Prince Andrew has been stripped of his "prince" title and will leave his Windsor mansion, Royal Lodge, Buckingham Palace announced on Thursday.

The King has "initiated a formal process" to remove his titles, it said, and Andrew now be known as Andrew Mountbatten Windsor.

Andrew, 65 - the King's younger brother - has continued to face more questions about his private life in recent months.

His links to paedophile financier Jeffrey Epstein have caused problems for the Royal Family. The prince, who relinquished his titles earlier this month, has always strongly denied any wrongdoing.

What did Buckingham Palace say?

"His Majesty has today initiated a formal process to remove the Style, Titles and Honours of Prince Andrew," Buckingham Palace said in a statement on Thursday evening.

"Prince Andrew will now be known as Andrew Mountbatten Windsor."

It also addressed the place where he lives, Royal Lodge.

"His lease on Royal Lodge has, to date, provided him with legal protection to continue in residence.

"Formal notice has now been served to surrender the lease and he will move to alternative private accommodation. These censures are deemed necessary, notwithstanding the fact that he continues to deny the allegations against him.

"Their Majesties wish to make clear that their thoughts and utmost sympathies have been, and will remain with, the victims and survivors of any and all forms of abuse."

The language of Buckingham Palace's statement was "very brutal," royal historian Kelly Swaby told the BBC.

"Ordinary people don't care about the semantics, they want to see punishment, and public opinion is very much against Andrew, the Palace knows that, and the language very much reflect that".

The decision was made, and action taken, due to serious lapses in Andrew's judgement, it is understood.

It is also understood that the wider Royal Family and the government was consulted, and made clear it supports the decision.

• Follow live updates

Where will he live?

It is understood Andrew will be relocated to the Sandringham Estate in Norfolk, but details about his specific housing have not been released.

The wider Sandringham estate covers approximately 20,000 acres (8,100 hectares) with 600 acres (242 hectares) of gardens - and the Palace has not said which property he will stay in.

One of the options previously suggested as where he could move to was Wood Farm, located on the estate surrounds, a cottage privately owned by the monarch.

Described as "small and intimate" by former housekeeper Teresa Thompson, the cottage has strong associations with Andrew's parents.

His father, the late Duke of Edinburgh, chose the secluded property as his permanent home when he retired from public life in 2017.

It is understood that Sarah Ferguson, 66, Andrew's ex-wife, will also move out of Royal Lodge and will make her own living arrangements.

Formal notice was given to surrender the lease at the Royal Lodge on Thursday and it is understood that Andrew's move to Sandringham will take place "as soon as practicable".

Will he get money from the King?

It is understood Andrew's accommodation will be privately funded by the King.

And the King will make "appropriate private provision" for his brother as he moves out of his home.

Royal sources have previously said the King has tried to apply pressure, and last year cut off Andrew's funding last year.

Andrew also cultivated his own independent sources of funding since leaving public life, including business connections with China, the Gulf States and a recently curtailed project with a Dutch start-up company.

Earlier this week, Parliament's spending watchdog, the Public Accounts Committee wrote a letter detailing the "considerable and understandable public interest in the spending of public money" relating to Andrew.

The letter asked what the Crown Estate's plan was to ensure value for money in any future agreements with Andrew.

How will his titles be removed?

Andrew is understood not to have objected to the King's decision to remove his titles - and it will take place with immediate effect.

His birth certificate will not need to be changed as the title change will not apply respectively.

The titles being stripped are: Prince, Duke of York, Earl of Inverness, Baron Killyleagh. And he will no longer have the right to be called His Royal Highness. The honours of Order of the Garter and Knight Grand Cross of the Victorian Order will also be removed.

To remove the titles, the King will send Royal warrants to the Lord Chancellor - who is David Lammy - to officially remove them.

It comes just weeks after Andrew voluntary gave up his other royal titles, including the Duke of York.

On 17 October, Andrew said he would stop using the titles because the "continued accusations about me distract from the work of His Majesty and the Royal Family". "I vigorously deny the accusations against me," he said.

Princess Eugenie and Princess Beatrice will retain their titles, as they are the daughters of the son of a Sovereign. This is in line with King George V's Letters Patent of 1917.

Until this month, Ferguson kept the title Sarah, Duchess of York - but she reverted to her maiden name of Ferguson after Andrew was stripped of his Duke of York title.

