🔗 Share this article

In the aftermath of so many controversies, Prince Andrew has voluntarily surrendered the use of his designations and accolades.

He can no longer sign off as the Duke of York, or put "Knight of the Garter", a honoree of the Garter Order, following his name, with a show of historic nobility.

The Scottish earldom and Irish barony are also scratched off from his roster of honors, with "Inverness as a surname" a moniker he'd sometimes used in his business dealings.

But what's triggered this sudden statement? Especially as this dramatic step, eliminating the remaining vestiges of his regal career, comes with an proclamation of his guiltlessness and that he maintained "forcefully refute the accusations against me".

Andrew has of his own accord given up the utilization of his titles - but he was evidently feeling compelled to jump prior to he was forced.

This way, the changes in his standing are kept in-house and there avoids the intervention of government, which would have had to pass laws to take away his title as the Duke.

Such a step would have been complicated, but the monarchy was already indicating it was prepared to take action, and it was certain that the government, and popular opinion, would have supported such a change.

Allowing Andrew to freely surrender his designations, which in principle remain in place, gave him a way out, yet retaining a small amount of the disappearing trace of his dignity.

But it's well known that the monarchy was frustrated with the scandals involving Andrew and what a royal source describes as the "ongoing parade of headlines".

The prince was one of their "controversial members" that kept making headlines for all the negative factors.

Questions about Andrew's associations to convicted criminal Epstein were drowning out the activities of the other members of the Royal Family. That was on top of pending inquiries about the prince's financial affairs and his associations to an suspected foreign agent.

The coming week will feature an historic state visit by the sovereign and Queen to visit the pontiff at the Vatican, and there was a profound frustration that such a significant event was going to be overshadowed by lurid accounts about the Duke and the financier.

Based on royal sources, a "tipping point" had been arrived at and action had to be done.

Maybe that ought to have taken place earlier. But that would also have meant the monarchy openly recognizing that it had a duty for Prince Andrew, when it had for so long contended that as a "non-official member", his issues were his own to resolve.

But this latest step shows a acknowledgment that although he is no longer a official duty, it's nonetheless their image he's been tarnishing.

What increased the perception of this not anymore being a sustainable stance was an digital communication made public recently that demonstrated the Duke had continued in contact with the convicted sex offender longer than he had stated in his media discussion.

A palace insider commented this was a markedly different moment when there were such clear "inconsistencies" exposed in Andrew's narrative of events.

Remarkably, the very same communication had been to some extent published in January - another time indicating that Andrew had not end associations with the convicted sex offender when he had stated - but this time currently the consequence has been comparable to the stone that has started an deluge.

It came after a parallel difficulty for Ferguson, where a private email conflicted with her own official assertions to have ended connections with the convicted sex offender.

Additionally it increased the pressure from excerpts released from a following her passing memoir of the Epstein victim, the survivor who had obtained a financial settlement with Prince Andrew, and had earlier this year taken her own life.

Ms Giuffre's memoir, to be issued next week, once again puts Andrew into harmful links with Epstein.

And the book's accusation that the Duke was "arrogant" echoed the designation of a current biography of Andrew, by the author, that delivered an additional damaging blow to his reputation.

There has been a avalanche of negative coverage, repeatedly, that {sh