Government considers removing Andrew from royal line of succession

[Wicked Blue]

Source: BBC

The government is considering introducing legislation to remove Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor from the line of royal succession, the BBC understands.

The move, which would prevent Mountbatten-Windsor from ever becoming King, would come after the police investigation has concluded.

The King's brother remains eighth in line to the throne despite being stripped of his titles, including "prince", last October amid pressure over his ties to paedophile financier Jeffrey Epstein.

On Thursday, Mountbatten-Windsor was released under investigation following his arrest on suspicion of misconduct in public office. He has consistently and strenuously denied any wrongdoing.

Read more: https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c1kgv837wvdo

[cab67]

1. I thought the Andrew formerly known as Prince...

...had already been removed from the line of succession when he was stripped of his royal title. Evidently not.

[dickthegrouch]

4. Andrew was effectively stripped of his place in line the instant Charles became King.

Succession is always to the oldest living progeny of the reigning monarch.

Charles would have had to pass away before QEII for any chance for Andrew to have become king.

[Angleae]

10. Not true and it's happened befroe.

Succession goes first to the living children/grandchildren of the reigning monarch, but after them comes brothers/sisters of the monarch. After William and his children comes Harry and his children, after that, comes Andrew. Last time this happened was Elizabeth's father, George VI, who was brother to Edward VIII after he abdicated.

[dickthegrouch]

14. Only because Edward VIII had no children.

And because Male lineage took precedence over any female lineage at that time.

If Edward VIII had any children the eldest male would have been the first in line.

Abdication or death would have made no difference.

[Wicked Blue]

13. He is still 8th in line

[Javaman]

2. on nose.

not that!?!

he should be in prison.

[FakeNoose]

3. It would never happen anyway

If/when King Charles dies, his oldest son William becomes King of England. If William should die before his time, it goes to his oldest son, Prince George. The next in line are Princess Charlotte and Prince Louis, the 2nd and 3rd children of William and Catherine. If they all died in a tragic accident (or something), the line of succession falls to Prince Harry and his children who are currently not living in Britain.

This is all supposition because William and Catherine's oldest son is already 13 years old. Prince George will probably be in his 20s or 30s when his father becomes King, and he will no doubt marry and produce heirs. So Prince George's future children would then go to the front of the line ahead of the rest of the Windsors.

It would never get to Andrew, even if he's still in the line of succession.

[hamsterjill]

5. I tend to agree, but I think it may be more symbolic than anything else.

Another way to "get" to him. Regardless of the likelihood that he could ever be in line to the throne, I give the British credit for going after the asshole in any way that they can!!!

[FakeNoose]

15. Agreed

However I'm sure Andrew has lived his life knowing that he'll never be King. Maybe he would have been a different man, if there had ever been a chance.

[hamsterjill]

16. Point Taken.

Yours is a slant on things that I'd not considered. You're probably right.

For whatever reason, I think it's common knowledge that he's been an absolute privileged jerk to many of his staff, etc. Maybe this is a little payback for some of that. Who knows!!! But I'll take it.

[QueerDuck]

6. The Andrew "demotion" is NOT about the throne --- it's about the mugshot.

I suspect stripping Andrew of his titles and succession rights has less to do with the (remote) chance of him becoming King and more to do with legal damage control.

The Crown is systematically "de-Royaling" him to prepare for potential criminal proceedings. By turning him into a commoner now, they avoid the unprecedented constitutional crisis of sending a "Prince of the Royal Blood" to prison.

IMHO, this is less about punishing and humiliating him and more about insulating the institution from the blast radius of his eventual downfall. It's a calculated move to make him legally and symbolically "disposable."

They are stripping his titles to ensure that when the "spectacle" reaches its final act, he’s just another commoner in a jumpsuit. The goal is to make sure the Monarchy can say "he’s not one of ours" before the prison doors close. They're scrubbing the Royal DNA off him before he becomes a convict.

[Miguelito Loveless]

7. Only now?

[QueerDuck]

11. These things must be done delicately...

... as the expression goes.

[muriel_volestrangler]

12. It takes legislation to do it, and consultation with all Commonwealth members that share their Head of State

It took a few years to get the agreement to stop putting younger brothers ahead of older sisters, though that only affected those born after the agreement in 2011 (so it put Princess Charlotte, born 2015, ahead of her younger brother Louis, born 2018, but did not put Princess Anne ahead of Andrew, despite her being older). They've not seen it as needed as a symbol, until now.

[PufPuf23]

8. The royals belong in a zoo installation at the British Museum.

Echo the acts of the British Empire.

"Britain's Human Zoos" refers to a historical practice where individuals from colonized regions were exhibited in Western countries, particularly during the late 19th and early 20th centuries, often for entertainment and pseudo-scientific studies.

[Talitha]

9. BBC this morning said the last Royal to be arrested was Charles I in 1646.

So yeah, I guess the Windsors might want to totally wash their hands of Andrew. I wonder what kind of information he gave Epstein? Must have been a doozy.