Andrew still remains eighth in line to the throne.

What led up to this?

Andrew's links to convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein are at the centre of this latest announcement.

In recent weeks, pressure has increased on the monarchy to resolve the issue of Charles's brother, with the King heckled earlier this week by a protester.

Although Andrew denies the accusations, the Royal Family considers there have been "serious lapses of judgement" in his behaviour.

Earlier this month, emails from 2011 re-emerged, showing Andrew in contact with sex offender Jeffrey Epstein months after he claimed their friendship ended.

In her posthumous memoir, Nobody's Girl Virginia Giuffre repeated allegations that, as a teenager, she had sex with Andrew on three separate occasions – claims he has always denied.

Earlier this month, emails from 2011 re-emerged, showing Andrew in contact with sex offender Jeffrey Epstein months after he claimed their friendship ended.

What happens next?

Historians tell the BBC Andrew will continue to be frozen out of royal public life.

He is already not invited to attend royal public events., and his recent appearances have been limited to private, family events, such as funerals or memorials.

This fiasco will continue to dog the royal family, says historian and author Andrew Lownie.

"They're finally getting ahead of the story, but this isn't the end of it," Lownie told the BBC.

The Palace is "finally taking some decisive action" - but it "won't completely satisfy the public disquiet".

Campaigners against the monarchy say there should be a wider investigation into what the Royal Family might have known about Prince Andrew's links to Epstein.

"This isn't just about family. It's not a private matter," says Graham Smith, chief executive of Republic.

The prime minister has said Chancellor Rachel Reeves will face no further action over the failure to obtain the correct licence when renting out her family home.

However, Sir Keir Starmer said it was "regrettable" Reeves did not share all the relevant emails when she first told him about the issue on Wednesday evening.

The chancellor initially said she was not aware a licence was needed but later found correspondence between her husband and the letting agent showing he was told one was needed but the agency would apply on their behalf.

The letting agent has said an "oversight" meant it had never ultimately applied for the licence.

Reeves has apologised for the "inadvertent mistake" but said she accepted full responsibility.

Conservative Party chairman Kevin Hollinrake called for a full investigation, saying the chancellor's story "keeps on changing".

"On Wednesday, the independent advisor on ministerial standards said he was simply willing to take Rachel Reeves' word and the case was closed," he told BBC Breakfast.

"The next day some more evidence came to light, which meant Rachel Reeves's story on Wednesday was a false narrative of the event."

Reeves put her four-bedroom south London home up for rent in July 2024, when Labour won the general election and she moved into 11 Downing Street.

The house falls in area where Southwark Council requires private landlords to obtain a selective licence at a cost of £945. Reeves or her letting agent could face an unlimited fine if the council takes the matter to court.

The chancellor said she first became aware that her property did not have the correct licence on Wednesday when the Daily Mail, who first reported the story, contacted her.

After reviewing the emails between the estate agent and Reeves's husband, the prime minister's ethics adviser Sir Laurie Magnus said on Thursday night that he "remains of the view that this was an unfortunate but inadvertent error".

While he did not rule on whether the ministerial code had been broken, Sir Laurie said he found "no evidence of bad faith".

In a letter to Reeves on Thursday evening, Sir Keir said he agreed with his ethics adviser and saw "no need for any further action".

He accepted the emails from the estate agent were only found by her husband on Thursday morning and Reeves was "acting in good faith".

However, he added: "It would clearly have been better if you and your husband had conducted a full trawl through all email correspondence with the estate agency before writing to me yesterday."

In a statement, Gareth Martin, owner of Harvey & Wheeler, the estate agent which rented out the property on behalf of Reeves, said: "In an effort to be helpful our previous property manager offered to apply for a licence on these clients' behalf, as shown in the correspondence. That property manager suddenly resigned on the Friday before the tenancy began on the following Monday.

"Unfortunately, the lack of application was not picked up by us as we do not normally apply for licences on behalf of our clients; the onus is on them to apply. We have apologised to the owners for this oversight.

"At the time the tenancy began, all the relevant certificates were in place and if the licence had been applied for, we have no doubt it would have been granted.

"Our clients would have been under the impression that a licence had been applied for."

The family of the late Virginia Giuffre, who accused Prince Andrew of sexual abuse, have celebrated his title of 'prince' being stripped from him as a victory which is "unprecedented in history".

