive biography of 2025.

The author told Channel 4 News earlier this month: ‘I don’t think it’s enough. He [Andrew] should have been pushed out long ago’.

It came after sources told the Daily Mail last month that the Prince of Wales had been ‘urging’ his father to take the chance to cut Andrew and his ex-wife, Sarah Ferguson, loose over Jeffrey Epstein.

William also wants to kick the pair out of the lavish Royal Lodge in Windsor, it has been claimed.

It came as another source told The Daily Mail that the King threatened to have Prince Andrew officially stripped of his titles unless he ‘saw sense’.

Charles, 76, made it clear that he would not hesitate to take decisive ‘further action’ if his brother refused to give up his dukedom and other honours after he lied about cutting ties with paedophile Jeffrey Epstein, it can be revealed.

The Daily Mail understands that despite the growing tsunami of evidence against him, the 65-year-old former Duke of York was digging his heels in with a ‘startling lack of contrition’.

It was a situation the King deemed ‘intolerable’, sources said.

The only way for Charles to legally strip Andrew of his titles would have been to take it through Parliament, and it’s believed he has never wished to take up its valuable time and resources in dealing with the matter.

But last week, he privately made clear to Andrew that a raft of options were open to him if he did not fall on his sword.

Some have questioned whether making Queen Elizabeth’s second son set aside his titles was adequate enough in the circumstances.

But sources say that to involve Parliament, when it is dealing with huge domestic and economic challenges – not to mention major global security issues – could have been seen as a waste of resources and taken months, or even a year, to conclude.

Forcing Andrew’s hand would bring about the same result far more swiftly.

And with a narrowing window of opportunity to grasp before the situation spun further out of its control, the Palace made its move.

The fact courtiers were even willing to consider taking the matter out of his hands – whether through Parliament or by other means – is believed to have ‘shocked’ Andrew into finally taking action.

A royal source said: ‘The thought of him still continuing to use the titles and honours that had been conferred upon him for another day, month or year while other options were explored and enacted was intolerable, for the sake of the wider family. And at last, for the wider good, Andrew saw sense.’

This week, in another world-beating exclusive, The Mail on Sunday revealed that Andrew tried to involve the Metropolitan Police and one of Queen Elizabeth’s most senior aides in a campaign to smear Virginia Giuffre, who had accused him of assaulting her as a teenager.

A bombshell email obtained exposed how Andrew asked his taxpayer-funded police bodyguard to investigate the ‘lying’ young woman.

Shockingly, the prince passed on details of her date of birth and social security number, presumably given to him by Epstein.

He also claimed Virginia, who took her own life earlier this year, had criminal convictions, which has been strongly denied by her family.

An earlier email exposé proved that Andrew lied to Buckingham Palace and the British public when he claimed he had cut off all contact with his close friend in December 2010, following Epstein’s release from prison on child-sex charges.

Twelve weeks later, he emailed the paedophile financier to say they were ‘in this together’ and sickeningly expressed his wish to ‘play some more soon’.

The revelation was considered a ‘tipping point’ for the Palace, prompting the King to move so decisively.

‘When the end came, it was relatively quick, swift and ruthless,’ a source said. ‘Andrew may not have been able to read the room, but the Palace could.’

Another source added that while the announcement was an ‘imperfect outcome’, it was considered the best option in the circumstances.

Several sources say that right until the end, Andrew, who remains a prince by birthright, appeared to be in denial about the seriousness of his predicament and ‘clearly strongly believes in his own innocence’.

Where the latest developments leave him with his nearest and dearest is yet to play out.

He will not join the Royal Family for Christmas, but it is difficult to say whether he will ever be seen in public with them again, particularly when it comes to family funerals or services marking key religious events such as Easter.

Given that the King is Supreme Governor of the Church of England, which maintains a Christian ethos towards the forgiveness of sinners, it would be challenging for Charles to ban his brother from church.

However, it is hoped that if the situation arises, Andrew will find ‘less prominent’ ways to attend than his recent scene-stealing appearance at the Duchess of Kent’s requiem mass, when the full awkwardness of family relations was on show.

Suggestions that Prince William may take an even stronger line in the future, including banning his uncle from his Coronation, have been described as ‘conjecture’.

‘He’s in lockstep with his father on the actions taken,’ a source close to the future king said.

There has been concern among the wider family for Andrew’s personal health and well-being in recent years.

Reports have suggested he is a ‘shell’ of the man he used to be, and the concerns may partly account for why the prince was allowed to issue his own wording and statement.

It is also understood that the Palace intends to address the inclusion of Andrew’s biography on its official website as a member of the Royal Family in the coming days. It is not clear whether it will be further downgraded in light of recent developments – or simply deleted.