The public and politicians had spoken, and the King, it seems, had no choice.

As head of the institution, family bonds took second place; the survival of the monarchy and its reputation in the end was paramount.

But while the removal of the titles, styles and honours, from the man now just known as Andrew, is seismic, there are other significant shifts in this bombshell pronouncement from the palace.

Follow latest news and reaction: Andrew no longer Duke of York

The decision to publicly state that “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” is huge.

In all the years that the allegations have rumbled on against Andrew – accusations he denies – I have never publicly heard the royal family come out in support of the victims around this story.

Andrew himself, during his Newsnight interview, never offered any kind of sympathy or apology to Jeffrey Epstein’s wider victims.

With both Queen Camilla and the Duchess of Edinburgh working to support victims of sexual abuse and domestic violence, the family’s silence has always felt difficult to fully understand.

Read more:
Why King could no longer ignore public opinion
Everything we know as Andrew loses titles

I have no doubt that pressure from other members of the family will have meant now was the right time for the King to make their position clear.

We also understand this latest action was taken to acknowledge serious lapses in judgement from Andrew.

Again, the palace has never gone this far. In the past, they have simply tried to distance themselves from the constant drip of revelations.

While this is a King mindful of the future of the monarchy, he has also worked hard to build a reputation as an empathic and socially engaged man.

The noise around Andrew was deafening, he has listened, and as a result, his actions are monumental.

Andrew always denied the allegations – but the repeated accusations would not go away.

And his associations risked real reputational damage to the Royal Family.

His friendship with convicted paedophile Jeffrey Epstein, his dealings with an alleged Chinese spy, and then the posthumous publication of his accuser, Virginia Giuffre’s memoir.

Her family said she brought down a British prince with her truth and extraordinary courage.

The piling pressure was starting to overshadow the work of Andrew’s wider family. And with the Prince of Wales soon heading to Brazil for his Earthshot award, enough was enough.

We understand the Royal Family, including Prince William backed the King’s leadership on this matter.

The King made the decisions, his family supported them.

Andrew will leave Royal Lodge, his large home on the Windsor estate. His ex-wife, Sarah Ferguson, who also lived there, will “make her own arrangements”.

It was their family home for many years. Both daughters, Princess Beatrice and Princess Eugenie, who grew up there, will keep their titles.

As for Andrew, he will soon move to Sandringham – the King’s private Norfolk estate – where the family traditionally gathers for Christmas; and he will be funded privately by the King.

Read more:
Andrew allegations should be examined in ‘fullest ways’

This is all a formal process carried out in consultation with official authorities, but the government supports the decision taken.

This will not have been easy for the King, but he knew he could not ignore public opinion. The criticism and anger directed at Andrew was never going to stop – and only he had the power to take the ultimate action against his own brother.

For years, Andrew enjoyed the perks and privileges of his powerful position, but his birthright could not withstand withering public disdain.

And now he’s paid the ultimate price.

Repeated delays to the UK’s multibillion-pound F-35 fast jet programme, because of a lack of cash, has increased costs and harmed the plane’s ability to fight, a report by MPs has said.

Exacerbating the problem, an “unacceptable” shortage of pilots and engineers is limiting how often the aircraft can fly, the Public Accounts Committee revealed.

It also raised questions about a major announcement by Sir Keir Starmer in June that the UK would purchase a variant of the aircraft that is able to carry American nuclear weapons, saying there did not appear to be a timeframe for when this capability would be operational nor an estimate of the additional price tag.

The strong criticism will likely make uncomfortable reading for Air Chief Marshal Sir Richard Knighton, Britain’s new military chief. He was previously the head of the Royal Air Force and before that the top military officer at the Ministry of Defence (MoD) in charge of capability.

The UK only has 37 out of a planned 138 F-35 jets in service – almost four decades since the programme, led by the US, was conceived and nearly a quarter of a century since Britain initially started paying tens of billions of pounds for it.

The aircraft are among the most advanced, stealthy and lethal jets on the planet, provided they have the right technology, weapons and – crucially – software updates.

A persistent squeeze on UK defence budgets, though, means military chiefs developed a bad habit of slowing down the F-35 procurement and scrimping on orders to save money in the short term – only for taxpayers to be hit with a much larger bill overall and for the RAF and the navy’s Fleet Air Arm to be left with jets that are unable to meet their full potential.

The Public Accounts Committee laid bare the impact of this behaviour, highlighting five key issues:

One:

A short-term cost-saving decision by the MoD in 2021 to save £82m by delaying an investment in what is known as an Air Signature Assessment Facility – which is vital for the F-35’s stealth capabilities to fly undetected – will add an extra £16m when it is finally built in 2032.

More worryingly, this limits the UK’s ability to deploy the jets.

Two:

A cost-saving move to delay by six years building infrastructure for the naval squadron that operates the F-35 jets means the cost for that construction will almost treble to £154m from £56m.

Three:

A failure by the MoD to accurately update the total acquisition cost of the F-35s.

The department only this year said the whole-life cost until 2069 to acquire a total of 138 aircraft will be almost £57bn – up from £18.4bn for the first 48 jets out until 2048.

But even the new higher price tag was dismissed by the MPs as “unrealistic” – because it does not include additional costs such as fuel.

Four:

The current fleet of F-35B jets will not be armed with conventional missiles to hit targets on the land from a safe distance until the early 2030s.

This is a critical capability in modern warfare when operating against a country like Russia that has sophisticated air defence weapons that can blast jets in range out of the sky.

Five:

The military will claim its F-35B jump jets have met “full operating capability” by the end of the year – a timeline that is already years late – even though they do not have the long-range missiles and are blighted by other woes.

A ‘leaky roof’ mistake

Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown MP, the committee chair, said: “Making short-term cost decisions is famously inadvisable if you’re a homeowner with a leaky roof, let alone if one is running a complex fighter jet programme – and yet such decisions have been rife in the management of the F-35.”

The UK’s existing F-35Bs are designed to fly off the Royal Navy’s two aircraft carriers.

The nuclear weapons-capable A-variant only operate off the land.

The MoD has said it will purchase an additional 15 F-35Bs and 12 of the As at an anticipated cost of £3.2bn.

However, there is no estimate yet of the cost to certify the F-35As to join a NATO mission, carrying American nuclear warheads.

Read more:
Can UK’s new air defence missile systems protect us?

The MPs said they were told work on becoming certified to operate with US nuclear weapons “is at an early stage and the department did not provide any indication of forecast costs”.

‘Very complacent’

The report flagged concerns about personnel shortages and how that impacted the availability of the few F-35s the UK does operate.

This included the need for an extra 168 engineers – a 20% increase in the current workforce and a shortfall that “will take several years to resolve”, the MPs said.

Making the recruitment and retention dilemma even worse is “substandard” accommodation at RAF Marham, which has been the home for the F-35 force since 2013. This has again been caused by budget shortfalls, meaning insufficient funds to invest in infrastructure.

The MoD said some upgrades would be completed by 2034. The Public Account Committee said this “is very complacent and should be given greater priority”.

An MoD spokesperson said: “Many of the decisions referenced in the report were taken under the previous government, and we have set out plans to tackle historic issues with procurement, infrastructure, recruitment, and skills through the Strategic Defence Review.”