"This normal girl from a normal family has taken down a prince. We are so proud of her," Sky Roberts, Giuffre's brother, told BBC Newsnight through tears.

But Mr Roberts told the BBC removing his title was "not enough" and called for an investigation into Andrew, adding that he "needs to be behind bars". Andrew has denied all claims against him.

Giuffre took her own life earlier this year. The publication of her posthumous memoirs this month intensified pressure on the Royal Family over Andrew's friendship with paedophile financier Jeffrey Epstein.

Buckingham Palace announced on Thursday that King Charles III had initiated a formal process to "remove the style, titles and honours" of Prince Andrew, now known as Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor.

Asked how Giuffre might have responded to that decision, her brother said: "She is celebrating from the heavens now saying 'I did it'."

"She'd be so proud. He's just Andrew."

In her memoir, Giuffre - a prominent accuser of Jeffrey Epstein - alleged Andrew had sex with her three times as a teenager and that he "believed that having sex with me was his birthright."

Andrew, who has denied the allegations, reached an out-of-court settlement with Giuffre in 2022 which contained no admission of liability or apology.

"It truly is a moment for her and all survivors," Giuffre's sister-in-law Amanda Roberts said.

"Everything she fought for was not in vain," she added, noting that she "broke down" when she heard the news at work.

While the pair celebrated what they described as a moment of "victory", Giuffre's brother also stressed it was "not enough".

"We have to have some sort of investigation that goes further into this," he said.

"[Andrew is] still walking around a free man. He needs to be behind bars."

Earlier this month, Andrew voluntarily gave up several royal titles including the Duke of York, saying "we have concluded the continued accusations about me distract from the work of His Majesty and the Royal Family."

The King's decision to strip Andrew of his title of 'prince' follows the emergence this month of emails from 2011 that showed Andrew had maintained contact with Epstein, despite claiming otherwise.

Giuffre's family also addressed the implications of the King's decision for the US, where calls have grown for the release of documents related to Epstein. Partial records have been released that named Andrew as a passenger on a flight with Epstein.

"The US government hold the key to the larger scope of the Jeffrey Epstein case," Mr Roberts said.

"The UK is setting an example for what the US should be doing right now."

"There's many more of them, I promise you."

Hamas has handed over to the Red Cross in Gaza two coffins which the Palestinian group says contain the bodies of hostages, according to the Israeli military.

They will be transferred to Israeli forces, who will take them to Israel's National Institute of Forensic Medicine for identification.

Hamas's armed wing announced earlier that it had recovered the bodies of Israeli hostages Amiram Cooper and Sahar Baruch.

On Tuesday, Israel accused Hamas of violating the Gaza ceasefire deal after the group handed over a coffin containing human remains that did not belong to one of the 13 deceased Israeli and foreign hostages still in Gaza.

The Israeli government said forensic tests showed they belonged to Ofir Tzarfati, a hostage whose body had been recovered by Israeli forces in Gaza in late 2023.

The Israeli military also released footage filmed by a drone that showed Hamas members removing a body bag containing the remains from a building in Gaza City, reburying it, and then staging the discovery in front of Red Cross staff.

The Red Cross said its staff were unaware that the body bag had been moved before their arrival and that the staged recovery was "unacceptable".

Hamas rejected what it called the "baseless allegations" and accused Israel of "seeking to fabricate false pretexts in preparation for taking new aggressive steps".

Hours later, the Israeli government accused Hamas of another ceasefire violation, saying the group's fighters had killed an Israeli soldier in an attack in an area of southern Gaza.

Hamas claimed it was not involved in the incident in the Rafah area, but Israel's prime minister ordered a wave of air strikes across Gaza on Tuesday night in response. The Israeli military said it attacked "dozens of terror targets and terrorists".

Gaza's Hamas-run health ministry said 104 Palestinians were killed, including 46 children and 20 women, making it the deadliest day since the ceasefire took effect on 10 October.

US President Donald Trump maintained "nothing" would jeopardise the ceasefire agreement, which his administration brokered along with Qatar, Egypt and Turkey, but he added that Israel should "hit back" when its soldiers were targeted.

Under the deal, Hamas agreed to return the 20 living and 28 dead hostages it was holding within 72 hours.

All the living Israeli hostages were released on 13 October in exchange for 250 Palestinian prisoners and 1,718 detainees from Gaza.

