From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 | The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, use the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information. |
| This page is not a forum for general discussion about Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to the improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor at the Reference desk. |
| This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
 | This article has previously been nominated to be moved. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination.
Discussions:
|
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 18:51, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
because this image is newer, couldn’t we crop it and use it? Atomus23 (talk) 06:57, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- There is no requirement that the lead image is the most recent picture of someone. Sjoerd de Bruin (talk) 12:27, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, but this picture is closer to what Mountbatten-Windsor looks like today in 2025. Atomus23 (talk) 23:09, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- It's lower resolution, when cropped, than the current image. Celia Homeford (talk) 12:30, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep the existing image as is, this image isn't suitable. NottinghamNinja (talk) 13:16, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Why not? Atomus23 (talk) 23:10, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- As a previous user has said, there is no requirement for photos to be recent. NottinghamNinja (talk) 23:59, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- and the resolution isn't very good either when cropped or zoomed. NottinghamNinja (talk) 00:00, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree that the current photo from 2013 need not be changed Billsmith60 (talk) 11:23, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Why not? Atomus23 (talk) 23:10, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
 | This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Mr. M-W’s arms should be changed. He is no longer a KG or GCVO, so he can not display the insignias on his arms. There is a file already: File:Coat of arms of Mr. Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor.png. And it should be changed. ~2025-34425-54 (talk) 16:09, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Not done: Please make your request for a new image to be uploaded to Files For Upload. Once the file has been properly uploaded, feel free to reactivate this request to have the new image used. NotJamestack (✉️|📝) 16:58, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: That file is "own work" and was uploaded by a user who has been blocked for sockpuppetry. More importantly, there is no source cited for the changes from the previous arms. Rosbif73 (talk) 19:17, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
At the bottom of this page, under Peerage, it still shows Andrew as Duke of York 1986-present, and lists him as the Incumbent. Shouldn't this be updated to 1986-2025 and Vacant? ~2025-33457-73 (talk) 18:20, 4 December 2025 (UTC)History Lunatic[reply]
- I believe he still officially holds the title despite not using it. As I understand it would take an act of Parliament to revoke it. ~2025-38485-77 (talk) 19:56, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- That is correct- Andrew is still the Duke of York. Being removed from the Roll of the Peerage simply means that some official documents can't refer to him by that title. Other sources, such as the Debrett's Peerage books, and Wikipedia, can still refer to him as the Duke of York, and they would be correct in doing so. It's also debatable, as to whether the monarch legally has the power remove a person from the Roll. Also, a person can't renounce their own peerage (except in limited circumstances).
- His title of Prince can be removed by a letters patent (that specifically removes the title).
- https://constitution-unit.com/2025/11/08/prince-andrew-and-the-future-of-the-monarchy/
- https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-10370/
- https://www.spectator.com.au/2025/10/prince-andrews-titles-cannot-be-simply-stripped/ ~2025-39807-94 (talk) 07:50, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is more of a query than an edit request. Can someone help me understand why he isn't Lord Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor from an encyclopedia point of view ? His Father was still the Duke of Edinburgh and as the son of a Duke, he's entitled to this surely, even though it may not be used. (talk) 21:06, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Because he's given up the use of all his titles, including any courtesy ones he may have been entitled to in the absence of superior titles. In any case, technically he remains a prince, he's just agreed not to use the title. Wellington Bay (talk) 21:42, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- He's no longer a prince. That title was removed by letters patent. He remains a peer, but cannot use his peerage titles officially because he is not on the Roll of the Peerage. Celia Homeford (talk) 09:44, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The Times is reporting that the Defence Council has removed the honorary tile of Vice Admiral from Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor.
A spokesman for the MoD said: “Following formal consideration, Defence Council have agreed the immediate reversion from the rank of Vice-Admiral to the rank of Commander (Retired) Royal Navy, the rank held on retirement from Regular Royal Naval Service by Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor. This decision aligns with such processes as to remove other styles and titles.”
