Security minister Damian Hinds was unable to confirm if the taxpayer will still fund Prince Andrew’s protection officers in an interview with LBC this morning.

Speaking on the radio station, Mr Hinds said: “Our security forces, the police and others, do what they judge is necessary to protect our country, to protect people in it.”

He said it is a “long-standing – and I think correct – principle that we don’t talk about who and how in particular”.

When pushed, he said: “I know this is going to come across to you possibly, and possibly to some listeners, like me obfuscating and avoiding the question, and I suppose maybe even in some ways it is avoiding the question, but only because it is right to say that the police and our wider security forces do what is right and proportionate to protect the people of this country.

“And we don’t publicise exactly what that covers.”

The question of taxpayer-funded security for non-working royals was last raised when the Duke and Duchess of Sussex stepped down.

When Harry and Meghan made public their decision early last year, their website suggested that the Home Office, through the Metropolitan Police, should continue to provide protection for the couple and their young son, Archie.

But former Home Office minister Norman Baker called at the time for Scotland Yard to cap the annual expenditure on security for the couple to its 2019 level.

The Sussexes later signed multimillion-pound deals with Netflix and Spotify, with the duke telling Oprah Winfrey he had secured them to pay for his security.

Prince Charles and his son Prince William are reportedly behind the Queen’s decision to strip Prince Andrew of his titles and royal patronages.

During an hour-long summit, both Charles and William were in complete agreement that Andrew must go, according to The Sun.

The paper reported that Prince William was a key figure in the judgement and helped the Queen realise that Andrew’s position was “grave”.

Prince Charles and Prince William were described as “instrumental” in the decision by the Daily Mail, with one source telling the news outlet: “This is about the survival of the institution at all costs. Always has been and always will be.”

They said: “It was a ruthless ad swift decision which will have been recommended by the Prince of Wales and the Duke of Cambridge and sanctioned by the Queen.”

Ghislaine Maxwell is no longer fighting to hide information - including eight names - from Virginia Giuffre’s lawsuit against her, Maxwell’s lawyers have said.

Lawyers from Ms Giuffre have long fought to unseal the names of eight “John Does” mentioned in their 2015 civil lawsuit.

It is not known whether Prince Andrew is one of the John Does in the 2015 case.

Read the latest from Nathan Place in New York:

Almost all of the UK’s national papers led on news that the Queen had stripped Prince Andrew of his royal titles.

The Daily Telegraph used a photo of the Prince being driven to Windsor Castle on its front page, with the headline: “Queen freezes out Andrew”.

The Daily Mail used the same photo, instead captioning it “Driven Out”. They described Prince Andrew’s demeanour as “haunted” and palace sources told the paper that the “ruthless and swift” decision had been “widely discussed” within the Royal Family.

The Times said Prince Andrew had been “humiliated” by the Queen’s decision.

And the Daily Express said that the Queen had “cast Andrew adrift for the sake of the monarchy”.

The Sun put this more succinctly with the headline: “Throne Out”.

The woman who is taking Prince Andrew to court with allegations of sexual assault has thanked the judge who rejected the royal’s attempt to have the lawsuit thrown out.

Virginia Giuffre tweeted: “I’m pleased with Judge Kaplan’s ruling yesterday that allows my case against Prince Andrew to go forward. I’m glad I will have the chance to continue to expose the truth & I am deeply grateful to my extraordinary legal team.

“Their determination helps me seek justice from those who hurt me and so many others. My goal has always been to show that the rich and powerful are not above the law & must be held accountable.

“I do not walk this path alone, but alongside countless other survivors of sexual abuse & trafficking.”

Prince Charles and Prince William urged the Queen to strip Prince Andrew of his royal patronages in a summit-style meeting at Windsor, The Sun has reported.

The Queen reportedly made the decision after a meeting with her eldest son and the Duke of Cambridge.

Both Prince William and Prince Charles were said to be in complete agreement that Andrew must go. The Sun reported that the pair were “completely furious” after Prince Andrew “crossed a red line”.

Prince Andrew may be forced to fund his own security now that he has been stripped of his royal patronages, a former head of the royal protection unit has said.

The bill to the taxpayer for Prince Andrew’s annual security is said to be £2million.

Ex-head of the police royal protection unit, Chief superintendent Dai Davis, told the Daily Mail : “Whether (or not) he continues to use his titles, he remains the Queen’s son. Whether or not he is still afforded specialist protection will be based entirely around how serious intelligence suggests the threat level will be”.

He added: “If the threat level is low, then like junior royals and his own daughters he will have to fund protection himself. I think they will be very cautious until there has been a very thorough assessment and he will remain protected at least in the short term.”

Prince Andrew has had a motion to dismiss the civil case against him denied by a judge in New York so what is alleged against the duke and what will happen next?

Ms Giuffre is suing Andrew in a civil case in New York alleging she was forced to have sex with Jeffrey Epstein’s friends, including the Duke of York, when she was 17.

The civil case will now move into a discovery phase where Andrew may have to sit for an interview under oath.

Prince Andrew strongly denies the allegations against him.

Princess Beatrice and Sarah Ferguson could be questioned as part of Prince Andrew’s sexual assault case.

The Duke of York’s eldest daughter and ex-wife may be cross-examined on camera by Judge Lewis Kaplan after the Duke of York’s attempt to have the case dismissed was thrown out on Wednesday, meaning he faces trial in Virginia Giuffre’s lawsuit.

The 61-year-old has vehemently denied Ms Giuffre’s allegations she was forced to have sex with him more than two decades ago.

His legal team has been asked to supply evidence to support his claims he took Princess Beatrice to a Pizza Express restaurant in Woking, Surrey, on the night Ms Giuffre alleges he had sex with her.

Thomas Kingsley has more.