Israel has also handed over the bodies of 195 Palestinians in exchange for the bodies of the 13 Israeli hostages so far returned by Hamas, along with those of two foreign hostages - one of them Thai and the other Nepalese.

Eleven of the 13 dead hostages still in Gaza are Israelis, one is Tanzanian, and one is Thai.

All but one of the dead hostages still in Gaza were among the 251 people abducted during the Hamas-led attack on southern Israel on 7 October 2023, during which about 1,200 other people were killed.

Israel responded by launching a military campaign in Gaza, in which more than 68,600 people have been killed, including more than 200 since the ceasefire took effect, according to the territory's health ministry.

It's a job that can only be done under the cover of darkness.

As night falls, the bat hunters make their way amongst the gravestones of Guestwick Church in Norfolk.

The creaking door opens. Inside is the pitch black, deserted church and the team start to set up their specialist gear.

Infrared and thermal cameras are carefully positioned, and audio detectors are set to bat friendly frequencies.

The bats soon begin to emerge, darting and swooping up and down the aisles, the amplified sounds of their bat chatter filling the historic building.

"Many of these churches have been on these sites for probably 1,000 years, and probably as long as they've been standing they've had bats in them," says Diana Spencer, from the Bats in Churches Project.

A new study published in the British Ecological Society's journal People & Nature has found that these historic buildings are providing vital homes for the nocturnal animals.

The research, based on citizen science surveys led by the Bat Conservation Trust, estimates that half of all churches in England - that's more than 8,000 - have bats in them.

And that figure rises to about 80% for older churches.

"They're basically like a man-made forest," says Spencer.

"Full of little nooks and crannies where they can roost, big open flight spaces, dry spaces inside, away from the rain, where they can fly around. It is really just an absolutely perfect environment."

There are two types of bats at Guestwick: Common Pipistrelles and Natterer's. They roost high up in the rafters.

The Pipistrelles emerge first, flying around for a few minutes, before squeezing out through minute gaps around the church door.

The Natterer's come out a little later, preferring to exit through small holes in the roof to get outside and find food.

Without the help of the specialist cameras, the bats are near impossible to spot, lost in the darkness.

About a third of the churches surveyed in the study had no idea that bats were living there.

But in others, their presence was much more noticeable. Bats can be messy houseguests.

"They're lovely, but they're problematic too," says Graeme Peart from St Margaret's Church, Saxlingham, just a few miles from Guestwick.

He's responsible for the upkeep of the church - and says the bats started to become a nuisance about 15 years ago.

"There's the urine, the droppings," he says. "One time there was a carpet leading up to the altar that became absolutely sodden with urine and droppings and had to be thrown away. They also destroyed the brass work."

Bats are legally protected in the UK, so it's generally not possible to remove them.

But the church has worked with the Bats in Churches team to find a solution - they've built a sealed-off loft conversion above the vestry.

Ecologist Phillip Parker sets up his ladder to show us inside.

"The idea is that the bats that are in the main body of the church will live in here, rather than in the church itself," he explains.

It's kitted out with CCTV cameras, allowing the team to monitor the animal's behaviour.

"What we have found is certain weeks during the year there'll be a hundred bats in here, and then suddenly they will disappear," says Parker.

"We don't know where they go, but they disappear for about 10 days, and then they'll come back again. And without the CCTV, we never knew that."

A major construction project like this takes time, effort and money.

The new loft, and the continued monitoring of the bats, has cost about £50,000, funded through the Heritage Lottery Fund and other partners.

Diana Spencer says there are other less costly solutions and grants are on offer from the Bat Conservation Trust.

"On a simple level, you can use sheets or covers over areas where things might be damaged. You can put wax coating on things like brass so that the urine doesn't damage it."

She recommends that anyone who finds bats in a building should contact the National Bat Helpline for advice.

It seems more bats are seeking sanctuary in churches.

"They're losing lots of habitat - lots of woodland," says Spencer. "And we're also knocking down old buildings, making our homes warmer, more airtight - there are less places for them to go."

Church users are having to learn to live alongside these creatures of the night - and some parishes are even starting to see bats as more of a treat than a trick.

"We regularly see churches having bat nights and bat events," says Spencer.

"And they can be a really, really good way of reaching people, particularly in the local community, who might not come into a church for a service or prayer, but they'll come in to watch the bats, because people find them really, really fascinating."