Could this now be amended on the article? LeComte1789 (talk) 23:08, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have changed the lead so that it simply states that Andrew's remaining titles and honours were removed in 2025. This phrasing already covers prince, knighthoods, and peerages, since those are all titles and honours. I'm wondering why User:A.D.Hope feels the need to repeat each of these items in the lead. The lead is meant to summarise the article, not copy every detail that is already explained in the body. ItsShandog (talk) 11:10, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- The current wording of the lead is inaccurate. Charles has not removed all of Andrew's titles and honours, as he remains a peer. The wording I substituted was more accurate, as it specified what Charles has removed and that Andrew's use of his peerages has been restricted. A.D.Hope (talk) 11:48, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@ItsShandog, could you please restore 'Princess Beatrice' and 'Princess Eugenie' to the lead. As I mentioned in my edit summary, it makes sense to use the names by which their articles are titled in the first instance as this is presumably how they are commonly known. A.D.Hope (talk) 11:39, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Queen Elizabeth's children were known as Prince and Princess and they're still referred to by their first given names so if that is the case on all the pages we are going to have to add that to all page's. ItsShandog (talk) 11:45, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not sure what you mean, sorry. A.D.Hope (talk) 11:46, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- I’ve removed "Princess" before Beatrice and Eugenie’s names in the lead. Although they are formally styled as princesses, the lead of Elizabeth II's article refers to her children (Prince Edward, Anne, Princess Royal, King Charles, Andrew although he doesn't have the title prince anymore) simply by their first names rather than repeating titles. For consistency across royal biographies, it makes sense to follow the same approach here and use just Beatrice and Eugenie in the lead ItsShandog (talk) 11:50, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't agree with that choice. As a general rule, it makes sense to refer to someone by the name used in their article title in the first instance as that is likely to be the name by which they are best-known. A.D.Hope (talk) 11:52, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- I think it looks repetitive. "Their marriage lasted 73 years until his death in 2021. They had four children: Charles, Anne, Andrew, and Edward." So you are saying you would prefer it to say "Their marriage lasted 73 years until his death in 2021. They had four children: King Charles, Anne, Princess Royal, Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor, and Prince Edward, Duke of Edinburgh." ItsShandog (talk) 11:57, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Wording along those lines would make it clearer to the reader who is being referred to, albeit with a loss of concision. We're not discussing the Elizabeth II article, however, but this one. A.D.Hope (talk) 12:01, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- I know we aren't but it is the example I am following and it is a featured article for a reason. I think we are better just getting consensus or a vote instead of us deciding. I think though if we are doing that here adding their titles then it should be done elsewhere. When they click on the link it is taking them to the page of who is being referred to anyway. ItsShandog (talk) 12:05, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Text needs to make sense to readers without them following a link. In this case there probably wouldn't be much confusion, however using 'Princess Beatrice and Princess Eugenie' is arguably clearer than their forenames alone as they are commonly known by their titles. A.D.Hope (talk) 12:34, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Looking at George VI's page, his daughters are referred to simply as Elizabeth and Margaret in the lead, even though Elizabeth is commonly known as Queen Elizabeth II and Margaret as Princess Margaret. She is referred to as Elizabeth II further down the page only because she became monarch after her father and has the same first name as her mother. The argument that they should be called "Princess" in the lead doesn’t hold, because all royals are known by their titles — and if that logic were applied, it would need to be done consistently across every page. In practice, it's common sense for readers to understand who is being referred to by their given names. ItsShandog (talk) 12:58, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Although it's good for articles about similar topics to be consistent, it isn't mandatory. In this case, I still think referring to Andrew's daughters as 'Princess Eugenie' and 'Princess Beatrice' at the first mention is best as this is how they are commonly known. A.D.Hope (talk) 20:49, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Looking at George VI's page, his daughters are referred to simply as Elizabeth and Margaret in the lead, even though Elizabeth is commonly known as Queen Elizabeth II and Margaret as Princess Margaret. She is referred to as Elizabeth II further down the page only because she became monarch after her father and has the same first name as her mother. The argument that they should be called "Princess" in the lead doesn’t hold, because all royals are known by their titles — and if that logic were applied, it would need to be done consistently across every page. In practice, it's common sense for readers to understand who is being referred to by their given names. ItsShandog (talk) 12:58, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Text needs to make sense to readers without them following a link. In this case there probably wouldn't be much confusion, however using 'Princess Beatrice and Princess Eugenie' is arguably clearer than their