Four out of five Britons believe Prince Andrew should be formally stripped of his dukedom, according to a new poll.
It comes as calls intensify for the King’s brother to vacate his Royal Lodge residence.
The prince’s association with paedophile Jeffrey Epstein has recently resurfaced in headlines, with renewed attention on the allegations made by his sex accuser, Virginia Giuffre, which Andrew denies, following the release of her posthumous memoirs.
Senior Conservative MP Robert Jenrick commented that it was "about time Prince Andrew took himself off to live in private" as "the public are sick of him," particularly after it emerged Andrew has paid a "peppercorn rent" for his 30-room home for over two decades.
Last week, the prince announced his intention to cease using his Duke of York title to avoid overshadowing the work of the King and the wider Royal Family.
However, a YouGov poll conducted on Tuesday revealed that 80 per cent of the public support the official removal of the dukedom instead.
The title can only be formally revoked through legislation and is currently held in abeyance.
The survey showed that 63 per cent of nearly 6,700 adults questioned were “strongly” in favour of formal removal of the dukedom and 17 per cent “somewhat” supporting the idea, while 6 per cent were opposed to it – 4 per cent somewhat and 2 per cent strongly – and 14 per cent did not know.
The campaign group Republic has, meanwhile, demanded a “full, unrelenting investigation” into royal links to paedophile financier Jeffrey Epstein and efforts to protect Andrew.
Protesters from the anti-monarchy group unveiled banners reading “End Royal Secrecy” and “What are you hiding? Royal Epstein Inquiry Now” outside the gates of Andrew’s home in Windsor Great Park.
A copy of the Royal Lodge leasehold agreement, shared with the PA news agency by the Crown Estate, which oversees the royal family’s land and property holdings, shows Andrew signed a 75-year lease on the property in 2003.
It reveals he paid £1 million for the lease and that since then he has paid “one peppercorn” of rent “if demanded” per year.
He was also required to pay a further £7.5 million for refurbishments completed in 2005, according to a report by the National Audit Office.
The agreement also contains a clause that states the Crown Estate would have to pay Andrew around £558,000 if he gave up the lease.
Ben Mayfield, a lecturer in law at Lancaster University whose primary research interests are land and property law, said it would likely prove problematic to end the prince’s 75-year lease early.
He said: “I have no sympathy with the actions he is alleged to have taken, but ending a lease – even though this is quite a cheap deal for Andrew – would be the same in English law as asking someone to forfeit their house for no money and that’s a difficult precedent to set.
“Giving it up voluntarily might be an appropriate act symbolically though.”
Shadow justice secretary Mr Jenrick said: “It’s about time Prince Andrew took himself off to live in private and make his own way in life.
“He has disgraced himself, he has embarrassed the royal family time and again. I don’t see why the taxpayer, frankly, should continue to foot the bill at all. The public are sick of him. ”
Asked if Andrew should leave his Windsor residence, Mr Jenrick told BBC Radio 4’s Today: “I don’t think the taxpayer in any way should be footing the bill for him to live in luxury homes ever again.”
Profits from the Crown Estate are handed to the Treasury for the benefit of the nation’s finances, raising concerns that the public could be deprived of potential funds from the property due to the peppercorn rent.
MPs could look into the Crown Estate’s handling of Andrew’s lease, a senior parliamentarian suggested.
Dame Meg Hillier, chairwoman of the Treasury Committee, told Today: “Where money flows, particularly where taxpayers’ money is involved, or taxpayers’ interests are involved, Parliament has a responsibility to have a light shine upon that, and we need to have answers.”
The Public Accounts Committee (PAC), which examines the value for money of Government projects, programmes and service delivery, said its programme of inquiries was “currently full up until the new year” and that decisions on the Royal Lodge lease were a policy matter for the Royal Household, but it would decide in “due course” whether to look at the matter.
The PAC spokesperson said: “The NAO will be, as part of its normal programme of work, looking at the Crown Estate’s annual report and accounts in the next financial year.
“The Committee would decide in due course whether to incorporate this into its own programme of work at that time.”
Liberal Democrat Cabinet Office spokeswoman Lisa Smart said Andrew “should show some contrition by returning every penny of rent that he’s not paid while disgracing his office”.
Downing Street pointed to the 2005 National Audit Office report, saying the public spending watchdog had not raised concerns about the Royal Lodge arrangements.
A No 10 spokesman said: “The National Audit Office reviewed the lease arrangements for Royal Lodge in 2005. And in its report, which was published at that time, concluded that the Crown Estate does not have any special procedures when negotiating agreements with the royal family.
“An independent evaluation concluded that the transaction with Prince Andrew and Royal Lodge was appropriate.”
Under the terms of the lease, Andrew must ensure the exterior of the mansion is repainted with two coats of paint every five years and the outside stone and cement work is cleaned and repointed.
He must also repaint the interior – also with two coats of paint – every seven years.
The prince is also required to “paper polish decorate” and treat the inside of the seven-bedroom home respectfully.
Meanwhile, it was claimed Andrew’s accuser Virginia Giuffre would have viewed him relinquishing use of his Duke of York title as a victory.
The prince vehemently denies Ms Giuffre’s allegations that she was forced to have sex with him three times including when she was 17 and also during an orgy after she was trafficked by Epstein.
Amy Wallace, the co-writer of Ms Giuffre’s memoirs Nobody’s Girl, told BBC Newsnight: “I know that she would view it as a victory that he was forced by whatever means to voluntarily give them up.”
She added: “Virginia wanted all the men who she’d been trafficked to against her will to be held to account and this is just one of the men but… even though he continues to deny it, his life is being eroded because of his past behaviour as it should be.”
Ms Giuffre’s brother and sister-in-law, Sky and Amanda Roberts, have called on the police watchdog to review the decision by the Metropolitan Police not to continue its investigations into her allegations against Andrew.
