Andrew Mountbatten-windsor Honour Removal Bill Drafted By City of London

City of London legal officials are preparing an internal bill that could allow elected members to remove Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor’s Freedom of the City, although two separate decisions will be required before his civic status can be withdrawn.

City of London officials are drafting an Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor honour removal bill after receiving provisional legal advice that the Square Mile’s elected representatives may be able to create their own lawful process for revoking a Freedom.

The proposal follows months of uncertainty over whether the ancient civic status could be taken from Mountbatten-Windsor, who acquired it through his father, Prince Philip, in 2012. Policy chairman Chris Hayward told the Court of Common Council on 23 July that a draft bill was being prepared for consideration in the autumn.

What The Draft Bill Would Do?

Despite the description of the proposal as a bill, it is not currently legislation going through the Houses of Parliament. Officials intend to prepare a bill for an Act of Common Council, allowing the City Corporation’s main decision-making assembly to give itself the power to remove a person’s Freedom.

The draft is expected to go before the Policy and Resources Committee in September, followed by the full Court of Common Council in October. This route would allow the Corporation to deal with such cases directly instead of asking Parliament to legislate.

Approval would not automatically strip Mountbatten-Windsor of his status. Members must first agree the general legal process for “disenfranchisement”. A separate report would then examine his individual case, ensuring the procedure and the decision concerning him are considered independently.

That distinction means the Freedom remains in place and there is no confirmed date for a final removal vote. Hayward said the work had significant constitutional implications and must be designed carefully to avoid unintended consequences. The City Solicitor is also examining circumstances in which a Freedom might be removed automatically.

Why Did The City Need A New Legal Route?

The Corporation previously concluded that it had no effective mechanism to remove Mountbatten-Windsor’s Freedom because he had received it by patrimony, the right of a child whose parent was already a Freeman.

In May, the Court of Common Council was advised that his Freedom was legally a property right rather than an honour or public office, with protections under domestic law and the European Convention on Human Rights. Members nevertheless passed a motion of censure and instructed officers to find a lawful route to remove it.

The City had written to Mountbatten-Windsor in April inviting him to surrender the Freedom voluntarily but said it received no response. The subsequent draft legal opinion now suggests that the old removal process is “defective and defunct”, potentially leaving the Court free to establish a replacement through its own legislation.

Although commonly described as an honour, his status is legally different from the Honorary Freedom presented to people for exceptional public contributions. The City says most practical benefits of the Freedom have disappeared, although it remains part of the Square Mile’s livery system and was historically connected to the right to trade.

The Corporation’s censure motion focused on Mountbatten-Windsor’s association with convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein, while acknowledging that he maintains he did nothing wrong. Separately, he was arrested in February on suspicion of misconduct in public office and released under investigation; no charge has been announced, and he denies wrongdoing.

The next confirmed step is the September committee meeting. Only after the proposed removal mechanism passes through that stage and the October Court meeting could members begin formally deciding whether Mountbatten-Windsor should lose his Freedom.