forenames alone as they are commonly known by their titles. A.D.Hope (talk) 12:34, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- I know we aren't but it is the example I am following and it is a featured article for a reason. I think we are better just getting consensus or a vote instead of us deciding. I think though if we are doing that here adding their titles then it should be done elsewhere. When they click on the link it is taking them to the page of who is being referred to anyway. ItsShandog (talk) 12:05, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Wording along those lines would make it clearer to the reader who is being referred to, albeit with a loss of concision. We're not discussing the Elizabeth II article, however, but this one. A.D.Hope (talk) 12:01, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- I think it looks repetitive. "Their marriage lasted 73 years until his death in 2021. They had four children: Charles, Anne, Andrew, and Edward." So you are saying you would prefer it to say "Their marriage lasted 73 years until his death in 2021. They had four children: King Charles, Anne, Princess Royal, Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor, and Prince Edward, Duke of Edinburgh." ItsShandog (talk) 11:57, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't agree with that choice. As a general rule, it makes sense to refer to someone by the name used in their article title in the first instance as that is likely to be the name by which they are best-known. A.D.Hope (talk) 11:52, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- I’ve removed "Princess" before Beatrice and Eugenie’s names in the lead. Although they are formally styled as princesses, the lead of Elizabeth II's article refers to her children (Prince Edward, Anne, Princess Royal, King Charles, Andrew although he doesn't have the title prince anymore) simply by their first names rather than repeating titles. For consistency across royal biographies, it makes sense to follow the same approach here and use just Beatrice and Eugenie in the lead ItsShandog (talk) 11:50, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not sure what you mean, sorry. A.D.Hope (talk) 11:46, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- We have a manual of style to help with this sort of consistency issue. While it unfortunately does not contain specific guidance for this particular case (first mention of someone other than the article subject), it does strongly discourage the use of titles and honorifics in general when referring to people. And we should not forget that the article subject is Andrew, not his daughters: their titles do not help the reader's understanding of the article subject. Rosbif73 (talk) 07:58, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It depends on the context, each time these people are mentioned a new decision should be made. Generally, titles are over used. In this case in the lead, titles are not needed but only by a thin margin. Using titles to maintain consistency with other wiki articles is illogical and should not be considered. That's my view. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 12:08, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- I understand your point, but aren't we aiming to follow the example set by featured and good articles? Even if not every page is written that way yet, the goal should be consistency with those, standards. I do agree that titles are often overused — most royal biographies refer to individuals by their given names in the lead, with titles appearing only in the page title, the infobox, and sometimes in a dedicated titles section. ItsShandog (talk) 12:21, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, you are aiming to create a good featured article - that is the example you are trying to follow, not to copy that article's edit-style, not unless you want to use wikipedia as a source, which doing that would be doing. Each situation should be judged on its own merits. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 20:27, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@ItsShandog, sorry to ping you twice, but could you please remove the wording '...removed his remaining titles and honours' from the third paragraph of the lead. As I mentioned in my edit summary, it is inaccurate as Charles has not removed all of Andrew's titles. Thanks, A.D.Hope (talk) 11:44, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Apologies, ItsShandog, I did not realise you had already made a section about this above. I will address the issue there. A.D.Hope (talk) 11:46, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- I've now added the wording "removed his remaining titles and honours, and restricted the use of his peerages" to the lead. This should address the accuracy concern you raised, by clarifying that while styles and honours were removed, the peerages remain but their use is restricted. ItsShandog (talk) 11:46, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- I appreciate the change, but it doesn't fully address the issue. It does not make sense to say that Charles has removed all of Andrew's titles but restricted the use of his peerages, because peerages can be considered titles. I would prefer to list what was removed. A.D.Hope (talk) 10:17, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- The sentence now reads: "In 2025, following renewed scrutiny of his association with Epstein, Charles III removed Andrew's remaining royal styles and honours, and restricted his use of peerages."
- This phrasing distinguishes styles/honours from peerages, so it doesn’t imply a contradiction. ItsShandog (talk) 10:26, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- I appreciate the change, but it doesn't fully address the issue. It does not make sense to say that Charles has removed all of Andrew's titles but restricted the use of his peerages, because peerages can be considered titles. I would prefer to list what was removed. A.D.Hope (talk) 10:17, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]