Prince Andrew latest: Buckingham Palace ‘has grave concern’ over latest Giuffre allegations – UK Times

Legislation to remove Prince Andrew’s dukedom must be put forward without “any further excuses and any further delay”, the Scottish National Party says.

The SNP is putting forward a motion to pressure Sir Keir Starmer’s government to strip Andrew of the title, which would require an Act of Parliament.

Stephen Flynn, the SNP’s Westminster leader, said that “power and privilege” had protected those in the Epstein scandal for far too long and that the legislation to remove the title must be brought forward.

Mr Flynn has submitted an early day motion (EDM) that allows MPs to express an opinion, publicise a cause or support a position. It is rare for them to be debated.

Andrew relinquished his Duke of York title last week but officially continues to hold his dukedom.

Last month the SNP lodged a similar motion to pressure the government to remove Lord Peter Mandelson’s peerage. The former UK ambassador to the US was sacked because of his own ties with paedophile financier Epstein.

The SNP’s proposed Bill would remove both Prince Andrew’s dukedom and Lord Mandelson’s peerage.

Virginia Giuffre’s posthumous memoir “Nobody’s Girl” accuses Prince Andrew’s team of trying to hire internet trolls to harass her and of hiding at Balmoral Castle to avoid being served court papers before their 2022 settlement.

She says the deal, reportedly worth $12m – brought her not just money but an acknowledgment of her suffering and a pledge that Andrew would not malign her again.

“After casting doubt on my credibility for so long – Prince Andrew’s team had even gone so far as to try to hire internet trolls to hassle me – the Duke of York owed me a meaningful apology as well,” she wrote in her memoir.

“We would never get a confession, of course. That’s what settlements are designed to avoid. But we were trying for the next best thing: a general acknowledgment of what I’d been through.”

Prince Andrew has strongly denied any wrongdoing.

Legislation has been used before to strip titles, including descendants of Queen Victoria and Prince Albert who supported the German side in the First World War.

The Titles Deprivation Act 1917 was used two years later to strip the titles from Leopold Charles, Duke of Albany, Earl of Clarence and Baron Arklow; Ernest Augustus, Duke of Cumberland and Teviotdale, Earl of Armagh; Ernest Augustus, Duke of Brunswick, Prince of Great Britain and Ireland; and Henry, Viscount Taaffe of Corren and Baron of Ballymote.

The law remains in force but as it refers specifically to the First World War, its provisions are unlikely to be relevant today.

The government has indicated that it would not introduce any legislation to strip Andrew of his titles unless the King wanted to.

Virginia Giuffre’s brother and sister-in-law have called on the police watchdog to review the decision by the Metropolitan Police to drop its investigations into her allegations against Prince Andrew.

Sky and Amanda Roberts told Channel 4 News that Ms Giuffre had been “gaslit” by the police and authorities, which was a “kick in the stomach” for her.

They have called for the Met to reopen their investigation into Ms Giuffre’s claim she was forced to have sex with Prince Andrew when she was 17, an allegation he vehemently denies.

And they said that if the London force would not take action, the Independent Office for Police Conduct (IOPC) should review the decision.

Mr Roberts told podcast The Fourcast that his sister continually asked: “What is it going to take for people to finally believe me?”

Mr Roberts’ wife, Amanda, said that in the US the issue had been elevated from the Department of Justice to the House of Representatives and added: “So every branch of government needs to take this seriously.”

The IOPC would not comment on the case.

The Metropolitan Police said that following legal advice, it was clear that any investigation into human trafficking would be largely focused on activities and relationships outside the UK.

“Officers therefore concluded that the Met was not the appropriate authority to conduct inquiries in these circumstances and, in November 2016, a decision was made that this matter would not proceed to a full criminal investigation.

“That decision was reviewed in August 2019.

“In November 2019, the Met confirmed that it would remain unchanged.”