The City of London Corporation's legal officers have warned about 'significant constitutional implications'

Legal officials at the City of London Corporation are drawing up a bill that would enable the removal of Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor's Freedom of the City of London, after its city solicitor concluded that the existing mechanism for stripping the honour is "defective and defunct."

The Corporation had previously stated in March that the honour could not be revoked.

However, it has since acknowledged there is "currently no effective lawful mechanism" to carry out a removal and is now working to create one.

"We understand why people want this matter resolved as quickly as possible, and we share that desire," a Corporation spokesman said.

Should the bill be approved, it would open the way for elected members to decide whether the former prince's Freedom should be taken away.

Mr Mountbatten-Windsor was granted the Freedom in 2012 "by virtue of patrimony," as his father, Prince Philip, had held the status of Freeman.

The Corporation's efforts to resolve the matter have been underway for several months. In April, it disclosed that a letter had been sent to Mr Mountbatten-Windsor inviting him to voluntarily give up the honour, but no response was received.

The following month, in May, the Court of Common Council passed a motion formally censuring him for his refusal to relinquish the Freedom and directed officers to pursue lawful avenues for its removal.

At the July 23 meeting of the Court, Deputy Marianne Fredericks requested an update on the progress being made towards stripping the title.

In response, Policy chairman Deputy Chris Hayward outlined the findings of a draft legal opinion prepared by the Comptroller and City Solicitor alongside the City Remembrancer.

The "provisional gist" of their assessment, Mr Hayward explained, was that the current disenfranchisement process, the formal mechanism through which the honour would ordinarily be withdrawn, is "defective and defunct."

To overcome this legal obstacle, the Court would need to pass an Act of Common Council, effectively granting itself the power of disenfranchisement. Mr Hayward told members that the law officers were additionally examining scenarios under which the Freedom might be automatically revoked.

Once the Court has been "empowered to disenfranchise," a separate report specifically addressing Mr Mountbatten-Windsor's case would be brought forward, giving members the chance to consider and determine whether removal is warranted.

Work is now progressing to finalise the law officer's opinion and produce a draft bill, which is scheduled to come before the Policy and Resources Committee at its September meeting before proceeding to the full Court in October.

Mr Hayward stressed that the process and the individual case must be treated as distinct matters, saying: "Members must first agree the process for removing the freedom before considering the specific case of Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor. To ensure the process is fair, these two matters, I'm advised, must be considered separately."

He also relayed a warning from the Corporation's legal officers: "The City Solicitor and the Remembrancer have both asked me to point out that this is a substantial piece of work with significant constitutional implications which need to be carefully considered by members, to ensure that the new process is, as far as possible, lawful and workable with no unintended consequences."

The former prince was arrested in February on suspicion of misconduct in public office but was subsequently released without charge. He has consistently denied any wrongdoing.

Having been stripped of his titles due to his connections to Jeffrey Epstein, Mr Mountbatten-Windsor was compelled to leave Royal Lodge amid public anger over his rental arrangements and relocated to Marsh Farm on the King's Sandringham estate in Norfolk.

A National Audit Office investigation revealed last month that he had earned an undisclosed private income by subletting three cottages on the Royal Lodge grounds while paying just "one peppercorn" in annual rent.

His leasehold agreement showed he paid £1million for the lease and a further £7.5million towards refurbishments completed in 2005.