Why the Removal of Titles Bill Really Failed (And It’s Not About Harry and Meghan)

Introduction & Historical Context

Definition and Purpose
Introduced in June 2022 by Labour MP Rachael Maskell, the Removal of Titles Bill was a private member’s Presentation Bill aimed at legally empowering the monarch to revoke hereditary titles—such as dukedoms and baronetcies—from individuals found to have brought them into disrepute.

This Bill emerged in response to a glaring void in British law: while the monarch could strip individuals of honours like knighthoods, there existed no mechanism to rescind hereditary peerages.

The most prominent example of this gap was Prince Andrew, who—despite the Queen removing many of his titles due to scandal—remained Duke of York. Maskell observed:

“Not even the Queen … was able to remove his Dukedom. This legislation will therefore enable … to sever all ties”.

A parallel was drawn with the 1917 Titles Deprivation Act, which allowed the removal of titles from those who sided with Britain’s wartime enemies—although its scope was narrow and wartime-specific.

Sponsorship & Aims

Sponsor & Backing

• MP: Rachael Maskell (York Central, Labour).

• Type: Private Members’ Presentation Bill, her individual initiative—not government-led.

Objectives

1. Allow the monarch—on their own initiative or via joint parliamentary committee recommendation—to strip hereditary titles.

2. Close the legal loophole exploited by controversial title-holders like Prince Andrew.

3. Enable Parliament to act where public sentiment demanded accountability, yet no route for redress existed.

Text Overview

The Bill proposed:

• A statutory power, enabling the monarch to remove any hereditary title.

• Removal also withdraws peerage rights (e.g., Lords membership) and annulment of privileges from patent.

• Activation could occur via two routes:

  • The monarch’s own initiative.

  • Following a recommendation by a joint committee of Parliament.

• Defined titles included all hereditary peerages and baronetcies across the UK and Ireland.

• Would extend to England, Wales, Scotland, and Northern Ireland. Effective day-of-passage.

Legislative Journey & Parliamentary Procedure

Presentation & First Reading

• Bill presented on 20 June 2022; formally read for the first time and printed as Bill 111 in the 2022–23 session.

Second Reading

• Initially scheduled for 9 December 2022; Second Reading would debate the general ethos.

Committee Stages & Carry‑Over

• As a Presentation Bill it limited parliamentary time.

• It did not complete all stages before the session’s end.

• Though Public Bills may be carried over if a government motion is passed, private member’s Presentation Bills rarely secure such time, and this Bill lacked government sponsorship.

• The Bill ultimately lapsed at the Session’s end, with no carry-over motion arranged.

Mischaracterisations: Was the Bill About the Sussexes?

In public discourse — particularly across tabloid media and social platforms — the Removal of Titles Bill was frequently misrepresented as legislation aimed at stripping the Duke and Duchess of Sussex of their titles following their withdrawal from senior royal duties in 2020 and subsequent criticisms of the monarchy.

However, such interpretations are inaccurate for several reasons.

Scope of the Bill

First, the Bill explicitly dealt with hereditary titles — such as dukedoms, marquessates, earldoms, viscountcies, baronies, and baronetcies. The Dukedom of Sussex, granted to Prince Harry upon his marriage in 2018, is indeed a hereditary peerage. However, Meghan Markle’s title of Duchess of Sussex is a courtesy title derived solely from her husband’s rank; she holds no peerage in her own right.

More importantly, the Bill was designed to apply only when a title-holder had brought the title into serious disrepute, and its introduction came primarily in response to public concerns over Prince Andrew, Duke of York, following the settlement of a civil sexual assault lawsuit and his removal from military patronages and royal duties. As Labour MP Rachael Maskell, the Bill’s sponsor, clarified:

“The focus has been on the Duke of York, and it was that which brought this to my attention”
(rachaelmaskell.com).

No Government or Royal Push to Remove Sussex Titles

Crucially, neither the Government nor Buckingham Palace signalled any intention to remove Prince Harry and Meghan’s Sussex titles. While some commentators, especially in tabloid media and certain political quarters, called for such action following the Sussexes’ public criticisms of the royal family, there was no formal process or political appetite within Parliament to target them through law.

Moreover, the Bill proposed that the monarch or a joint parliamentary committee would assess cases on specific grounds of reputational harm, not on political or personal disagreements. Public expressions of dissent or stepping back from official duties — as in the Sussexes’ case — did not meet that threshold.

The Role of Misleading Media Narratives

The association of the Bill with the Duke and Duchess of Sussex can largely be traced to media simplification and sensationalism. Headlines suggested it was “the law to strip Harry and Meghan’s titles,” ignoring the Bill’s limited scope, its procedural hurdles, and its lack of cross-party or government support.

This misrepresentation also reflects a broader trend in modern royal reporting, where complex constitutional or legal issues are frequently framed through the lens of personal drama, overshadowing substantive governance debates.

Why It Failed

Procedural Constraints

• Presentation Bills are low-priority and often run out of parliamentary time without government backing.

• The Removal of Titles Bill did not benefit from scheduling or promotion to secure Committee stage or beyond.

Political & Constitutional Sensitivities

• Stripping hereditary titles—long seen as symbols of stature and lineage—might be viewed as constitutional overreach or punitive.

• The Bill risked triggering wider debates about peerage reform, historic privilege, and sovereignty of monarchy.

• Without robust cross-party support or urgent government endorsement, it lacked the political momentum needed.

Overlap with Parallel Reform Efforts

• Other bills—like those addressing hereditary peer reform in the House of Lords—held precedence.

• Parliament’s agenda prioritised broad structural changes (e.g., removing hereditary peers entirely) over targeted title-removal legislation.

Aftermath and Outlook

• As of summer 2025, the Bill has not been reintroduced, though Maskell might bring a renewed version in a future session.

• The matter remains relevant in high-profile ongoing omissions—such as unresolved questions around Prince Andrew’s Duke of York title.

• Broader constitutional reform continues, notably via the House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill (2024–25), but these do not empower the monarch nor parliamentary committees to strip titles individually .

• Hence, unless a new Bill is brought forward and contextually reframed, the legal lacuna endures.

Conclusion

The Removal of Titles Bill (Bill 111, 2022–23) was a principled attempt to repair a glaring gap in constitutional law: the absence of legal means to remove hereditary titles from those who abuse their prestige. Though grounded in notable precedent and widely supported in principle, the Bill failed due to procedural marginalisation typical of Presentation Bills, combined with a politically sensitive subject that required broader cooperation.

Without strong government sponsorship, public drive, or cross-party unity, even well-meaning reforms—especially those directed at historical institutions—can falter. That this Bill couldn’t complete its journey through Parliament underscores both the inertia of the legislative system and the enduring complexity of reforming ancient rights entwined with monarchy.