Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor remains on UK royal funeral list despite stripped titles
Government sources confirm the disgraced former prince is still entitled to a ceremonial send-off under long-term plans
AI-assisted coverage comparison, editor-supervised · How this was made
The revelations have sparked outrage from lawyers of Jeffrey Epstein victims (Picture: STEVE PARSONS/POOL/AFP via Getty Images)
Photograph: Metro News (embedded from source)
What this story says
- Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor is still on a confidential government list for a royal ceremonial funeral, despite losing his titles in 2025 over his association with Jeffrey Epstein.
- The list is part of the UK government’s long-term 'bridge' plans for royal funerals, which are prepared years in advance and updated as circumstances change.
- US lawyer Gloria Allred and UK politicians have questioned why taxpayers should fund the funeral of a private citizen, while royal experts speculate on the venue and burial site.
- The Cabinet Office and Buckingham Palace have declined to comment on the reports.
Who covered it
Percentages are shares of the 12 outlets carrying a published leaning rating. Coverage measured .
Trust
29/100
Craft
95/100
Hype
45/100
12 sources · methodology
Thin on the left so far
Only 1 of the 12 outlets with a published leaning rating that ran this story are rated left.
This story is still being watched, so it is a count and not yet a finding. Coverage keeps arriving for hours after an event, and a side that has published nothing this morning may publish by tonight. If it is still true when we stop checking, we will say so plainly.
Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor remains on a confidential government list that entitles him to a royal ceremonial funeral, despite being stripped of his royal titles in November 2025. Senior Whitehall sources told the *Mail on Sunday* that the list is part of the UK government’s long-term contingency plans, known as 'bridge' plans, which prepare for the deaths of senior members of the royal family. These plans are updated as circumstances change and were used for the funerals of Queen Elizabeth II and Prince Philip.
Mountbatten-Windsor, who served in the Royal Navy and was honorary colonel of several regiments, lost his military titles and royal patronages following revelations about his friendship with convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein. King Charles removed his HRH style and prince title in 2025. Despite this, the former Duke of York is still included in the funeral arrangements, which royal experts say could take place at St George’s Chapel in Windsor Castle. The planned burial site is the Royal Burial Ground at Frogmore in Windsor’s Home Park.
The reports have drawn criticism from figures including US lawyer Gloria Allred, who represents 27 of Epstein’s victims. Allred questioned why UK taxpayers should fund the funeral of a private citizen, asking what message it would send to Epstein’s victims. Alicia Kearns, a Conservative shadow Home Office minister, said there were 'no circumstances' under which Mountbatten-Windsor should receive a royal funeral. The Cabinet Office and Buckingham Palace declined to comment on the reports.
What the coverage left out
None of the right-rated digests mentioned the cost of a royal ceremonial funeral or cited the finance ministry’s estimates. The *Metro News* and *PerthNow* reports were the only ones to quote Alicia Kearns’ call for the plans to be revoked. The *Metro News* report alone included the perspective of a retired Royal Navy officer on pallbearers.
“Under these circumstances, the question arises as to why this man should be afforded the honour of a royal funeral. What kind of message would such a ceremony send to Epstein’s victims?”
Still developing. We have re-checked which outlets are covering this 7 times, most recently on 9 Aug 2026, 12:45, and will add the sides that appear.
How other outlets pictured it
Which photograph to run is each newsroom’s own choice. The leaning beside a name is that outlet’s published rating, not a claim that the pictures divide along it. Every picture is shown from the outlet’s own server and links to the article it ran in.
How each side covered it
Our own reading of the reporting listed below, written from the outlets’ articles rather than quoted from them. The reasoning is set out on our methodology page.
Left
1 rated outlet
- The *Metro News* report led on the contradiction between Mountbatten-Windsor’s stripped titles and his continued inclusion on the funeral list. It quoted US lawyers Gloria Allred and Spencer Kuvin, who argued that taxpayers should not fund the funeral of a private individual. The report also included criticism from Conservative MP Alicia Kearns, who called for the plans to be revoked. It noted that Mountbatten-Windsor’s military service could still entitle him to pallbearers from the Royal Navy, citing a retired rear admiral who said he would volunteer.
Centre
4 rated outlets
- The *PerthNow* report framed the story as a 'shock' revelation, emphasising that Mountbatten-Windsor’s inclusion on the list came despite his removal from the royal family’s working ranks. It quoted Gloria Allred’s criticism of the plans and included Alicia Kearns’ call for the arrangements to be abandoned. The report also provided context on the 'bridge' plans, explaining how they are used for royal funerals and noting that Mountbatten-Windsor’s arrangements would have been subject to revision after his removal as a working royal.
- The *Internewscast* digest led with public 'outrage' over the funeral plans, though it did not specify whose voices were quoted. It described Mountbatten-Windsor’s continued entitlement to a royal funeral as contentious amid the ongoing scandal.
Right
7 rated outlets
- The right-rated digests uniformly framed the story as a source of public 'fury' or 'uproar'. The *GB News* digest described Mountbatten-Windsor as still being 'in line for a full royal ceremonial funeral' despite his stripped titles, while the *Daily Express* led with 'Fury as shamed Andrew
- remains on list for huge royal honour'. The *Protothema* digest posed the question of why taxpayers should pay for the funeral, echoing the criticism from Allred. The *7NEWS Australia* and *The West Australian* digests both described the plans as a 'disgrace' and highlighted Mountbatten-Windsor’s 'dramatic fall from grace'. None of the right-rated digests mentioned the specific venue or burial site, nor did they quote Alicia Kearns or the retired rear admiral.
Read it at the source
12 outlets, grouped by the leaning a published rating gives them. Every headline links to the original; an underlined outlet name opens our profile of that publisher.
Left
1Centre
4- Andrew is still due to receive a royal funeral - here's who could stop it (opens iNews in a new tab)
- Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor 'to receive royal funeral' (opens Evening Standard in a new tab)
Evening Standard — is Evening Standard biased? Our profile of this outlet
- Andrew’s shock place on secret royal funeral list revealed (opens PerthNow in a new tab)
- Outrage Grows Over Royal Funeral Plans for Prince Andrew Amid Scandal (opens Internewscast in a new tab)
Internewscast — is Internewscast biased? Our profile of this outlet
Right
7- "Blamage for the Crown: Ex-Prince Andrew Has No More Titles, but Is to Get Royal Burial (opens focus.de in a new tab)
- Shamed ex-Prince Andrew 'on secret list for royal honour' when he finally dies (opens Daily Star in a new tab)
Daily Star — is Daily Star biased? Our profile of this outlet
- Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor 'still in line for full royal ceremonial funeral' despite being stripped of titles (opens GB News in a new tab)
- Fury as shamed Andrew 'remains on list for huge royal honour' (opens Daily Express in a new tab)
Daily Express — is Daily Express biased? Our profile of this outlet
- Britain: Royal Funeral for Prince Andrew Despite His Abdication, Reactions over the "Secret Plan" (opens Protothema in a new tab)
Protothema — is Protothema biased? Our profile of this outlet
- Andrew’s shock place on secret royal funeral list revealed (opens The West Australian in a new tab)
The West Australian — is The West Australian biased? Our profile of this outlet
- ‘Disgrace’: Uproar as Andrew’s latest entitlements revealed (opens 7NEWS Australia in a new tab)
7NEWS Australia — is 7NEWS Australia biased? Our profile of this outletOpinion
Not rated
0No outlet in this group ran the story.
How did this read?
About the coverage, not about the story. We do not ask whether you agree with what happened — we have no honest use for that answer.
