MPs could hold an unprecedented parliamentary debate about Prince Andrew’s conduct, utilising rarely used Opposition Day procedures that permit criticism of royals typically forbidden under Commons rules.

Parliamentary convention normally prohibits MPs from criticising members of the Royal Family during debates.

However, according to Erskine May, the parliamentary procedure guide, Opposition Day debates represent one of the few mechanisms allowing “critical language of a kind which would not be allowed in speeches in debate” regarding royals.

The Liberal Democrats’ leader, Sir Ed Davey, has urged both Andrew and his landlord, the Crown Estate, to provide testimony before a parliamentary select committee regarding his Royal Lodge lease arrangements.

A Liberal Democrat source told the Times: “The first thing we need is proper transparency and accountability.

“Clearly there’s a huge amount of public concern and people deserve answers, especially on how their taxpayers’ money is being spent.”

Prince Andrew is understood to be facing mounting demands from King Charles III to depart his Windsor Great Park residence following public outcry over reports that he hasn’t paid rent for more than 20 years.

Despite the prince’s belief that he possesses an unbreakable tenancy agreement, negotiations with Buckingham Palace have reached an advanced stage regarding his potential departure from the Grade II listed property.

Reports have suggested Andrew might consider relocating if provided with monetary compensation and an appropriate alternative residence.

A source familiar with the King claimed: “Charles has to say to [Andrew’s] face, ‘There’s no choice here, you must now leave Royal Lodge… This is doing real damage to the monarchy, you’ve got to move.'”

Another royal insider suggested Queen Elizabeth II’s lenient treatment of her second son “left an unexploded bomb for Charles”.

Prince Andrew paid a public relations specialist between £300,000 and £500,000 over approximately 15 months to restore his reputation following his disastrous 2019 Newsnight appearance.

Mark Gallagher, a former ITV executive, ceased advising the prince in February 2021 after it emerged he had contacted Molly Skye Brown, an online provocateur who had characterised Virginia Giuffre as an “enabler” for Jeffrey Epstein rather than a victim.

Ms Brown had asserted she possessed proof that the notorious photograph showing Andrew with his arm encircling Mrs Giuffre’s waist at Ghislaine Maxwell’s residence was fabricated.

Mrs Giuffre’s recently published memoir claims: “Prince Andrew’s team had even gone so far as to try to hire internet trolls to hassle me.”

Andrew reportedly remained unaware of Mr Gallagher’s contact with Ms Brown, and no payment was offered to her.

Metropolitan Police officers remain vigilant for additional revelations concerning Andrew emerging from documents submitted to a US congressional committee, whilst closely examining Virginia Giuffre’s posthumously released memoir.

According to documents submitted to a US congressional committee, it was alleged that the prince shared Mrs Giuffre’s confidential social security number with his taxpayer-funded bodyguard, requesting further investigation into her background.

The retired protection officer reportedly informed Scotland Yard that he cannot remember the 2011 episode. The Met is conducting an archival search for any accessed information, though numerous records would have been eliminated after the standard six-year retention period.

The force indicated it was “considering whether any further assessment or review is necessary”. However, there is currently insufficient evidence to reopen the investigation.

Meanwhile, Buckingham Palace and Westminster remain deadlocked, with the King reluctant to request parliamentary action to remove his brother’s title, whilst the Government refuses to proceed without formal royal approval.