An anti-monarchy campaign group has said it plans to speak to survivors of Jeffrey Epstein’s abuse ahead of a potential private prosecution against Andrew Windsor — the former Duke of York — who has been stripped of his royal title and Windsor home.

The group, Republic, said it wants to determine whether there are legal grounds to pursue the King’s brother for alleged sexual offences, corruption, and misconduct in public office. Lawyers instructed by the organization are expected to begin “actively investigating,” with the goal of “beginning proceedings in the coming weeks.”

The Metropolitan Police are already examining claims that Mr Windsor, 65, passed on sex trafficking victim Virginia Giuffre’s date of birth and social security number to a taxpayer-funded bodyguard in 2011, allegedly to obtain private information about her.

Police previously said they had reviewed sexual abuse allegations against both Andrew and the late paedophile financier Jeffrey Epstein, concluding that no further action would be taken. Mr Windsor has consistently and strenuously denied any wrongdoing in relation to Ms Giuffre.

In a previous statement, Buckingham Palace announced that Andrew would be stripped of his royal title, declaring: “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.”

However, Republic has called for renewed investigations and launched a crowdfunding campaign to support what it described as an “unprecedented step.”

Republic’s chief executive, Graham Smith, told Metro: “The police are not pursuing this. They say they’re ‘looking into it,’ which is not the same as a criminal investigation. As far as we’re aware, there’s no evidence they’ve interviewed Andrew as a witness or suspect under caution. The debate over the past two weeks has been absolutely abysmal.

“There are serious accusations against him, yet all the conversation has been about whether he should live in one big house or another, or what title he should or shouldn’t have. For justice to be done, we need to focus on the victims — the whole debate needs to be shifted.”

Mr Smith said survivors of Epstein’s trafficking ring would be among those the legal team intends to contact. “We hope that we can take this to a prosecution,” he said. “Obviously, the bar for a criminal case is higher than it is for a civil one. We can’t just point to news articles or books — our lawyers will investigate, talk to witnesses, and, if we get permission from magistrates, we’ll pursue it all the way.”

Asked whether that included speaking directly to Epstein survivors, Mr Smith confirmed: “Indeed, we would need to. It’s not a civil case, so we don’t need to be an injured party. Anyone can bring a private prosecution if they believe someone has committed a crime and hasn’t been prosecuted.

“Part of this is about justice for those who’ve alleged serious offences — and ensuring the law applies equally to royals and everyone else. In a Savanta poll, most people said royals are not treated equally, which is pretty shocking — and sadly true.”

Mr Smith added that unreleased information from the Epstein case files could also be vital in building any prosecution. “There’s material that could be released but hasn’t been,” he said. “If we’re allowed to proceed, we’d effectively hold the role of prosecutor, meaning we could request witnesses, documents, and evidence through the courts.

“It’s possible the CPS could later take over and lead the prosecution, which would be fine by us. But if not, we’ll continue until it’s seen through.”

Speaking to Sky News, Mr Smith also referred to allegations from author Andrew Lownie’s book on Prince Andrew, including claims of misconduct in public office and an attempt to corrupt a police officer to discredit Ms Giuffre. “We don’t believe there’s been a sufficient investigation, nor the willingness from authorities to conduct one,” he said. “This should really be done by the police and the CPS.”

Meanwhile, the King has begun the formal process of stripping Prince Andrew of his remaining titles. Buckingham Palace confirmed that he will leave his Windsor home, Royal Lodge, and relocate to private accommodation on the Sandringham estate.

In a statement, the Palace said: “Prince Andrew will now be known as Andrew Mountbatten Windsor. His lease on Royal Lodge has, to date, provided him with legal protection to remain 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 that he continues to deny the allegations against him.”

Andrew relinquished his remaining royal titles on October 17, shortly before the release of Ms Giuffre’s posthumous memoir and amid renewed scrutiny of his association with Epstein.

Mr Smith said Republic’s legal team would follow the evidence wherever it leads: “If it turns out Andrew’s done nothing wrong, then good for him — that would be an interesting outcome. But clearly, that’s not the belief of most people, and that view is based on substantial testimony, evidence, and commentary over the past 15 years.”

Republic’s crowdfunding appeal states that a private prosecution could cost “anywhere between £15,000 and £150,000 or more.” The group said: “Lawyers will be actively investigating the case against Andrew with a view to beginning proceedings in the coming weeks.”

The move follows an incident earlier this week when a protester believed to be linked to Republic heckled King Charles during a visit to Lichfield Cathedral, shouting: “How long have you known about Andrew and Epstein?” before being told to “shut up” by a bystander.

Dr Caleb Wheeler, senior law lecturer at Cardiff University, expressed doubt that the campaign would succeed. “It’s doubtful that a private prosecution against Prince Andrew will be very successful,” he told Metro. “The crimes alleged — sexual assault, corruption, and misconduct in public office — simply can’t be proven in court based on the known facts. This appears to be more about applying pressure on Parliament and the Crown to act than a viable legal proceeding.”